Philippine Magazine News stand Surveys

February 18, 2006

SUMMIT recently made public a TNS survey highlighting the most popular magazines for 2005 based on newsstand sales in over 100 (?) locations. Interesting to note is the tech section where HIP was able to place two of the titles in the top four. That’s PC Magazine in number 2 and m|PH at number 4.

From September 19 to October 3, TNS-Trends, the leading customized marketing research company in the Philippines, visited 150 newsstands in Metro Manila to determine “how many copies of the last issue of the magazine were sold in the last 30 days.”

T3 Philippines placed number 1 (and so did a whole bunch of their titles for other categories. Fishy? Well, I shall not comment). But what’s interesting to note is that regardless of who made it to number 1, SUMMIT has actually placed a mass market standard of measure (like T3’s technology in general theme) and applied it to niche publication titles like m|PH (portable technology) and PC Magazine (ultra geeky stuff like servers and all that AJAX shit).

What does this tell you?

A lot. That our niche tech titles are more widely read than other tech mass consumer mags. And that means a lot. Plus the notion that media buyers allocate advertising budgets for the top 4 publications per category.

HIP

Comments

6 responses to “Philippine Magazine News stand Surveys”

February 19, 2006

n

POINT #1: HIP DOES NOT OWN THE MARKET FOR NICHE TITLES

HIP is not the only publisher producing niche titles or tech niche titles for that matter. You seem to feel that this survey is unjustly biased against HIP because you produce niche titles. HIP may choose to focus on the technology niche but many titles from this survey are also niche magazines in their own categories by Summit AND other publishers, i.e. Food, Baby, Witch, Speed. Therefore, you cannot claim double standard when they apply the same model to everyone else, including themselves and their own niche titles.

POINT #2: YOUR MATH IS WRONG

Based on this survey, PC World and m|PH’ s 13% and 7% market share combined (20%) does not exceed 55% (T3 Market share). In fact, the market share of all the competitors in this category combined still does not exceed that of T3. Therefore, your claim that “our niche tech titles are more widely read than other tech mass consumer mags” doesnâ€™t hold water.

POINT #3: SURVEY WAS DONE BY A THIRD PARTY

The survey was done by TNS. Though it is most likely sponsored by Summit, I highly doubt that any other survey measuring any other success measure carried out by any other independent group or individual would reflect greatly different results.

Your claims are weak. You could have given a more solid defense by arguing that this survey is misleading on several other points. First, margins may be exaggerated by the fact that the survey only covers circulation from 19 Sept to 3 Oct 2005 (coincidentally, when sales peak). Second, they don’t want Summit titles in the same category to appear competitive but are happy to allow it for other publishing houses thus skewing the data to their advantage. To illustrate, they gladly include Bluprint and My Home (both MMPI) under Shelter but discretely omit Marie Claire and Cosmo from Fashion. Third, the TNS report is meant to depict Summit titles as leaders in their respective BROAD categories as this is their key angle, and in this respect the data IS accurate. It was not meant to reflect the success of niche titles within specific categories. Finally, although circulation is a key measure for success it does not bear the same weight for NICHE titles. The very nature of a niche strategy is to capture and maintain a specific minority group and cultivate loyalty. Because you cater to a specific segment you cannot compete on the basis of circulation. Customer loyalty and satisfaction bear a greater influence. If youâ€™re still not at par on those measures then youâ€™re doing something wrong.

Bottom line: Summit has every right to make a claim on their success and they probably didnâ€™t need the TNS report to prove that. You have made the mistake of comparing yourself to them on their terms and not yours.
February 19, 2006

Jayvee

nikki,

my main point was that in terms of media buyer coverage, HIP titles made it to the top four. it doesnt matter who’s number 1 in this matter.

you said — “Because you cater to a specific segment you cannot compete on the basis of circulation. Customer loyalty and satisfaction bear a greater influence. If youâ€™re still not at par on those measures then youâ€™re doing something wrong.”

this is true. which is why i want to use m|PH as an example here. if you take a look at the quality of readers, m|Ph captures more of the tech maven market based on several feedback we get.

this makes us more attractive to media buyers because even though we print much less, we are read by people who can actually influence decision makers (IT managers for PC Mag, user group members for m|PH)

“Bottom line: Summit has every right to make a claim on their success and they probably didnâ€™t need the TNS report to prove that. You have made the mistake of comparing yourself to them on their terms and not yours.” — You have a strong point. But the reality of the situation is that media buyers LOOK AT NUMBERS. We have developed a strategy to enable us to become the most widely circulated just to cater to that notion they have come to accept.

you have interesting insights(!) thats the stuff we talk about everyday in terms of how to position ourself as a niche publication under the inquirer.
April 3, 2006

drugsbuy

Hi 😀
April 4, 2006

oops…

Hi 😀
September 23, 2007

chinky

hey do u happen to know how i can contact the people managing the TNS SUrvey or do they have a website? thanks
July 25, 2008

Cher

Hi I am a magazine aficionado, and I’m doing my undergraduate thesis on the sustainability of niche titles that are not published by the top 3 magazine publishing co. (Summit, ABS-CBN, MMPI). May i know what organization is behind the TNS? i would like to interview them to strengthen my quantitative data.