The competitive situation<\/li><\/ul>Of these, the potential for pass-on readership outside the home is likely to be the most important.\u00a0 It is entirely to be expected that there will be variation by title, and RPC can be high for real reasons.<\/p>
However, in this case the hypothesis is that the \u2018online first\u2019 method, which is primarily self-completion, has increased the potential for title confusion for some titles.\u00a0 If this is the case, readership estimates for some titles may be somewhat inflated.\u00a0 Although most titles have increased RPC as a result of the new method of measuring print readership, some titles have particularly marked increases.<\/p>
One positive change is that the self-completion questionnaire is better suited to picking up occasional and infrequent reading events, and this is one reason why the number of claims to read titles in the past 12 months has risen.<\/p>
On the other hand, while assessing the new method data, the PAMCo Technical Group identified several specific instances where there may be more opportunity for title confusion and over-claim than was the case for the pre-Covid method.<\/p>
There are a number of reasons why title confusion and over-claim can happen in a readership survey, for instance:<\/p>
Titles with very similar names<\/li> Participant uncertainty e.g. \u201cI know I\u2019ve looked at a publication about this topic, not sure which one\u201d<\/li> Participant desire to make a positive claim if they have read a title not shown on the list, claiming a different title with a similar or generic sounding name<\/li> Participant desire to make a positive claim to read more often than they do because they strongly identify with a particular title and want to be seen as a reader<\/li> Strong brand names which may also be associated with other content\/contact points besides the publication itself<\/li> Confusion between print and digital reading<\/li><\/ul>\u00a0<\/p>
The Guardian<\/u><\/strong><\/p> The hypothesis behind high readers-per-copy (RPC) for The Guardian<\/strong> is that there may be a degree of over-claim as a result of readers wanting to identify as regular print readers even if in fact they read in print less regularly than they once did.\u00a0 A similar phenomenon was observed in the final years of The Independent as a print publication, whereby circulation fell but readership increasingly did not fall to the same degree, resulting in a rising RPC over time.\u00a0 If this is true, it is likely that the same effect was present in the previous PAMCo methodology, when The Guardian recorded a RPC of 4.4.\u00a0 The switch to the current self-completion method may have further increased a tendency to overclaim, and RPC currently stands at 8.2.<\/p>The Guardian has a large digital readership.\u00a0 For all titles measured by PAMCo, every effort is made to ensure that participants do not claim reading in print when in fact the reading has been on a digital platform.\u00a0 The \u2018brand first\u2019 method presents the two platforms alongside one another in the questionnaire, clearly distinguishing between them.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
PAMCo produces readership estimates.\u00a0 Readership is an estimate of the number of adults reading an average issue of that publication.\u00a0 Quite separately, ABC (https:\/\/www.abc.org.uk\/) are responsible for auditing circulation.\u00a0\u00a0 Circulation is an audit of the number of copies sold or distributed of a particular publication. Readers-per-copy (RPC) is not directly measured by PAMCo, it simply […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
More information on RPC and reasons for variation in RPC - PAMCo<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n\t \n