PICAs slammed by B2B publisher for rewarding "mediocrity"

The Brooke Pattrick ad that was rejected from the PICA Awards showcase publication

click to enlarge

Brooke Patrick Publications, which publish business-to-business magazines for the mining, construction and engineering industries, revealed that it had not entered this year's annual Sappi-sponsored PICA awards due to "questions of credibility" over the awards for business-to-business publications.

As with most awards, someone is always unhappy at the criteria, but it is almost unprecedented for a publisher to make known its frustration so publicly, even when that publisher is trying to promote his own paid-for subscription model that he has apparently hung the future of his business on, as opposed to the free distribution model most B2B publishers use, including internationally, as an accepted business model.

In a statement, headed: "Trophies exchanged for a more objective indicator of success", Gerald Garner, Brooke Pattrick publishing director, confirmed that Brooke Pattrick - winners of several PICA awards in the past - had boycotted the awards this year.

Garner states: "We salute those who have been recognised as PICA winners this year. Over many years the magazine industry has worked hard to build a reputation for the awards, up to the point where a PICA award carries a lot of weight in the field of consumer magazines. However, in the field of business-to-business publications we have always felt that there was some question mark over the credibility of the awards."

MPASA chairperson of the awards, Elizabeth Shorten, told Bizcommunity.com this morning, that there was absolutely no question over the credibility of the awards and that the PICAs remained a highly sought-after award.

"The MPASA Sappi PICA Awards aim to recognise excellence in magazine publishing. Judging criteria are extremely well thought out and carefully weighted and focus on business and publishing models and success, as well as editorial and design excellence. While there may be magazines in the B2B or other sectors that do not achieve high standards, these will automatically be weeded out in the stringent judging process. Such magazines in no way damage the credibility of the awards. In the view of the almost 200 qualified judges, the winners meet the highest standards in magazine publishing. A PICA award is therefore a sought-after accolade.

"As regards the controlled free distribution model for B2B publishing, this is an internationally recognised and perfectly credible model followed by B2B publishers all over the world. Brooke Pattrick has taken an individual company decision to base their circulation on paid subscriptions, which is their prerogative. However, it is not the only way to measure publishing success. Many industry institutes and associations, whose members are key role players in their industries, require free copies of B2B publications as part of their contract with the publisher. There is no disgrace in having a circulation based on free copies to relevant role players, and indeed the broader circulation achieved through this method ensures greater exposure for their products to advertisers who wish to reach as much of their target market as possible."

Shorten added, that as chairperson of the MPASA Sappi PICA Awards, she stands by the credibility of the B2B publishers who will be recognised in tonight's awards, and by the credibility of the awards themselves.

Mediocrity

Garner reiterates that the credibility issue he had raised had less to do with the actual judging of the awards and more with a publishing industry that has become too comfortable with, and protective of, the status quo: "In the B2B publishing field it seems as if mediocrity is often rewarded. For example there are simply too many magazines that are published late while carrying adverts for events that have already passed, yet the publisher is happy to accept the advertiser's money while rendering no service to the advertiser at all."

Finance and sales director Neil Pattrick is also quoted, slamming many business-to-business publishers for their lack of ethics. "Many B2B publishers err in terms of media ethics. We face a situation where publishers constantly publish editorial in order to attract advertisers. The situation is so bad that many magazines publish the editorial and adverts on the same page. The result is a compromised product that offers less value to the reader as the content cannot be trusted. The credibility of the content is in question as it is not selected on merit, but rather to profit the publisher."

The real loser is the advertiser who advertises to an audience who has lost interest in the magazine, they say.

PICA judging

Commenting from the Cape Town airport, where she was just about to get on a plane for Joburg, chief judge Ann Donald said she had no hesitation in saying that the process was absolutely legitimate and credible. "Our judges have different levels of experience. And they bring different viewpoints. Winners are chosen mostly by consensus, the results are highly credible and there is no way they can be influenced. I would not put my name to it if it wasn't a credible process."

She said that any publishers who had issues with the PICA Awards should be taking their concerns directly to the MPASA instead of airing them in the media, as that was the "adult" thing to do.

All entrants to the PICA Awards have to have circulation certificates from the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), to verify subscriptions and sold copies, as well as free distribution lists. Any publisher with an ABC certificate is eligible to enter, regardless of the quality of the publication. Donald says that is what the awards are there for as well: to reward excellence and inspire publishers who did not win.

"At the end of every judging session, comments are collated and the judging process is constantly refined. It's an organic process which improves with feedback from the industry," Donald explains.

Yuven Gounden, PR communication officer, Water Research Commission, who judged the Civil Construction, Building and Infrastructural Development category in the B2B sector also told Bizcommunity.com: "The PICA judging was a very in-depth, comprehensive process. The winning title was selected through intense discussion between the judges. There was very keen competition amongst the titles as the general standard was high. In the end there was not a wide difference in points between the titles."

Ambush

Pattrick elaborates on the reason for their statement, saying that the traditional free targeted distribution model used by most B2B publishers all, or in part, corrupts the industry. "As long as a publisher can compile any mailing list and claim a circulation figure based on the number of unsolicited copies posted out, advertisers will be unable to measure their success."

He said Brooke Pattrick Publications believes that the success of a magazine should be measured by the number of readers who actively choose to read the magazine - this should be measured by paid-subscriptions.

"Our decision not to enter the PICAs was based on the fact that these independent indicators of success don't seem to be taken seriously by B2B magazine publishers. In fact many members of MPASA have actively been campaigning against our model of business," states Garner.

In turn, angry publishers have of course accused Brooke Pattrick of using the occasion of the PICA awards to further its own agenda with its controversial statement. It is believed that the MPASA board rejected an advert as "unsuitable" that Brooke Pattrick tried to place in the showcase PICA Awards magazine which will be distributed at the awards tonight, Thursday 2 November.

Brooke Pattrick Publications believes that its paid-subscription model is more credible and that its ABCs already attest to its success and promotes quality content.