If your magazine is one that we’ve reviewed, and you wish to provide updated information, please be aware of our process below: The process for our Comparison Table review is as follows: Annual review External Auditing
Advertising Inspector (AI) present your publishing house with the information that we’ve compiled for your publications sourced from your magazine, company literature and website. This is termed the Initial Comparison Table Submission Date (ICTSD).
At ICTSD, Advertising Inspector set a date (14 days later), which is termed the Final Response Date (FRD), this being the cut-off date by which you are required to provide the revisions you feel necessary before our Comparison Tables go live and get displayed to the public. The FRD is your opportunity to ensure we are in receipt of any figures or information that you dispute, although please be aware of our Evidenced Data Policy. If you miss the FRD, the next revision of data we hold for your publication will take place a year later, on an annual basis.
We will only accept revisions from publishers were there is solid evidence that fully validates any claims made with respect to publication print run, circulation, magazines sold and magazines returned for recycling.
We accept certificates provided by printers – we will directly make them aware that the certificates they produce will be in the public domain – we’ll also remind them that incorrect figures could make them liable to prosecution due to fraudulent operation. We will also accept audits by external agents (see our external auditing below – for small independent publishers). Please be aware that the lack of print certificates or an external audit means your publication will be marked down in AI’s scoring – see scoring breakdown.
We cannot accept print certificates in isolation from their printers because we’re aware that there may be an element of undue influence by publishers possibly due to their buying power, or in many cases, the publisher may own shares within the print company they use to fulfil their print requirements. We require an audit of circulation by a neutral third party, to allow a totally unbiased verification. This can be carried out by an organisation such as ABC.org.uk. We will accept sales reports from distributor and wholesale networks, although, we’d need to see the full report to ensure no bulk purchase padding was taking place. Please be aware that the lack of an external audit means your publication will be strongly marked down in AI’s scoring – see scoring breakdown.
We need to ideally have sight of a map showing each outlet, otherwise a complete list of outlets will suffice. We carry out spot checks by contacting a random sample of outlets to verify.
We need to be given details of the wholesale network your publication uses for distribution. We will contact the wholesaler in order to verify any claims.
Moving forwards from the initial generation of our Comparison Tables, we review publications on an annual basis, providing we feel that the information within our tables needs updating. We’ll accept requests for magazine information amendments at the annual review date which is shown on the appropriate Comparison Table. If you wish AI to review or amend your publication’s details outside of our set annual dates, then a charge applies to cover the time cost.
What we’ll accept for small independent publishers
If you’re carrying out an external audit of your print quantities, perhaps at your store prior to delivery, then it’s a good idea to use local community organisations or charities that will happily appreciate a donation to their cause for carrying out a magazine count. This is easy to organise and we consider it a safe way and cost efficient method to verify print quantities. If you have any queries, please contact us.
If your magazine is one that we’ve reviewed, and you wish to provide updated information, please be aware of our process below:
The process for our Comparison Table review is as follows: