According to this article the herald print readership has defied all odds and international treads, managing stellar double digit growth in just one quarter (up 8% YOY).
However circulation figures show a different story (down 6% YOY)
For readership figures to go up on a declining circulation means more people must read each copy - hard to believe in a digital world.
Clearly back in the day the readership survey was a valuable tool for advertisers to decide where to spend their marketing dollar. Now it appears that these figures are so far removed from reality that not even agencies believe them anymore.
Nielsen should be ashamed that their name is on this so called independent research (paid for by the very companies that benefit from them) and it's not the first time the NZME CEO has trumpeted that increase in print readership (despite circulation going backwards)
The formula for working our readership doesn't appear to have developed over the years even though our consumption habits have changed, as I understand it they still multiply the number of copies printed by 4 (e.g. 4 people apparently read each paper)
As a business owner and advertiser I find it impossible to believe these kind of figures, surely someone at some point has to wake up and understand the damage they are doing to their brand by releasing this rubbish?