I happened upon your post about newsstand sales, and felt that I should respond to keep guilty half-truths from mis-informing your readers. The statement …’seems to set the record straight as to who has bragging rights to the most retail sales figures’… does not reflect reality for a number of reasons.

First, Anderson News actually distributes only about 25% (or 1 in 4 copies) of the overall newsstand market, leaving an overwhelming majority of newsstand sales unrepresented in this listing. And, if you consider that some titles may distribute more (or less) of their newsstand copies via Anderson, they will be either overrepresented or underrepresented in this list compared to the overall numbers.

A more accurate and certifiable listing of magazines’ circulation can be garnered from those publications who are audited by independent third-party companies such as the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), BPA, and others. Unfortunately, because there’s an expense associated with being audited, many of the magazines on the Anderson list are not audited. At this point the only other place to find circulation data is in the December issue of magazines who mail via the U.S. Postal Service. Once a year in that issue, the USPS requires magazines to publish a ‘Statement of Ownership’ that notes key circulation data.

In response to your statement …’from the figures i see above, i’m not too impressed with any of the numbers posted by any of the magazines compared to other national publications in other industries’…you would be well served to view the bigger picture. To give you an idea of the differences from the Anderson list and the most recent ABC figures, consider that American Iron averaged 58,574 copies/month sold on the newsstand for the first 6 months of 2007 – with Anderson selling about 38% of those copies (assuming the Anderson number is also an average for the first 6 months).

Cycle World averaged 60,000 newsstand copies sold/month for the first 6
months, with Anderson selling about 25% of those. And that points out the danger in relying soley on Anderson’s numbers as an absolute guide for ‘braggin rights’. A greater % of American Iron’s sales occured through Anderson, so their number would likely be larger.

And, of course, a discussion only about newsstand sales ignores those readers who commit upfront to subscribe and receive every issue, for many magazines, the greater portion of the total readers (for Cycle World, an additional 264,000 readers!).

Lastly, in response to your online reference …’It seems maybe there is some “cred” with the statement that “Online is cheaper, faster and easier than print to access and has more readers”… perhaps that’s the point entirely. Someone who has plunked down hard earned $$ to buy at the newsstand or to subscibe to a print product has shown greater commitment and engagement than can be measured by casual web viewing. There is no question that online serves a valuable function, but it would be risky to equate it as a replacement for print, especially in a hard core enthusiast segment served by most of the magazine’s on the Anderson list.

One final note. As one important part of your post centered around results of hard-earned ad dollars spent, my advice to your readers who spend ad dollars is simple. Know what you want your advertising to accomplish, and gauging results will be much easier. It will also make it easier to select the publication to carry your message.