Does anyone care about brand B&T?

Not so long ago, the media and ad industry hung on the Friday afternoon publication of the weekly trade journal B&T. Last week the title withdrew from the independent auditing process. What might this say about the future of this once grand old media industry brand?

Last week came the news, reported through Mumbrella (not B&T) , that B&T, a once great brand covering the media and advertising industry in Australia, withdrew from CAB and the Audited Media Association of Australia (AMAA) auditing process. The report, written by Mumbrella’s founder, Tim Burrowes, seemed to pass with little fuss from anyone. Just another publisher choosing to go dark on their circulation? No big deal?

 Mumbrella’s Tim Burrowes associated the withdrawal of B&T, with that of many of the large consumer media print titles recently from paid circulation audits, also conducted by the AMAA.

But this wasn’t a reasonable excuse for a brand that purports to cover the media industry. And which makes most of its money from it.

 Consumer publishers should not be resigning from auditing their paid circulation anyway. They are trying to blur their figures and make us look the other way like some programmatic ad vendors are, and like a lot of political groups are these days. It’s deflection and misdirection, which, not surprisingly, is stock in trade for magicians.

 But at least the consumer publishers provided some semblance of an excuse – albeit a feeble one. They said readership was the more relevant measure so they were dropping circulation measures.

 Their clients are not left without any information about the reach of their titles following their decision to leave paid print title auditing. They can still access long-term, reasonably trend-robust, and independently generated, ‘readership’ data for basic information.

 B&T and Travel Weekly (which also withdrew its audit) are controlled circulation titles and they aren’t in this situation. Their resignation from the AMAA by their owners, Misfits Media, means that their clients have no independently verifiable data at all to rely on with which to assess reach, and with which to make some relative judgement on what the cost of advertising should be in those titles.

 Most controlled circulation titles are not abandoning the AMAA like paid circulation titles are. You don’t see Intermedia, Momentum Media, or even Cirrus Media stopping their CAB audits. The reason is that a controlled circulation audit, or CAB, is the only independent verifiable measure of the basic worth of print B2B titles.

 Abstaining or resigning from auditing in B2B was traditionally the domain of fringe dwellers and fly by night B2B publishers.

 But B&T is not a fringe brand. It is a nearly 70-year-old brand covering the media and ad industry. Resigning their audit is significant for the media industry and people should ask what is going on.

 B&T, Mumbrella and Ad News are the media brands that serve the media in this country. They are, literally, the media of the media.

 Amid the current controversies raging over digital ad fraud, and the fuss over the consumer publishers going dark on their paid print circulation figures, shouldn’t it be up to these three media groups to stand up and be counted? (pun intended). Be the good media citizens and lead from the front?

 Ad News remains audited in print. They moved from a paid circulation audit to a controlled audit about seven years ago and even though their circulation has plummeted over the years they have stuck with their audit. They have never adopted a digital or email audit for which Mumbrella regularly gives them stick. B&T did adopt a digital audit. But at present, they don't have a verifiable digital audit figure, as they "have a technical problem", according to the AMAA. So, no verification at all of any of their media currently, print or digital. Mumbrella audits their email and digital traffic.

 Mumbrella has assumed much of the power and impact of the B&T and Ad News brands as newsmakers and providers in the last eight years. Partly in response, B&T the magazine has made lots of changes since it was a weekly news trade magazine. Some of them potentially in the right direction. It has chased the form and function side of print. At one stage it raised its circulation to 22,000 after reducing the frequency and changing the format. They opted for something that looked good –most recently in the format of Monster Children and published six times a year.

 But something wasn’t working. The circulation starting dropping, even in their audit. The quality of the writing, was, in my view, dropping all the way through this change too. It ultimately felt all a bit cosmetic. There wasn’t a lot of substance, especially in the copy.

 So the next step is what? Drop your audit and hope no one notices?

 Leaving CAB and the AMAA if you are a B2B media group is making a statement that you are not prepared to be transparent anymore with your clients about how many print editions you actually distribute.

 If there is another reason let’s hear it. And quick.

 Some publishers do make this decision. I’m sure it is a hard decision to make. Invariably they are choosing to blur information to their advertisers which isn’t an easy business path for a publisher to take if they've audited for years.

 But if you are a publisher who covers the media business and you do it, you are taking a massive gamble surely. Where is your authority to write anything about the media industry going forward if you don't follow the unwritten rules of good media?

Where is your authority to represent anything about the media business, whether it be to run awards, deliver news, put on conferences or whatever you want to do in this industry?

 B&T still runs some pretty good awards. What is the credibility of those awards based on? The brand. Will their media brand continue to be credible if it is prepared to go dark on independent verifiable confirmation of its distribution? If it has decided not to lead but to follow? And follow some pretty bad examples in consumer publishing?

 A CAB audit for a single print title publishing only six times per year costs about $500. A very small sum for advertiser peace of mind.

 There are some other important issues raised by this decision by B&T that make it seem messy and ill-conceived.

The 2017 media information for B&T says that the circulation is 16,000 and they use the CAB logo to state that their last audited circulation is 14,951. But the audit is from early 2016. So B&T has used the audit organisation brand but didn’t end up auditing in the period it used that brand to sell ads, for more than a year. Its last year of circulation, therefore, has no independent or credible verification. We just have to trust them, retrospectively.

 Do we trust them?

 Did B&T actually print and distribute 16,000 copies each time they published this year as their media material implies? As a CAB logo assures us even?

 They would be leaving themselves wide open by exiting audits in this manner if they haven’t distributed what they advertised. A smart client just needs to request their print or mailing invoices from the period and if they refuse to provide it, then the gig is up.

 And so is their credibility.

 So too would the credibility of the whole media industry be taken down a not insubstantial notch, I suspect.

 By the way. This is a loophole the AMAA needs to close. They should make it a part of an audit contract that if you exit and have been using their logo to advertise an ‘audited circulation’, then you need to prove the circulation for the period you used the logo – even if you leave. Or suffer the consequences.

 The 2017 B&T media kit has no less than 24 industry luminaries, listed on their editorial board in this same media kit. They include people like Russell Howcroft, Adam Ferrier, James Leggett, Peter Horgan and Nicole Sheffield. They are selling B&T by being in their media kit. They are endorsing the B&T brand.

 Does this board think it is OK that B&T, which they are promoting through their endorsement, thinks that auditing media distribution is no longer necessary these days? Did the owners even ask their board members before they withdrew B&T from audit? Or, did they let them know they intended to withdraw, thus leaving the publication unaudited for more than a year while they were endorsing it?

I can see some people rolling their eyes.

 People like to dismiss the AMAA and print these days as not significant. But how is this any different to the issues of trust that are now swirling around digital advertising transparency?

 Publishers blurring transparency on print distribution data is as bad as programmatic vendors attempting to say there has been no issue. They look like dinosaurs because they are acting like dinosaurs. And when the media acts like dinosaurs we get treated like dinosaurs. We are creating our own extinction events. No giant meteors required - although Google and Facebook seem to be looking after that aspect of things just in case.

 Maybe there is a good reason for B&T abandoning its audit. One I have failed to give due consideration too.

 If that is the case, B&T and its owner, the Misfits, should write to Mumbrella or, if they don’t like or trust Mumbrella, to the industry directly in their own media, and explain.

 And if they do, they should make available their mailing invoices for the 2017 year along with the media kit they provided to clients to clear things up. And do the same for their board members perhaps.

 Their decision to not announce anything and not respond to the Mumbrella piece doesn’t engender much confidence that they’ve thought this through. 

 So you still have to ask, what is their logic here?

 B&T the print magazine would be only a minor proportion of their income these days. So why risk your whole portfolio of products – web, email, awards and conferencing - by alerting everyone that you’re prepared to go dark on your audience data for something that small?

 Or have they actually thought it through and have made a calculation that no one will care or notice? A bit like the reaction to the Mumbrella peice.

 Maybe people won’t.

 But that would mean that the B&T the brand is already dead. And I doubt all those luminaries would be in there endorsing it if it was.

 I don’t think B&T is dead. Yet.

 It is still a good brand.

 It has a strong heritage and still has lots of followers. I have been one of them for various reasons for a long time. Working with it at Reed Business Information and later Cirrus Media and then The Misfits.

When we acquired B&T off Cirrus media a bit over three years ago we did so because we saw a great brand, that needed a bit more love and care.

 When a newly minted editor, fresh off the plane from Dubai just over 12 years ago, edited B&T for two years, and breathed life back into it, including launching the first B&T awards, he saw something in it worth his time and energy.

 That editor learnt enough from his stint on this brand to go on and launch Mumbrella.

 So you might argue, even Mumbrella has a little owing to this grand old industry brand.

 The B&T owners still can rescue B&T if they want.

 They can join the AMAA again, and declare their circulation properly to their advertisers and the market. They would wear a bit of shit initially for this maybe, but potentially far more admiration for admitting they have been wrong. Which I think they have been. And taking a leadership role. Something media is in short supply of at the moment when it comes to credibility on transparency.

They would also be ensuring that there is a good brand in there keeping up the good fight with Mumbrella. Ad News would still be around but if B&T goes, that will surely diminish the market.

Save B&T.

Restore its AMAA audit. And its brand credibility.

UPDATE: 6/12/2017

Mumbrella wrote a piece on this post and obtained a comment from the publisher of B&T as follows:

David Hovenden, editor in chief of B&T and CEO of The Misfits Media Company told Mumbrella the company had “zero interest” in the opinions of Knibbs.

“We saw no value in remaining within the print audit. Not one advertiser has asked us about our CAB number in years,” Hovenden said.

“Print is now sold on passion, not reach and frequency. Our online audit has had a technical issue caused by the AMAA’s change to its measurement, which was frustrating for us as we continue to enjoy strong traffic.

“We expect to be back [in the digital audit] next month. The Misfits has enjoyed its most successful year ever in 2017.”

This answers the question I posed as to whether B&T's actions were deliberate or ill-conceived, and also, their intention regarding future auditing.

They seem to be digging an ever deeper hole for themselves as a publisher who covers media. Saying that "print is sold on passion, not reach and frequency", does not make sense. Print is sold on passion, but without any idea of reach, it's hard to see any advertiser being happy. How much passion cancels distribution? And if B&T now says it's OK we tell our advertisers how many we go to, then any advertiser should check the credibility of that statement by asking for their mailhouse receipt. Again, if they don't provide it, they are most likely hiding something. I stand by the idea that they should rethink carefully what they are doing here. If they've had their best year ever, that's great. I certainly want B&T to stay healthy into the future. But how about using some of the proceeds of that great year to spend just $500 and take the 20 minutes or so it takes to fill out a CAB form? As an organisation reporting on and covering the media taking a stand on something that is so easy to fix and not providing any sensible reason why they won't fix it is going to damage this brand a lot eventually.

 In case you didn’t catch it in the article I was once a partner of the group that bought B&T from Cirrus Media, The Misfits. I left The Misfits over a year ago to start my own group and only have two interests left in that business. A fondness for the B&T brand is one interest. The other interest I've been asked not publish as it is seen as confidential by one of the Directors of the Misfits.