BPA Worldwide Blog

What's your opinion? BPA committees consider new rules/rule amendments

It's that time of year again. BPA's committees around the globe are starting to review existing rules for possible amendment as well as new rules that may affect BPA's membership. BPA's Board of Directors will make the final decisions at its semi-annual meeting on December 10, 2009 in New York City.

Below I have listed the rules being considered followed by summaries of those rules. I ask that you submit your opinions and questions regarding those rules that may affect your organization by using the "Comment" section found after this blog entry.

• AGE AND SOURCE REPORTING
• DIRECT REQUEST
• DIGITAL EDITIONS: PHYSICAL ADDRESSES
• DIGITAL EDITION CONVERSIONS
• DIGITAL EDITION REPORTING
• BARTER TRANSACTIONS
• CHANGE OF FREQUENCY
• PRODUCTION STATUS
• PARAGRAPH 8 – BUSINESS PUBLICATION STATEMENTS
• CHARITABLE DONATIONS
• PUBLICITY
• QUALIFIED SHOW COPIES
• SPONSORED CIRCULATION
• AUDIT REPORTS

AGE AND SOURCE REPORTING
During the economic crisis of this year, BPA has experienced a higher rate of membership attrition than normal.

When we speak to our members we learn it is not the BPA fees that prompt them to resign, but the cost to maintain the BPA circulation statement, specifically, paragraph 3b, Age and Source. One ADAC (Audience Development Advisory Committee) member resigned several magazines due to costs related to attempting to maintain a high rate of one year request circulation as reported in paragraph 3b. It was suggested BPA make age and source reporting optional. In markets where age and source are important, allow the publishers the option to continue reporting. In markets where age and source are not important, give publishers the option not to report.

Relaxing reporting requirements is always tricky for BPA. Half of the membership applauds the change, and half of the membership perceives that such a change is a weakening of standards and removes a competitive advantage. How do you feel about optional age and source reporting?

DIRECT REQUEST
At its May 2009 meeting, the BPA Board of Directors agreed to change “personal direct request from recipient” to “direct request.” This change was made because many subscriptions are requested by authorized assistants, not the actual subscribers.

It may be possible to bring further transparency to the category. A BPA publisher member noted the individual may not “directly” request the subscription; often the subscription is requested by an authorized assistant. The publisher proposed to change “direct request” to “individual request.” The publisher believes this more accurately describes the interaction with the subscriber, or the subscriber’s authorized assistant.

DIGITAL EDITIONS: PHYSICAL ADDRESSES
As the number of magazines reporting digital editions continues to rise, more publishers are experiencing the challenge of subscribers without physical addresses, either because they were not asked or declined to provide the information. How are such recipients to be reporting in the geographic table? 

Current BPA rules do not allow individuals without physical addresses to be included in qualified circulation. Should BPA create an “email address only” category in our geographic table? 

DIGITAL EDITION CONVERSIONS
In May 2009, the Board approved a rule change allowing publishers to convert requested print subscriptions to digital  subscriptions. Rule B7.29 states, “Publishers may convert requested print edition  subscriptions to electronic edition subscriptions, provided the subscriber who requested  the publication receives advance notice of the conversion and is given the option to  refuse the conversion. Evidence of the original request and the notice of the conversion  shall be available at the time of the audit.”

A request was made to define the “advanced notice” period, and establish standard text for the conversion notice. Members have been advised the “advanced notice” period must give the publisher enough time to convert or not to convert the subscription, based on the subscriber’s response to the notice. While it is difficult to define a fixed period for the advanced notice (since it varies from pubisher to publisher), BPA could amend the rule to state the advanced notice must provide the publisher enough time to stop the conversion if the subscriber refuses to convert.

Regarding standard text, as long as the subscriber is given the option to refuse the conversion, the rules have been satisfied. However, we are currently developing samples for review.

DIGITAL EDITION REPORTING
At least one publisher member feels the current reporting format for digital copies--columns within the current tables--does not provide enough separation. The publisher claims the reporting format confuses advertisers.

BPA requires digital editions be reported separately throughout the report. Digital and print copies are combined in  paragraph B1/C1, Average Qualified Circulation, on page 1, but must be reported in a separate paragraph B1/C1 on the back of the report. Paragraph B2/C2, paragraph B3a/C4, paragraph B3b/C5, and paragraph B4/C6 all report separate columns for digital and print editions. Digital copies have been reported in this manner for many years. What's your opinion?

BARTER TRANSACTIONS
In the Spring 2009, the BPA advisory committees reviewed a proposal to allow barter transactions to count towards paid circulation. The U.S., Canadian, and European committees voted not to allow barter transactions to count toward paid circulation. The Middle East advisory board voted to conduct more research on barter transactions, and develop rules and report formats for barter transactions at the next meeting.

BPA’s Canadian newspapers have eliminated the need for barter transactions with their new report format that combines “sponsored by third party and free circulation.”

Do you think barter transactions should count toward paid circulation?

CHANGE OF FREQUENCY
Publishers are dealing with the challenging economic environment in many ways. Some publishers are reducing circulation sizes, others are maintaining circulation size, but reducing frequency.

One publisher that has not changed circulation size is concerned a competing publisher that had a similar circulation size but reduced frequency as a way to cut cost has an advantage when it comes to BPA reporting. On the December statements, both publishers will report similar circulation figures but based on different frequencies. The publisher that reduced frequency will report the maintained Total Qualified Circulation figure on page one, but a lower frequency.

Will the buyers notice the reduced frequency when evaluating circulation? Changes in frequency are disclosed several places on the BPA report. Is that enough?

PRODUCTION STATUS
The BPA Worldwide website includes the following notifications for circulation statement production: at press, BPA hold, filed, proof sent, shipped, and typesetting. In practice, however, we are only using the “filed” status.

The most common causes for delayed statements are:

• Delinquent invoices
• Previous audit not completed
• Those with a history of error cannot release a circulation statement until it is audited

Late filings and extended proof of approvals also add to the delay, even if they are operating within the BPA Worldwide rules. What additional notifications should we include on the BPA website?

PARAGRAPH 8 – BUSINESS PUBLICATION STATEMENTS
Paragraph 8 on the BPA business publication statement reports “paid circulation data.” Included in this paragraph are: average annual subscription order price; issues per year; single copy sales price for the period; and renewal rate information.

Average annual subscription order price can be found in paragraph 7, average annual audited qualified circulation and current unaudited circulation statements. Issues per year can be found on page one. Very few publishers report single copy sales on business publications, and even fewer report renewal rates.

Single copy sales and renewal rate data do not warrant their own paragraph. This information would be better served reported in paragraph 9, additional data. Should BPA eliminate paragraph 8, paid circulation data, on business publication statement?

CHARITABLE DONATIONS
The BPA staff has received questions about fundraising programs where a portion of all subscriptions goes towards a school, scouts or a club. In addition, we received an inquiry regarding a non-deductible subscription tied to a charitable donation. The Board instructed staff to bring the item before the advisory committees again.

We have identified three different types of charitable contribution offers:

1. “You buy, we give” offer. In this offer the subscriber purchases the magazine and the publisher makes a donation on the subscriber’s behalf.
2. School/club fundraising program, where the consumer chooses from a wide variety of magazines and products, and the subscription agent returns a percentage of the sales to the school/club/organization.
3. Non-deductible contribution offer. Here is an example: “In acknowledgment of your membership gift of twenty-five dollars or more you will receive a one year subscription to XYZ magazine. Your donation of twenty-five dollars or more is tax deducible less fair market value of three dollars and sixty cents for the subscription.”

Subscriptions from fundraising programs could be disclosed in the Explanatory paragraph. How do we disclose the other two offers? Promotional Incentives? Combination Sales? Or is a distinction necessary?

PUBLICITY
BPA received a request to review the following suggestions regarding publicity complaints/violations:

• In addition to posting a violation on the BPA website, the notice is listed in the “membership standing” section of the membership profile before the current statement.
• In addition to the history showing past statements and audit reports, past publicity violations are also listed. This will allow advertisers to see clearly the chronic offenders.
• A monetary penalty is assessed for those members found in violation of publicity rules. Currently a formal complaint costs $235.00, charged to the member that initiates the publicity complaint. If the complaint yields a violation, the offending member must reimburse the complainant.
• Any member with two violations in one calendar year is fined 10% of their annual audit fees.

BPA is not in favor of any of these options. What is your opinion?

QUALIFIED SHOW COPIES
 BPA rule C9.9 states, “If trade show, consumer show, and convention distribution are reported as Qualified Circulation, the following comment shall be included as part of the Method of Distribution: ‘Distribution to trade shows, consumer  shows and conventions are audited only to the event and not to the end recipients. An agreement from the event management has been obtained indicating that the event will accept a specified number of copies for redistribution. When the publisher exhibits  and distributes copies at a show the following shall be stated: The publisher has  provided a paid contract for exhibit space. Distribution to the event is supported by  delivery receipts from a third party.’ ”  

Current rules down not allow the publisher to transport the copies to the show themselves. Is there a way to qualify copies distributed at shows that do not use third-party distribution? Would a signed affidavit from a show manager, or senior employee of the show manager, attesting to the number of copies brought to the show suffice? Is this a practical solution?

SPONSORED CIRCULATION
Sponsored copies are reported as a sub-category of Paid circulation. On the BPA Consumer report, sponsored copies are not included in the average annual order price calculation, nor are sponsored prices and transactions detailed in paragraph 3a, Prices.
 
A publishing member is concerned about a competing title that has converted the majority of their circulation from Non-Paid Individually Addressed circulation to Paid Sponsored Individually Addressed circulation, while disclosing little information about the sales. 

According to the BPA Consumer rules, a publisher does not need to factor sponsored prices into their average annual order price, nor do they need to note the details of the transaction or name the sponsor. Conversely, subscription sales purchased directly by end recipients are factored into the average annual order price and detailed in Paragraph 3a. Conversely, BPA Business rules require sponsored sales to be included in the average order price circulation – and be detailed in paragraph 5, Prices.

The member is concerned about the lack of reporting requirements for sponsored copies and suspects his competitor is selling sponsored copies at a very cheap unit rate. There is also concern that buyers believe the average annual order price is inclusive of all paid subscriptions, including sponsored.

Should BPA provide more disclosure on sponsored sales in consumer circ. statements and audit reports?

AUDIT REPORTS
Magazine members file two unaudited six-month circulation statements as part of their 12-month audit reporting period. If the audit reveals a material change to the claimed circulation figures, an auditor report is issued to disclose the specifics. 

BPA rules prevent a circulation statement from being issued until the previous audit has been completed and released. If a statement is being held for a previous audit, as soon as the audit is released, the circulation statement is released. Once the new circulation statement is issued, the audit report moves to history on the BPA website (accessible under the VIEW HISTORY section of the web listing).

A publisher member feels audit reports become lost in our reports history, as most advertisers work from current circulation statements.  Most publishers choose not to show their audit reports to media buyers as these reports often promote shifts or reductions to previously released circulation figures. This places the competing publisher in a negative selling situation.

Should those members with a history of adjustments be mandated to include their previous audit report comments on their two subsequent circulation statements, or be required to distribute the previous audit with subsequent statements (within the same pdf)?

Please use the "Comment" link below this blog entry to make your opinions known about any or all of the above items. As always, I look forward to reading your opinions.

 

 

BPA Worldwide rolls out Brand Reach audit report to meet demand for verification of all touch-points

Like most media owners today, Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based Stamats Business Media was looking to retain and grow marketing revenue in an increasingly diverse media landscape. Stamats, which publishes multiple titles across several distinct media platforms – print, online, e-newsletters – recognized that increasing revenue lies with a better understanding and identification of all touch-points its brand has with consumers. This information would be key to broadening its selling scope.

Stamats, upon hearing of BPA’s new offering at the American Business Media (ABM) Spring Meeting, turned to BPA Worldwide, the global leader in auditing media, for help. Together, using Stamats relational database, they began testing BPA’s new Brand Reach^sm audit service which allows media owners to better monetize their consumer information held across multiple media platforms and offer more creative but effective options to advertisers interested in extending their brand awareness and reach.

The Brand Reach^sm report is designed to present the entire scope of a brand. Marketers are afforded a cross-section of all communication channels, including a brand’s total recipients across multiple media platforms, unique users within each channel, and users accessing multiple channels. Additionally, media owners may customize reports based on whichever independently verified channels they wish to include (data from websites, contest registration, whitepaper downloads, events, expos, etc.) so they are able to demonstrate that magazine subscribers are not the only individuals interacting with the brand.

“As the media industry continues to evolve, it is clear BPA’s role will rely on reporting a brand’s entire impact in the marketplace, rather than individual platforms or silos,” explained Glenn Hansen, BPA’s president and CEO. “Advertiser interest in meaningful data has never been greater—judging by the increase (+250) this past year in the number of media we measure—and the Brand Reachsm audit service is clearly the future of media measurement.”

“The last decade has been a turbulent one for b2b media companies, as we have attempted to keep our arms around the myriad product offerings required to adequately service our audience segments,” commented President of Stamats Business Media Timothy Fixmer. “This new audit tool will help our advertising customers quickly and thoroughly determine the depth and scope of the media buy within a given brand needed to achieve their mar/com objectives.”

Fixmer continued, “BPA’s hallmark accomplishment with the Brand Reach^sm audit sets the stage for a new era in media selling and buying.”

During the alpha test phase with Stamats’ Meetings West brand, BPA worked closely with a team of sales and audience development personnel to present metrics most sought after in the marketplace. The initial Meetings West Brand Reach^sm report includes consumer touch point metrics for a magazine, two e-mail newsletters and a webinar. The next release of data will include even more channel information.

Under the Brand Reach^sm audit process, the media owner’s brand will become the BPA member, rather than each specific media platform. Using the media owner’s relational database, BPA believes auditing all channels of a brand will be cost-effective compared to the traditional process of auditing each channel individually. More for less.

Hansen noted that BPA’s Brand Reach^sm report will likely replace the global media auditor’s existing circulation statements once widely adopted. “Brand Reach^sm will be the denominator of trading within the industry,” he said.

In addition to Stamats, several other North America-based media owners expressed interest in joining the Brand Reach^sm test phase. The results should be available later this year. According to Hansen, “One publisher who had resigned magazine membership in the face of last year’s economic crunch has rejoined upon learning of the Brand Reach^sm initiative.” Hansen predicted this is the beginning of a trend.

What's your opinion? Please use the "Comments" section found below this blog entry to comment on this exciting new initiative.

USPS needs feedback on sponsored circ and digital copies

The Periodicals Advisory Group (PAG) met recently In Washington, DC. PAG is a joint USPS/Periodicals task force that meets several times a year to discuss content, qulaification and other Periodicals issues. Members include USPS reps, as well as reps from ABM, MPA, NNA, individual publishers and others allied to the industry.

 

Two issues headed the docket with immediate industry feedback needed for both: sponsored circulation and digital copies.

 

The USPS has asked for feedback by Friday this week, August 14th. I would greatly appreciate your feedback by Thursday, August 13th. 
 
Sponsored circulation  
 
The issue of sponsored paid circulation has been discussed for some time, with publishers seeking some relief from the present USPS approach. In general, at present, paid subscriptions must be paid for by the recipient, but there are now two main exceptions. First, "gift" subscriptions are permitted, but there must be a one-on-one relationship between the giver and the recipient. This is, of course, a subjective test, but an example of a “non-gift” would be a retailer deciding to give a gift of a magazine subscription to 10,000 of its best customers. Under current USPS rules, these copies are not counted as paid.

 

The second principal exception is that an employer can purchase copies of job-related publications for employees.

 

We understand that in past PAG meetings, publisher representatives have suggested that whatever change or relaxation is made for paid subs should also be made for requests. That suggestion has not been enthusiastically received by the Postal Service reps. It was also contended that if sponsored, paid subscriptions are counted toward the 50% requirement for paid, then the same type of sponsored, paid subs must also count toward satisfaction of the 50% requester threshold, just as paid subscriptions above a nominal rate are now counted toward satisfaction of the 50% rule for requesters.  
 
Please consider the following questions:
 
1. Should some amount of sponsored, paid subscriptions be deemed to be valid paid subscriptions that are counted toward the 50% qualifying threshold? 
 
2. Since the Postal Service has signaled that it is likely to permit this result for some percentage of the total paid subscription base substantially below 100%, what upper percentage limit would be reasonable?  (In other words, fill in the blank in this new USPS rule: Up to     % of qualifying paid subscriptions may be paid for by a sponsor or other third party.)
 
3. Should some amount of sponsored requests be deemed to be valid requests that are counted toward the 50% qualifying threshold?
 
4. The Postal Service has signaled that it's likely to permit this result for paid subscriptions for some percentage of the total paid subscription base substantially below 100%, and it would no doubt apply a similar limitation to requests as well.  What upper percentage limit would be reasonable?  (In other words, fill in the blank in this new USPS rule: Up to     % of the qualifying requests may be sponsored by a third party.)
 
5. Any other comments?
 
Digital Editions
 
Digital (electronic) editions is another issue that has been considered by the PAG for a long time. We understand the group is getting closer to resolution. At the moment—and for the past couple of hundred years—only printed "copies" have been counted in applying the rule that 50% of the copies distributed by any means must be paid for or requested by the recipient to receive Periodicals class qualification.

 

With the emergence of identical, digital copies, there are now two reasons why some publishers want to "count" digital editions as well. Publishers would like to see requested digital copies included because they foresee the day when it may be necessary to count them to meet the 50% threshold. An initial proposal to count paid digital editions in the numerator of the fraction as paid but not to count unpaid digital editions in the denominator of the fraction didn't pass the laugh test.

 

Also, the Postal Service, which has indicated that it may be willing to compromise on this issue, is concerned about the process of auditing free or non-requested copies. In the print world, the print run is the starting point, so that the number of copies given away can be readily determined. With digital copies, on the other hand, there's no equivalent starting point, which presents both compliance and an auditing challenge. BPA members, who may now report non-qualified, non-request digital copies, must consider that these electronic editions will be added to the total copies distributed (the denominator) when the USPS calculates the 50% Periodicals rate. 

Despite these impediments, a resolution may be at hand whereby identical, digital copies may be (but don't have to be) counted by the publisher as long as both paid or request copies and non-paid, non-request copies are counted in the 50% calculation. In addition, if digital copies are included, and if the publisher requires counting of those digital copies to meet the 50% threshold, then the required circulation audit must be performed by an approved, independent audit agency (ala BPA), which have the means to properly verify delivery log files for electronic copies. Also, the Postal Service, if it approves this at all, will certainly impose a percentage requirement so it doesn't have Periodicals with 10,000 digital copies and three mailed copies. 
 
Here are the questions to consider:
 
1. Should a publisher be permitted to count identical, digital copies toward the 50% paid requirement for paid Periodicals? 
 
2. If so, what should the maximum percentage be?  (In other words, fill in the blank in this new USPS rule:  Up to     % of the qualifying paid copies may be distributed in an electronic format.) 
 
3. Should a publisher be permitted to count identical, digital copies toward the 50% paid or request requirement for request Periodicals?
 
4. If so, what should the maximum percentage be?  (In other words, fill in the blank in this new USPS rule: Up to     % of the qualifying paid or request copies may be distributed in an electronic format.) 
 
5. Also consider those cases when publishers provide, for example, paid print subscribers with free access to digital subscriptions as well, while also offering paid digital-only subs. Should the free digital subs be counted as free in the denominator? Should the "value" of the free digital sub count as a "premium" that serves to reduce the true amount paid for the hard copy for postal qualification purposes? Perhaps digital copies should simply be ignored when they are duplicative of hard copies?

6. Any other comments?  

This is alot to digest with a short window to respond. However, these are issues that can and will affect the entire publishing community. Please take a few moments to respond in the “Comments” section found at the end of this blog entry.

 

I look forward to reading your ideas on these points.

An open letter to BPA's media owner members

Speaking for all of us at BPA Worldwide, I want to take this opportunity to personally thank those media owners who have continued membership and support. We recognize full well that the market realities of the past year have placed the media industry under enormous stress and strain and to say it’s a transformative time is a gross understatement. However, if there’s a time or a circumstance to reaffirm our collective commitment to quality, transparency and accountability, this is it.

The intense pressure is forcing hands in many ways, leaving some media owners contemplating cutting corners in ways they never would have considered 18 months ago. But solutions are often foisted in the toughest of times and we appreciate that in spite of the impulse to do some belt-tightening, you refuse to compromise on the investment necessary to maintain the integrity of your data through a BPA audit.

BPA’s obligation to serving the entire media industry – advertisers, media buyers and media owners –enables us to best and most credibly serve our members. We are not beholden to any one slice of the media universe. In fact, our very structure supports objectivity. With an elected board of 17 advertisers and agencies and 15 media owners, and with local media buyer and owner advisory boards in Asia, Canada, Europe and the Middle East, BPA continues to be an industry-owned, not-for-profit organization operating for the benefit of the industry. BPA’s bylaws require that our chairman always be a media buyer – never an owner. Media buyers will always have the larger share of board seats, because it is their investment in advertising that has created the need for audited data. It is this board, supported by numerous advisory groups, that establishes the guidelines for measurement consistent with the needs of our stakeholders throughout the world.

BPA, by its very nature and charter, has long set and will continue to set the standards for the industry. And though others may fast follow our lead, I will tell you emphatically that our methodology is ours only and simply can’t be held to the same rigor under a different structure.

So in the context of all this change and transformation, we looked to a few of our members for insight on what’s important to them today.

“From a buyer’s standpoint, it’s become even more important that the circulation of the magazines we work with is audited. Our clients are holding us accountable to ensure that their advertising budgets are spent wisely, and this means knowing exactly who receives the magazine, how it’s distributed and that the prices we’re paying are based on audited circulation, not guesstimates,” explained Roberta Garfinkle, SVP, Director, Print Strategy, TargetCast tcm.

Alan Morris, publisher of Pharmaceutical Commerce, echoed these sentiments: “These may not be the best of times for any of us, but there are certain standards that must be maintained, and BPA membership is chief among them. It means something to advertisers to know we have a 3rd-party audit backing up our circulation claims. We're proud to be BPA members.”

Recently, we have seen some media owners jeopardize the value of their brand by moving away from an industry standard to a one way of doing things approach that puts results out ahead of methodology.  At best, this is a misaligned and sort of band-aid solution that will have long term implications.  The fact is media buyers routinely tell me not having verifiable data is a negative.
 
Our ongoing commitment to you as a member, and to the industry as a whole, is to remain totally transparent with respect to our reports, rules and procedures. We believe a policy of openness works to the benefit of all stakeholders, and we challenge others with like services to uphold and encourage the same philosophy.

As we move into our new fiscal year, I am very confident that our organization’s continued drive to emphasize the quality of your data through BPA reports will help you deliver the audience information buyers of media are demanding. Look for our “year end review” for a recap on on our initiatives this past year, and a view on what’s to come as we push forward into new media channels and platforms.

As always, I welcome your comments to my thoughts above. Please use the "Comments" link at the end of this entry to submit your ideas and views.

Last interaction or last request: which is the more valuable metric?

Are media owners and buyers more interested in seeing “recency” (when the user last interacted with the magazine) or “request” (the date the user last asked for the magazine)? 

If the former, while the industry transitions to such a metric, should the reporting of the age of requests be optional?

In auditing the many touch points of a brand, we noted that when live events and E-products were consumed greater value seemed to be placed by the advertiser on how recently the interactivity occurred as compared to the date the product was requested. For example: a person registers for a webinar, trade show or conference. When did that person attend? Similarly, a request is made for various E-newsletters. When did that person last open an edition? Or request is made for a magazine in digital format. When did that person last view or click on content or an ad?

Recency as a metric is relatively easy to do with transaction-based media (downloads of white papers, open rates on e-newsletters, visits to web sites, click-through, etc.). What is the measure we should use for recency of usage for print?

While we consider the establishment of a metric for recency, should we at the same time consider allowing the age of the source of the subscriber to be optional data? In markets where businesses are relatively stable, a two- or three-year name might be as valid, important, and involved as one who filled out the qualification form two weeks ago. In markets where there is volatility and churn in employment ranks, can we rely on market forces to drive the reporting of age of source such that the traditional three-year break-out, or something more granular, is reported?

Making the 3b age analysis optional might give small, niche publications an opportunity to remain audited without having to spend a fortune maintaining one-year status. In other words, for those magazines dropping out of audit completely, could there be an option that would continue to provide verification of their circulation claims, but with a lower threshold of disclosure and cost?

My expectation would be that in competitive markets, publishers would continue to report aging as well as source because advertisers will continue to use that information to compare competitive titles. Publishers would need to report aging data to remain competitive. 

I have presented a lot to think about in this blog entry. Please take a few moments and using the “Comments” link at the bottom of this entry, let me know your thoughts on these issues: 1) What is the measure we should use for recency of usage for print? and 2) If we are to establish a metric for recency, should we at the same time consider allowing the age of the source of the subscriber to be optional data?

I look forward to reading your comments.

Electronic editions and interactive rules top BPA Board rules votes

Below, we have summarized new rule circulation audit amendments passed by BPA Worldwide’s Board of Directors at their May 2009 meeting.

Unless otherwise specified, all changes are effective immediately.

The Rule Amendments/New Rules may be accessed through the “Rules” link on the BPA home page, or by clicking here.

Or, if you prefer, please contact your BPA Member Relations Manager, or any of our audit staff, if you have questions. MRM contacts can be found on the BPA website.

Board Actions Applying to Business Publications and Consumer Magazines

Print to electronic conversion. In a nod toward media owners’ continued migration to digital platforms, the board voted to allow media owners the option of converting request subscriptions from print to electronic format if proper advance notification and an opt-out with each issue is provided to the subscriber.

Non-requested electronic editions. Following months of discussion and debate among publishers, advertisers and media buyers (on this blog and in meetings), the board reaffirmed that to be considered “qualified” circulation an electronic edition must be requested; however, the board also voted to allow the reporting of non-request electronic editions as “non-qualified” circulation on BPA statements and audit reports provided the recipients meet the publication’s stated Field Served and Definition of Recipient Qualification parameters. These demographics must be reported in the Additional Data paragraph of the statement. (Without the demographic information, the electronic edition may not be claimed on the statement.)

Interactive rules. The board approved new rules for BPA’s Interactive Audit product line, which provides audited web traffic data to its print and events members at no additional cost. The rules were developed in concert with IAB Audience Reach Measurement Guidelines. Effective with the June 2009 reporting period, media owners reporting “live” data in BPA’s Interactive tool can now have the traffic data on circulation statements and audit reports.  Click here to see the new interactive data reporting format.

Personal Direct Request. Recognizing a request to receive a subscription may come from a subscriber’s spouse or authorized personal assistant, the board voted to rename the “Personal direct request from the recipient” source to “Direct Request” within paragraphs B*3b and C*5 on circulation statements and audit reports.

B = BtoB rule, C = Consumer rule, N = Newspaper rule

Association Request. Under current BPA rules, B3b/C5 source reporting of subscriptions requested by an association executive for their members is categorized under “association rosters and directories.” The subscriptions do not count as “company request” and certainly not “Direct Request”. The U.S. Postal Service does not count these copies as “request” either.

The BPA rule for company request states, “Questionnaires or letters on a company letterhead from firms, including franchises, requesting copies of a publication for employees identified by name, title and/or function may be reported as written request from recipient's company.” Since the association is not the employer of the individual, BPA does not report requests by association executives for their members in this category.

To disclose the difference between those media owners who obtain an association roster or directory and send copies versus a publisher who cultivates a relationship with an association to the point of generating a request from the executive, the board voted to allow media owners to disclose the executive director’s request in an “Additional Data” table footnote on the circulation statement.

Projecting B3b/C5 and B3c on merged publications. In 2006 the BPA board approved amending rules to allow publishers to project paragraph 3b and 3c for Business, and paragraph 5 for Consumer, if the circulation decreased by any amount from the previous audit analysis issue. (The rule previously had a 10% limit.) This change was made to help publishers react quickly to the changing dynamics of the publishing environment. At the time they reaffirmed maintaining the 10% increase threshold because they felt a decrease greater than 10% was acceptable; an increase of 10% or more was a substantial change to circulation, which should require the reporting of actual figures.

Given the current economic crisis, BPA has seen an increase in merged publications. It is not uncommon that the circulation of the surviving publication increases by more than 10% from the previous audit issue. This is creating a hardship as the publisher is not in a position to report actual figures on the interim issue from each of the merged publications.

The board voted to give media owners the option of reporting actual figures, post merger, when the increase is 10% or greater or omitting those paragraphs for the interim issue, with the omission due to the merger disclosed through a footnote on the statement.

Renew until forbid. The current BPA rules provide guidance for reporting “renew until forbid” subscriptions. In such a program, the subscriber provides a credit card and billing information with the initial order and gives permission to the publisher to renew the subscription, using the same credit card, until the subscriber forbids. Renew until forbid subscriptions are typically sold using a one-year term/interval. Some publishers are now charging subscribers on a monthly basis and this is creating a challenge for reporting paragraph B5/C3a, Total New and Renewed Qualified Paid Subscriptions Order/Sold for the Period.

For those cases in which publishers sell evergreen renew until forbid subscriptions without any renewal notification of a fixed term, the board voted to create a new category, “perpetual subscriptions,” in paragraph B5/C3a. Those publishers selling renew until forbid subscriptions with an annual “bridge letter” renewing the subscription may continue to report by term.

International arrears. A media owner recently expressed concern about the amount of time the BPA rules allow for arrears when a subscription is sold to a subscriber outside the country of the magazine or publication. The media owner noted there are many time and logistical challenges when dealing with subscribers outside their country and BPA’s current arrears rule of three months does not provide enough time to effectively market the renewal.

The board voted to extend the arrears period for media owner’s international subscriptions from three to six months.

Board Actions Applying to Newspapers Only

EMEA newspaper reporting cycles. BPA was informed by newspaper publishers in Europe and the Middle East that the current reporting period of six months ended March and September does not correspond with their business cycle. Reporting for the six-month period ended June and December would be a better fit with market conditions.

The BPA board unanimously agreed to change the newspaper reporting periods in these regions.

Occasional copies/conversion. According to Canadian daily newspaper rules, publishers may serve occasional “bonus” copies and may convert lower frequency subscriptions to higher frequency plans. However, some confusion exists regarding what defines an occasional copy and a conversion copy. Occasional copies were intended to serve as one-off copies to subscribers with less-than-daily frequency. These copies are typically served on civic and statutory holidays, such as Labor Day, Easter Monday, Thanksgiving Monday. 

The intent of conversion copies was to allow publishers to serve issues on a daily basis to subscribers of less-than-daily frequency in an attempt to up-sell the subscriber. Conversions to daily service typically apply to weekend-only subscribers or Saturday-only subscribers.

As a point of clarification, the board amended the rule to state occasional copies cannot be served for consecutive days. The board also voted to allow publishers to serve subscribers conversion copies in electronic format rather than print if proper advance notification and an opt-out is provided to the subscriber.

Educational copies. Newspapers served to educational institutions are reported as “Educational” copies under the heading of “Sponsored by Third Party or Free” in paragraph 1.

In the past, these copies were known as “Newspapers In Education” and were included with paid circulation. With the migration to BPA’s new daily newspaper format, these copies are no longer considered paid. In most cases, copies served to educational institutions have either been purchased directly by the institution or sponsored by a third-party. These copies must be supported by the combination of a signed agreement, invoices and proof-of-payment.

In the absence of invoices with supporting proof-of-payment documentation, the board voted to include a provision in the rules requiring publishers to maintain agreements with schools confirming they agree to accept and redistribute a specified number of copies for a defined period of time. Agreements may cover the school year, and exclude periods such as March Break and Christmas vacation. Agreements will help confirm copies were distributed. A similar requirement already exists in the Consumer magazine rules for bulk circulation.

Promotional incentives (premiums). Many daily newspapers offer subscribers promotional incentives as a means to grow subscriptions. Promotional incentives are also referred to as “premiums.”

Newspapers currently report circulation by price point: copies sold at or below 50% of the basic rate; and copies sold above 50% basic rate. The value of the promotional incentive can impact the reporting of copies. Taking this into consideration, the BPA board agreed to a change that subtracts the value of the promotional incentive from the offer price to determine more accurate price point reporting.

 Sponsored/Third Party circulation. At its last meeting in December 2008, the BPA board agreed to allow the reporting of individually addressed Canadian newspaper subscriptions purchased in lots of six (6) or more as “Sponsored by Third Party or Free”, while lots of five (5) or fewer are reported as “Paid For By Individual Recipient.”

BPA was made aware of a case in which a corporate franchisor purchases 200 copies on a daily basis with the intent of delivering five copies to each of its 40 retail locations. Since the franchisor serves as a collective buyer for the retail locations, and the retail locations were receiving five copies each for on premise reading by their patrons, the board voted to amend the rule to account for similar situations.

Board Actions Applying to all BPA Applicants

Application forfeiture/withdrawal. Applicants for membership in BPA Worldwide have 12 months to complete their initial audit. BPA rules allow applicants to promote their application during this time. If, for any reason, an applicant forfeits or withdraws, current policy states that the status of the application will be posted on the BPA website for six months.

After reviewing input from the Middle East advisory board, the corporate board voted to amend policy wherein notice of application forfeit or withdrawal will appear on the BPA website for same tenure as the application was posted. For example, if an application is withdrawn after nine months, notice of withdrawal will be posted to the website for the next nine months.

Please click on the "Comments" link at the end of this blog post to provide your feedback on these new and amended rules. I look forward to reading your thoughts and ideas.

Does the USPS' 24-page rule for request circulation still make sense?

Is your magazine less than 24 pages?

 

Ever since the USPS gave requested (controlled circulation) publications postal rate status equivalent to that of paid publications, a 24-page minimum rule (707.6.4) has been imposed on requesters that is not imposed on their paid counterparts.

 

The rule was put in, and has been kept there, based on the idea that the Periodicals class would be somehow cheapened if, for example, four pages--one of which was editorial--could be mailed at the same rate as, and with the same "status" as, other periodicals with far greater ad and edit page counts.

 

With the decline in ad pages, there are some requester publications that have had difficulty in the past few months reaching 24 pages with paid ads and quality editorial, but they are forced to spend scarce dollars producing and mailing additional pages to maintain the Periodicals rates.

 

Would you like to see the USPS rescind the 24-page rule? 

 

What do you think about changing the rule? Should it be maintained? Eliminated? Changed to some lower number of pages but not eliminated altogether?

 

I look forward to reading your comments.

BPA committees begin review of non-request electronic editions

Last week BPA’s advisory committees began reviewing the question of allowing to count as copies served those publishers’ e-mail alerts with a hyperlink to an electronic edition sent to individuals who did not request the magazine in its digital format.

BPA’s US Publishers Advisory, US Business Audience Development, US Consumer Audience Development, Fulfillment Manager Advisory and the European Audience Development/Fulfillment Advisory Committees shared their thoughts on this item.

US Audience Development Committee (ADAC)-Business.  Many committee members want to see non-requested electronic editions count as qualified circulation, but realize that the media buyers and the publishers are not in favor of such a move. As a compromise, they proposed reporting non-requested electronic editions as non-qualified circulation, but allow the publishers to report additional data regarding the non-requested electronic editions in the explanatory paragraph.  

The committee also suggested a working group of media buyers, publishers, audience development managers and digital magazine enablers (DMEs) be formed to begin examining the future of reporting digital magazines. The group will be facilitated by Media Ideas as a consultant to BPA on this matter.

The US Audience Development Committee (ADAC)-Consumer unanimously recommended a reaffirmation of current rules stating electronic editions must be requested to be counted as qualified circulation; however, the committee also recommended allowing non-requested electronic editions as non-qualified circulation with reporting within the average non-qualified table.

The European Audience Development/Fulfillment Advisory Committee (EADAC), with the exception of four members who abstained, also agreed to reaffirm the current rules which do not allow non-requested or non-qualified electronic circulation to be reported on the statement. The EADAC felt that inclusion would damage the value of requested electronic copies as qualified circulation in the eyes of advertisers; at present, the value of electronic versions in buyers’ is fragile.

Other BPA committees will continue to weigh in with their views on the topic until the item goes before the corporate board on May 21st for a final vote. If the option to report non-requested electronic editions as non-qualified circulation is approved by the board, it will mark the first time such data will appear on the circulation statement.

What’s your opinion?

Please use the “Comment” link at the end of this entry to share your thoughts and ideas about this important item.

Non-requested digitized magazine copies as request: Two proposals to consider

Last month I asked for your comments to my February 2nd blog posting: Should BPA count as copies served those publishers’ e-mail alerts with a hyperlink to an electronic edition sent to individuals who did not request the magazine in its digital format? As expected, many of you expressed very strong feelings on the matter at hand—both for and against. 

Based upon feedback already received, we have crafted two possible compromise positions. Please consider both positions and provide your remarks in the "comments" link immediately below this entry. BPA will begin reviewing this item with our various committees and advisory boards around the globe beginning this week through May 21st when the matter will go before the corporate board for a final decision.

Compromise Position: ONE
Should BPA count all e-mail alerts containing a hyperlink (or actual pdf) to an electronic edition sent to individuals who did not request the magazine in its digital format as “non qualified” copies served? Further, if the individual clicks on the link to view the electronic edition, should BPA consider such action as a request and, provided the individual conforms to the stated qualification criteria as outlined in the Field Served and Definition of Recipient Qualification, allow such an individual to be reported as qualified circulation (as a requested copy)?

The resulting action of clicking on the link should be a message from the publication informing the individual that future issues will be delivered in this manner unless they opt out of receiving via e-mail.

Compromise Position: Two
Notwithstanding Position: ONE, should BPA allow publishers to determine whether a printed or digitized version of a publication may be sent to qualified individuals who have requested the magazine? Accepting this proposition would empower the publisher to elicit a request for the brand but decide on an issue-by-issue basis whether the brand is sent in printed or electronic format. 

Please consider these two proposals and provide your comments. You will receive an e-mail from me when your comments have been posted.

BPA considering non-request electronic circulation as qualified

To say these are difficult economic times, is a vast understatement. In the media industry, publishers must consider new, low-cost options to extend their brand’s reach in an effort to capture the attention of as many marketers they can.
 
With low circulation and production/distribution costs, the use of non-request electronic (digital) circulation is becoming a very attractive option to this increasingly critical situation.
 
However, BPA’s current rules (which we are considering amending) prohibit the inclusion of non-request electronic circulation anywhere on the BPA statement. As a result, publishers with this type of circulation are unable to take advantage of this opportunity to grow their audience.  
 
Therefore, we would like you to consider the two positions below and add your comments below: 

1. Allow for the reporting of non-request electronic circulation as non-qualified in paragraph 9, additional data, only. This is similar to the reporting of non-qualified print copies, which many publishers do now to report trade show copies, rotated copies, or bonus copies.  
2. Allow the reporting of qualified electronic circulation for all qualified source channels, including Communication from recipient or recipient’s company (other than request), Association Rosters and Directories, Business Directories, Manufacturers, Distributors, and Wholesalers lists  and Other sources.

BPA is concerned that non-request electronic circulation could be considered spam and boost circulation levels unnaturally.  How does one safeguard against this? Some thoughts, should:

• BPA limit the amount of non-request electronic circulation to 5%, 10% or 15% of the total qualified?
• BPA allow only those e-mails that can be proven to have been delivered?
• BPA require a prominent opt out? 
• BPA require specific content in the e-mail’s subject line?
• BPA establish a requirement that those who do opt out are not counted at all (including the first copy served)?

Do you agree, provided data is fully disclosed, the value of this type of circulation should be left to the user of the statement to determine its value?
 
The above points, as well as your valuable feedback, will serve as an important step forward for BPA publisher, advertiser and agency members.

I urge you and your staff to consider and comment on these two options—and submit alternative ideas of your own—in the area below this post. To post your comments, scroll to the bottom of this blog entry and click on the “Comments” link. You will see a box in which to submit any ideas.

I look forward to reading your comments.