Controversy swirls over Simmons' reader data - Simmons Market Research Data - reprinted from Inside Media

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, Sept 1, 1994 by Wayne Friedman

Simmons Market Research Bureau says a confidential draft report by a Magazine Publishers of America committee questioning SMRB's readership data from 1990 to 1993 is biased, and that some of its authors have a "hidden agenda" in attacking the company's research. (See "Simmons Research falls under MPA scrutiny," Folio:, August 1, page 16)

Simmons has issued written responses to its clients about the MPA draft, but some of the claims made in those responses appear to be misleading and have only sparked more controversy. The MPA committee consists of 34 research directors from consumer magazines, some of them Simmons clients.

Meanwhile, in what may or may not be a related event, sources say that Conde Nast Publications, believed to be SMRB's second-biggest account after Time Inc., has decided not to buy SMRB data for the coming year - although the decision may have less to do with the current controversy and more with the fact that Conde Nast competitor Hearst Publications is no longer a Simmons client,

Tim Bowles, chief executive of MRB Group Ltd.,. the London-based parent of SMRB and a holding of WPP Group plc, won't comment on the situation with Conde Nast, which is said to represent nearly $1 million in revenue for Simmons.

The MPA report comes at an awkward time for the research company. Lenders have been pressuring Martin Sorrell, WPP chief executive, to pay down debt, and the possibility of divesting MRB and other WPP research divisions has been studied. There has also been talk of combining MRB and the other divisions and selling off 49 percent of the entity. Either way, any damage to Simmons' profits or image could only hinder Sorrell's efforts.

Volatile statistics

Among other things in the MPA report, Simmons takes issue with a segment of its own data that is given much attention by the MPA committee. Simmons says data from the broadest group of readers - called "screens" and encompassing everyone from browsers to hardcore. specific-issue readers - are an "inherently volatile statistic" that should not be considered in any readership conclusions.

The company maintains that screens are not useful in determining "reads" - those survey respondents who say they read a specific issue in a given time period. "Reads" are the data from which readership numbers are derived, and upon which ad agencies make their multibillion-dollar, print-buying decisions.

Key to the MPA committee's work was the screen data Simmons provided. As a policy, Simmons doesn't release screen data to its clients. In responding to the MPA draft, Simmons compares its data to that of arch-rival Mediamark Research Inc., noting that in some instances Simmons' figures are more stable than those of MRI. But some researchers say this misses the point, that the real issue is how Simmons' data compares to itself over a roughly 10-year period, not how it compares to MRI's.

Simmons changed the way it conducts its surveys in 1991, and some people speculate that the changes - including more questions - may have tainted the numbers. The MPA report notes a rise in read-to-screen ratios in the Simmons data - meaning that the percentage of serious readers has been growing, while the number of casual readers, or screens, has been dropping. Ladies' Home Journal, for example, registered a read-to-screen ratio of 79 percent in 1993 after years of coming in around 50 percent.

The drop in Simmons screens became so severe that one particular segment - two-issue readers, called "C2s" - actually outnumbered screens, which represent the bigger pool of all potential readers. As a result, screens of Ladies' Home Journal in 1993 totaled 18.1 million, but C2 readers numbered 20.2 million. Likewise, TV Guide's screens totaled 47.9 million, compared with 48.7 million C2s.

In mid-July, Bowles requested a meeting with MPA head Don Kummerfeld. After that meeting, Simmons proceeded to disparage the report, telling its clients the MPA had agreed on the need for a new study and that the committee's work had been "disavowed. " Kummerfeld says the opposite is true. "We feel the committee's report was impartial," he says. "The MPA has done nothing wrong."

Nonetheless, the MPA agreed to Simmons' request that another consultant be hired - funded by MRI and Simmons - to study additional data supplied by both. MRI, however, wants no part of that idea. "I'm happy with the report," says MRI chairman and CEO Alain Tessier. "I don't think we have to participate in some Simmons initiative on this issue. "