ASA Adjudication on Archant Ltd

Ad

A B2B e-mail for Photography Monthly magazine stated "Photography Monthly has an ABC audited circulation of 36,028 (Jan-Dec2007) and a monthly readership of 90,070* ... *based on 2.5 readers per copy ...".

Issue

Bright Publishing Ltd challenged whether the claim "a monthly readership of 90,070*" was misleading, because they believed the figure of 2.5 readers per copy could not be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Photography Monthly apologised for any possible confusion and said the original claim was an estimate of the readers per copy for their magazine based on the value attributed to all monthly magazines by the National Readership Survey (NRS). They agreed they should have stated that it was an estimate and made clear the source of the figure. They said they had spoken to the NRS to get a general rule of thumb but had been informed it was very difficult to give them a precise figure for their magazine, because the readers per copy figure for magazines varied so dramatically. They said, however, the NRS had advised them that it could be anything from two to 12 readers per copy.

Photography Monthly argued that their claim was therefore on the low side but said, to provide a future accurate figure, they had conducted their own online survey; they sent a copy of that research. They argued that their online research suggested that they could actually state a reader per copy figure of 3.17. They also said one of their main competitors claimed a reader per copy figure of 4.7 based on NRS research.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted Photography Monthly had estimated the readers per copy figure for their magazine based on the value attributed to all monthly magazines by the NRS. However, we noted the purpose of the e-mail was to encourage advertisers to purchase advertising space in Photography Monthly, and considered that the target audience was likely to expect the claim to be based on independent data specific to Photography Monthly magazine.

We noted, following receipt of the complaint, Photography Monthly had carried out their own survey by e-mailing some of their customers and that the results of that survey gave a figure of more than 2.5 readers per copy. We were concerned, however, that Photography Monthly had not shown the survey used a robust methodology or proved the responses were representative of their readership. We considered that, particularly because it appeared next to a claim about independent ABC audited circulation figures, readers were likely to understand that the readers per copy figure had also been independently measured. We considered that Photography Monthlys own e-mail survey was not sufficient to support the claim and, because we had not seen robust independent evidence to support the figure of 2.5 readers per copy, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Photography Monthly to ensure reader per copy figures were based on robust evidence in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)