New Pro-Audit Campaign Faces Wrath of Critics

Last week, the BPA, ABC and a number of advertising and magazine associations launched a campaign targeting client-side marketers who buy non-audited b-to-b publications. Called Buy Safe Media, the program uses direct marketing to drive buyers to a cartoonish Web site which features a video and information on the potential pitfalls of un-audited media—a calculated attempt to shut non-audited titles out of the buying process, or, at least, indirectly convince them to become audited.

The campaign invoked the wrath of Bob Sacks, a prolific columnist and media industry observer, who opened a blog post this way: "The new pathology detailed below actually disgusts me." He calls the Buy Safe program "an attack at the heart of the entrepreneurial publishing business."

Mr. Magazine himself, Samir Husni, got into the action, too: "Both Bob Sacks and myself were horrified to say the least on how low some folks in our industry are willing to sink in order to make their business flourish."

BPA CEO Glenn Hansen promptly took Sacks to task for not bringing him into the loop before posting the initial rant. Sacks has since opened the dialog to his newsletter readers, and promised Hansen a soon-to-be-published interview.

At the heart of the argument, according to Sacks and Samir, is auditing is a choice, not a requirement, and magazines should focus their attention on "customers that count" and other media rather than lobbing grenades into their own camp.

The issue echoes what Jack Kliger, the recently decamped CEO of Hachette Filipacchi, has been vocal about for years: That magazines should focus more attention on reader engagement, less on rate base, and promote their brands as alternatives to other media and not each other.

Can magazines afford to be mutually exclusive? Or should they focus instead on selling total audience and engagement? What do advertisers really want, and care about in terms of audience and circulation?

RELATED LINKS

By Bill Mickey --

COMMENTS/DISCUSS: 4

Post Comment / Discuss This Blog - Info/Rules

Entrepreneurial?

Submitted by Paul Woodward on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 22:37.

Can we infer from this that "the heart of the entrepreneurial publishing business" is taken to be having the liberty to lie about circulation and readership? Surely not. If not, what's the beef?

Peter Black has responded to

Submitted by Stephanie Inglis on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 13:04.

Peter Black has responded to this issue on the Buy Safe Media website (http://www.buysafemedia.com/index.php?mode=blog) last week.

Inappropriate!

Submitted by Barbara Shepherd on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 18:24.

It's inappropriate for a so-called independent auditing company to actively solicit advertisers on behalf of a small percentage of its membership. If those members who compete against unaudited titles want to contact the advertisers with information about the value of an audit, that's fine. For BPA to do so is not. Incidentally, I'm glad to know that Glenn Hansen's approval must be sought before posting blogs. My sympathies, Mr. Sacks!

Inappropriate?

Submitted by Peter Black on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 09:35.

BPA is but one stakeholder in the buysafemedia program. Ten other industry organizations believe the program has merit. For us to be involved required approval from our board after vetting through several advisory committees. So it didn't happen without consideration. Our board is weighted so a majority of seats belonging to buyers of media, both marketer companies and ad agencies. We've always been governed by a buyer majority (ABC as well) and it is sometimes forgotten we serve to protect the interests of media buyers too. So this is not just audited publishers trying to push through an agenda. BTW, I was party to the Sacks/Hansen conversation. Bob simply said he should have investigated buysafemedia further before making a judgment. The last thing he was doing was seeking approval.

Your name:

E-mail: *

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subject:

Comment: *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image?: *