ShortList celebrates its first birthday

Richard Castle - 24 September 2008

When discussing magazines it's very important not to confuse distribution with circulation and sadly this too often happens. This importance is reflected by the auditing body for magazines (ABC) which, in the men's market, only allow Shortlist and Sport Standard Certificates of Distribution, whereas paid-for magazines are awarded Certificates of Circulation. This crucial difference reflects the huge efforts paid-for titles place in investing in retail space to sell their titles and the circulation process as a whole, and the thousands of hours spent crafting the perfect editorial product to persuade the public to part with their hard-earned cash. A title that is only interested in the amount of copies distributed is only focusing on taking as much ad revenue as possible. A point highlighted in the above press release/article as the only measure of success discussed, other than profit, is the number of ad pages booked. Shortlist is not the highest circulating men's lifestyle title. It can, however, claim to place more copies into dump bins and other places of 'distribution' than anyone else.

Ed Feast - 25 September 2008

The VFD is audited and accredited by the same body that certifies the ABCs. The reason that they only allow the Sport and Shortlist the VFD is because they are free, not due to the quality of their editorial.

I think it's about time that people recognise that the market for quality free magazines is the way forward in the fight against free online content. Over the coming months we are going to see a slimming down of titles in newsagents. This streamlining is going to leave consumers with real quality on the shelves whilst ousting the dross, and whilst choice is reduced, the consumer will be left with magazines that have a true heritage and maintain integrity in both their editorial content and the advertisers which they carry. This is undoubtedly a good thing. It is important to realise though that the free titles are not cannibalising the magazine market \(just look at Men's Health & other leading lifestyle mags) but they are filling a gap, the train journey, the café before a meeting etc.

Shortlist has developed from the "Short-lived" tag that it was initially given, to the largest men's mag on the market. Instead of whinging about it's success, other publishers should learn from this and emulate it's content and stylish look. Shortlist is the first real player in the emerging "freemium" market...and it won't be the last.

Wilf Maunoir - 26 September 2008

The distinction between distribution and circulation is irrelevant. In fact, circulation is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is readership whether the publication is free or not.

What matters is people, not paper.

Richard Castle - 26 September 2008

VFD doesn't exist anymore. Now you just get an ABC - if you're paid-for you get a certificate of circulation or if free, that of distribution. 

And if the future's free then we're all doomed if all people get to read are re-hashed press releases cobbled together solely for the purpose of putting pages together against which to sell advertising.

The argument free titles put forward is that they wish to be freed from the restraints of the newsstand. This is bunkum. The only reason for avoiding the newsstand and thus being able to charge people for an editorial product is because what you're producing isn't good enough to entice people to part with their money. There isn't a publisher who wouldn't prefer to get circulation revenue alongside ad revenue if they can - simply makes good business sense.

And anyway, why fight free online content? Freed from the need to luxuriate readers with paper quality, sumptuous artwork and inspiring editorial which are the requirements of successful paid-for magazines, the internet's the perfect place for free content.

But you're right about one thing: the best titles on the newsstand haven't been cannibalised by the frees. And this can only be because the 'content' the frees produce just don't satisfy consumers' need for entertainment. If they did people would stop spending money for what they can get for free. And if they're not replacing paid-for, because they're not interesting enough, why are people bothering to either look at them or book ads into them?

Richard Castle - 26 September 2008

There are a phalanx of media buyers who would disagree with you on this. Readership (by which I guess you mean NRS-audited readership, which the frees in question don't have) gives you a good steer for media planning purposes but there are fewer and fewer buyers relying on the NRS for buying purposes.

The difference between circulation and distribution is critical for another reason. A title just 'distributed' is not actively acquired whereas a title acquired by purchase (through the circulation process involving wholesalers, retailers and subscription agents) enters its owner's life as a highly coveted source of entertainment and pleasure.

This is why you'll very rarely see paid-for newspapers and magazines left strewn in tubes and buses but find yourself falling over piles of discarded free titles.

Wilf Maunoir - 26 September 2008

I think your argument is either naive or very biased.

It is perfectly possible to produce quality publications and not charged for it. I know many publishers that are very happy not to get any circulation revenues, provided they secures sufficient ad revenues. There are of course some differences in the business model, function and therefore content.

The reason for not charging is not this at all. It comes from the original observation that if you could get rid off the massive circulation / return costs associated with distributing in every newsstand in a countrry, then you could pretty much distribute the titles for free.

When it comes to content, the reality is that many people don't have time during the week to read long articles in thick paper (as demonstrated by the slow erosion in readership). Therefore you have to adapt the format for a quick and more convenient read and find downtime where people may consume your product. In other words, you need to listen to consumers' needs, not solely to what editors believe it is right for their readers.

Couple of facts: 

 * 80% of revenues of US newspaper is already from advertising

* 1 in 4 newspaper copy is free in Europe; in France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Hong Kong ... the most read newspaper title is free

* the distinction between what established titles lobbyists call "controlled distribution" and circulation is fast becoming obsolete; check out ABC circulation for the Evening Standard or MEN; not even talking about bulk or the many free copies of paid for titles you can get in airport or at the dentist.

I am more of a newspaper folk, so I can't comment much on magazines. I believe free magazines are quite new compared to free newspapers. But I see no reason why this shouldn't succeed at some stage.

Free or paid for, print or internet, it doesn't really matter, what really matters is the survival of written journalism. I am pretty confident from that point of view and I see no reason why you should assume that a price tag implies quality.

Wilf Maunoir - 26 September 2008

This is non sense, all across Europe buyers are increasing relying on NRS-type of surveys, simply because it is a much richer and superior metrics for media-planning. ABCs is just an health check, it tells us really little. UK is pretty old fashion on this, in many countries, media planners hardly look at circulation data.

There is little difference in quality of reading between a copy you buy and a copy you don't.

 Free magazines should absolutely be measured on NRS, so we will have a proper measure of their successes.

I will have stop there as circulation vs readership is really a last century topic.

Anyway, nice exchange. have a nice weekend.