Subscription Agent Compliance Audits

I have created this blog to foster an open dialog on the matter of subscription agents submitting for an audit of their compliance with MPA guidelines. 

Do agents need to be compliance audited?

I submit that most, if not all, do.  My reasons follow, but I want your opinion.  Hit COMMENT below and let’s get a discussion going.

Agents are vendors to the industry.  I believe that as consumer marketers shop for services, they do so wanting assurances that the product or service they are going to buy is of a professional quality, one that they would want attached to their brand.

No consumer sets out to buy a shoddy service or product.  However, just like most consumers, these marketers do not have the time to invest in proper due diligence to determine that what they think they are buying is actually delivered.  Nor can they invest the time to fully understand the inner workings of any vendor’s business.

I suggest that the MPA created guidelines to help consumer marketers be better informed buyers.  Challenge:  no one has been checking if agents comply with the MPA Guidelines.

Enter the demise of stamp sheets and the increase in alternative methods to acquire subscribers, including the use of the Internet and commodity pricing of subs.  These alternate methods are complex and require document trails to substantiate their legitimacy.

Some agents have their “ducks in a row” such that an audit of their processes is efficient.  Others may not be as organized and very inefficient, and yet others may be involved in programs that contravene audit rules and regulations. Don’t consumer marketers need to know this?

P.S.  A side benefit from auditing at the source of the transaction should be reduced auditing at the publishers office and fulfillment house.

Let me know your thoughts.

Comments

[Richard Cress]

Glenn,

Please sign me up as a member of your task force.

As a small (tiny) publisher, I can't let the big guys continually have their own way when it comes to BPA statements.

The rule changes that are being proposed will only help the magazines who wish to hide their poor circulation. The "schlock-meisters" will benefit, not the magazines with good-to-outstanding reporting.

Every record has a date attached to it. It's not going to save any time or $$ in a circulation department by combining one year and two year circ numbers. Ask any media buyer: One year is better than two year is better than three year. Right now most circulation managers aim at least at 80/20 - one year/two year. So the proposal will allow that to be reversed - 20/80 one year/two year and no one will be the wiser. The advertisers will get screwed.

Regarding three year. Tell me how big of a difference is there between 24 months and 25 or 26 months? What's wrong with continuing to show three year? We try to avoid it, and it can reflect poorly on a magazine, but why not continue to show it?

Adds and removals. This is clearly an area that also must be preserved. And again, it doesn't cause any extra work in the circulation dept. I asked. The crappy magazines that can't hold readers with free subscriptions would like to see this not reported. Why? Because we use this against our competitors all the time. We have very little turnover, and it's because of superior editorial products. These turnover comparisons are part of our media kits. We sell lots of ad space based on adds & deletions.

Of course paid magazines don't show this. Why should they? Big difference between getting a free sub and paying for one.

If BPA is going to continue to mean anything, than audits must be real audits, digging into everything. Otherwise, what's the point? If BPA's become rubber stamps and don't show details, I'll have no reason to continue to be a member. Right now my competitors show me their good points and their flaws and I am compelled to also have a BPA statement to stay on a level playing field. But if the statements become a joke (ala VAC, etc), then I won't suffer any hardship by not having one. And I'll save a lot of $$. Hmmmmm......perhaps I should re-think all of the above. I would if this were a bottom line-only publishing house.

Rich Cress
CSC Publishing, Inc