Further to my posting on Friday about the latest set of ABC circulation figures for national newspapers, I want to draw attention - yet again - to the use of multiple copy sales (aka bulks).
Publishers that either never used bulks or once did, but have since abandoned them, are critical of rivals who continue to use them.
They know well enough that the ABC has strict rules about how it audits copies sold (at a heavily discounted price) to airports, airlines, rail companies, hotels and fast-food outlets. But it doesn’t stop publishers who eschew the use of bulks complaining about them being used to boost headline sales figures.
As for the bulk-users, they view them as a valid addition to over-the-counter sales, arguing that they are read just as avidly by people who pick them up for free.
I’m often struck by the contradictory stance within News UK, where the Times is a consistent user of bulks (a daily average of 21,153 in February) and its executives argue passionately that they form a key part of its overall sale.
Yet its red-top stablemate, the Sun, which has never used bulks on the grounds that they are not “real” sales, criticises, albeit privately, the Daily Mirror for relying on such “giveaways” to boost its headline total.
In February, the Mirror recorded 45,000 bulks, up from 38,500 in the same month the year before, a rise of 14%.
It made a significant difference to the Mirror’s headline figure of course. The Sun was quick to point that out following my piece on Friday.
Similarly, it referred in a critical fashion to the Daily Mail’s bulks, which amounted to 72,208, a substantial reduction on the previous February’s total of 88,595 (-18.5%).
So, News UK, are we to assume that bulks are good when they are Times bulks and bad when they are Mirror/Mail bulks?
Or is it more subtle than that? Is it about income? Given that bulks are sold at a discount to rail and airline companies, the agreed price differs. Some may be sold for, say, 50% of their cover price (presumably making them good) while others may be sold at only a nominal amount (bad).
In spite of that, however, the argument continues. Should papers piled high at airports form part of a newspaper’s headline sale? There cannot be any doubt that copies picked up by travellers are read.
There is also no doubt that it is something of an on-cost for publishers to print and distribute bulks. Those are points in favour of bulk-users.
But there are instances where the use of bulk sales appears disproportionate. Take the Independent and its little sister, i, for example. Of the former’s 59,159 headline sale in February, more than 16,000 were bulks while i’s 278,438 total was cushioned by 62,926 bulks.
Its use of bulks, plus those used by the Times, are in contrast to the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian, which gave them up long ago. I recall a recent conversation about sales with a Telegraph executive in which he referred to having “clean figures”, a common phrase to disparage the use of bulks.
One further, slightly related, point. The Sun has made it clear that it would like analyses of circulation figures to refer to its announcement that it has 225,000 paying digital subscribers.
But this is an absurd request for two reasons. First, the figures are not independently audited. Second, it’s an apple-and-pears argument: print sales are are not digital sales.