• by Michael Shields , June 11, 2004

The magazine industry is selling itself short, and missing an opportunity to compete head-to-head with TV. That's what was revealed by panelists and respondents to a just-released association survey Thursday during a therapeutic opening session of the Association of National Advertisers' Print Advertising Forum in New York.

Panelist Jack Haire, executive vp at Time Inc., exemplified the panel's tough self-examination stance. "Magazines have to do a better job celebrating the excellence of each title," he said. "Each has so many wonderful opportunities."

Haire and others echoed the theme that the media business in general is undergoing an across-the-board reevaluation as users' habits begin to change rapidly.

"The story of 2004 is to re-look at the whole mix," Haire said. "There is a great opportunity (for print) in that re-look."

An opportunity that the print medium may not be yet benefiting from. "Magazines and newspapers are often given up for dead," Haire said. "That's bull----."

As for taking TV head-on in selling the virtues of print, panelist Jack Triolo, senior vp, group media director at MediaVest, put into perspective the attitude that print sellers are up against in fighting that battle.

"When magazines come in and sell against TV, inside, I just shake my head," he said. "You are going to lose that argument." Instead, Triolo urged magazines to focus on what makes their products unique. "Celebrate your magazine," he said.

Besides fighting against TV's dominance, the panelists discussed another hot topic: continued pressure to prove return on investment in an accountability-focused climate. "Trying to understand the cause and effect of my investment--I think that is the core discussion (with regard to print)," said panelist Mark Kaline, global media manager at Ford.

During the panel discussion, the results of a recent ANA-conducted survey were presented to the audience of media professionals. The survey gauged the opinions of over 150 prominent print advertisers, such as representatives from Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and General Motors, on topics ranging from whether their print budgets can be expected to increase, whether they are satisfied with current research available, and whether it was fair to charge extra for bleed ads (resounding response from the survey: no).

When respondents rated what attributes were important in deciding to use magazines, editorial environment and targeting capabilities ranked at the top. Meanwhile, the value of some of the unique extras that magazines can offer clients, such as access to databases and custom publishing, ranked fairly low among a list of attributes for magazines. "I am surprised by some of the smaller numbers," said Ford's Kaline. "I don't know if that is an under-appreciated aspect of the medium. It seems to me to be one of the major strengths (of the medium). It's a way to differentiate."

Generally, survey respondents and panelists seemed to agree that the magazine business was set to rebound. Forty-four percent of respondents said they thought that their print budgets in magazines would increase (with only 25 percent saying the same thing for newspapers). However, when asked if they anticipated reallocating dollars from other media to magazines or newspapers, 63 percent and 76 percent said no, respectively.

Among other highlights of the ANA survey:

-66 percent of marketers disagree/strongly disagree that there should be an upfront market for print advertising
-59 percent agree/strongly agree that early commitment of budgets should be rewarded with more favorable pricing.
-50 percent of marketers agree/strongly agree that indecency is just as much a problem for print advertising as it is for broadcast
-57 percent of marketers agree/strongly agree that product placement/branded entertainment is an opportunity for advertisers in print.