• by Michael Shields , May 23, 2004

Media shops handling the two biggest print advertisers--General Motors and Procter & Gamble--have quietly signed up to use controversial new magazine audience research that will tell them not just how many people read the magazines they plan and buy, but also what their emotional connections are with the titles and their content. The research is controversial because some of the biggest magazine publishing groups are concerned that the data may destabilize the dominant market positions their publications have enjoyed on the basis of the traditional magazine industry currency, Mediamark Research Inc.'s (MRI) audience estimates.

While MRI's data does include some qualitative questions that touch on the relationship readers have with the magazines they read, the new research--Monroe Mendelsohn Research's Publication Readership Satisfaction Survey (PReSS)--offers far more detail, and is providing it for more than 200 consumer magazine titles. The data is similar to the custom subscriber studies that individual publishers conduct and pitch to agencies to tout the unique relationship their readers have with their magazines. The problem with those studies, however, is that it has been difficult for media planners to use them to make direct comparisons among magazine titles.

In fact, the ability to make such comparisons is one of the main reasons why the agencies--which include Starcom MediaVest Group and MediaCom (both P&G agencies) and GM Planworks--signed on to use the new research. Several other big print-buying agencies are currently evaluating the product. "We have not bought it yet, but we are considering it," said Rob Frydlewicz, vice president-research at Carat Insight.

The agency commitments follow MMR's pilot test last year of PReSS' initial 2004 survey of more than 450 respondents, which asked them to rate magazines they read on attributes such as "I look forward to reading every issue," "Is cutting edge," and "Contains ads that I trust."

MMR, which has long provided specialized research on affluent consumers, developed the study at the same time that the Magazine Publishers of America was developing its so-called "Magazine Reader Experience Study" with Northwestern University. The MPA's research, which was unveiled last October, provided a very macro view about how readers connect with the medium of magazines, but didn't offer the kind of title- or even category-specific data that would make it actionable from a media planning point of view.

The MPA said it could not provide such detail for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it would be data that would pit MPA members against each other. That appears to be just the concern some publishers have over GM's and P&G's adoption of PReSS for their magazine planning.

One agency executive who spoke to MediaDailyNews described how the nature of some of PReSS' attitudinal questions might not be appropriate for all magazines, and that publishers may fear that their titles might be unfairly penalized. For example, labels such as "Is cutting edge" or "Has eye-catching covers" may not rate high for a title like The New Yorker, which might otherwise have very strong relationships with its readers. Similarly, rankers like "Is entertaining" may result in lower scores, but may not be relevant for informational magazines such as Arthritis Today.

Among the reasons cited by agencies that have not yet signed up are tight research budgets, but another factor could be a reluctance to shake up the status quo of magazine planning, which is dominated by MRI data.

MRI typically amasses a database of more than 26,000 respondents twice a year. MRI claims affiliation with 450 advertising agencies, including 89 of the top 100. Were this product to come from MRI, it would perhaps be easier to sell through.

The PReSS data is not expected to supplant MRI's research, but to serve as a supplement to tease out the qualitative differences among magazine titles.

Joe Mandese contributed to this story.