The salad of numbers is ready
Statistics Because Wemf was sloppy when converting the advertising statistics to AIS, everything got mixed up. The statistics are a construction site.
Statistics Because Wemf was sloppy when converting the advertising statistics to AIS, everything got mixed up. The statistics are a construction site.
At the beginning of the year, Wemf switched its advertising statistics for some newspaper categories to data from the Advertising Index Switzerland (AIS), as it wanted to put two statistics on the same basis and provide more precise data. Instead, there were surprising deviations. At the end of May, however, Wemf seemed to be back in control of the situation. Director René Schmutz said at the time (WW 22/05): "The errors have been identified and corrected. I assume that the data can now be compared with each other. "Shortly afterwards, however, new discrepancies emerged. For example, the May data suddenly contains a note stating that the 2005 volumes of Mittelland Zeitung and Aargauer Zeitung are not comparable with the previous year. Wemf does not provide any explanations.
Differences again and again
Inconsistencies were also discovered elsewhere: For example, Jörg Salzmann, publishing manager of the Walliser Bote, discovered that Wemf was reporting 30 to 50 fewer advertising pages per month for his paper in 2004 and 2005 than had been reported. Differences were also discovered at the St. Galler Tagblatt, the Freiburger Nachrichten, the Tages-Anzeiger, the Basler Zeitung and other titles. One publishing director, who does not wish to be named, grumbles: "Nothing is right at all. And concludes: "That's why we threatened Wemf to withdraw from the statistics."
Rolf Blum, Head of Statistics at Wemf, does not want to get involved in individual cases. However, he confirms that he has received "some complaints" and that there are still inconsistencies. The reason for this is the switch to AIS-based data.
But that alone does not explain such confusion - not in the print industry, which knows how to deal with currency changes. What is certain, however, is that the state clients, the Swiss Press Association and the Association of Swiss Advertising Companies, were not aware of the consequences when they decided to change over. On December 2, 2004, Wemf President Tobias Trevisan told Werbewoche that there would "hardly be a currency break". The industry now knows better, and René Schmutz also admits this: The AIS led to "a break in advertising statistics like when we changed the Mach Basic from the K1 to the LpA value".
Nevertheless, many publishers still do not know when the new currency will apply - from 2005 or from 2004? Both are possible, but it depends on the statistics you consult. This is because the Wemf published two sets of statistics in 2004: On January 14, 2005, it published the version tracked up to December 2004 according to the old system, whose volumes are comparable to those of 2003 or 2002.
The currency break therefore occurred at the turn of the year 2004/05, which meant that it would no longer have been possible to make comparisons with the previous year from the AIS-based data for January 2005. In order to still provide publishers with a comparison with the previous year, it recalculated the 2004 page volumes on the basis of the AIS data that was also available, took the
In February, the company removed the first published 2004 figures from its website and instead published the AIS-based volumes at the same time as those for January 2005.
With these new statistics, the currency break was elegantly brought forward to the turn of the year 2003/04. But with parallel statistics, a jumble of figures was almost inevitable. Part of the confusion mentioned at the beginning can be attributed to this alone. Blum, on the other hand, emphasizes that he announced the exchange campaign in an e-mail on 21 December. This is true, but he did so in such a casual manner that the implications of the move were almost lost on him shortly before Christmas. And even in Wemf press releases, there was at best talk of "innovations", but never of incomparable currencies.
In addition, Wemf only pointed out the start of the "innovation" once, in January, but since then has blurred the date of the currency break: anyone calling up the 2004 volumes automatically receives the incomparable data from 2003 without any warnings. Nevertheless, Blum wants to put an end to this automatism from the June data onwards: The break should become visible.
In other respects, too, the advertising statistics hardly correspond to the state of the art: six newspaper titles whose 2004 volumes Wemf did not reconsolidate according to AIS are not included.
will continue to be reported according to the old system. Even in 2005, "as a transitional solution," Blum reassures us. However, Wemf is systematically mixing cabbage and turnips without making a note of this anywhere.
Anyone who experienced the exemplary Wemf communication at the time of Mach Basic will get the impression that the institute underestimated the problem this time, then covered up the mistakes and finally wanted to pass the buck to the publishers. Many titles had not declared their volumes correctly, which made the switch to AIS necessary in the first place, Schmutz and Blum complain. This is undoubtedly true, but does not make their own actions any better.
However, Blum rejects the accusation of a cover-up: "I believed that we communicated sufficiently via e-mail. All the more so as e-mail is the only means of communication between Wemf and publishers when it comes to advertising statistics. However, we have since realized that we need to follow up and communicate further."
Blum will now "specify" the statistical guidelines and clarify each individual case. Reprogramming is also necessary in some publishers' accounts. From the fall, he then wants to approach each title again, evaluate an issue with each one and
Compare results.
Conclusion: The advertising statistics - contrary to Wemf's reassurances - are still far from balanced. There is still a lot of patching up to be done on this construction site.
Markus Knöpfli
At the beginning of the year, Wemf switched its advertising statistics for some newspaper categories to data from the Advertising Index Switzerland (AIS), as it wanted to put two statistics on the same basis and provide more precise data. Instead, there were surprising deviations. At the end of May, however, Wemf seemed to be back in control of the situation. Director René Schmutz said at the time (WW 22/05): "The errors have been identified and corrected. I assume that the data can now be compared with each other. "Shortly afterwards, however, new discrepancies emerged. For example, the May data suddenly contains a note stating that the 2005 volumes of Mittelland Zeitung and Aargauer Zeitung are not comparable with the previous year. Wemf does not provide any explanations.
Differences again and again
Inconsistencies were also discovered elsewhere: For example, Jörg Salzmann, publishing manager of the Walliser Bote, discovered that Wemf was reporting 30 to 50 fewer advertising pages per month for his paper in 2004 and 2005 than had been reported. Differences were also discovered at the St. Galler Tagblatt, the Freiburger Nachrichten, the Tages-Anzeiger, the Basler Zeitung and other titles. One publishing director, who does not wish to be named, grumbles: "Nothing is right at all. And concludes: "That's why we threatened Wemf to withdraw from the statistics."
Rolf Blum, Head of Statistics at Wemf, does not want to get involved in individual cases. However, he confirms that he has received "some complaints" and that there are still inconsistencies. The reason for this is the switch to AIS-based data.
But that alone does not explain such confusion - not in the print industry, which knows how to deal with currency changes. What is certain, however, is that the state clients, the Swiss Press Association and the Association of Swiss Advertising Companies, were not aware of the consequences when they decided to change over. On December 2, 2004, Wemf President Tobias Trevisan told Werbewoche that there would "hardly be a currency break". The industry now knows better, and René Schmutz also admits this: The AIS led to "a break in advertising statistics like when we changed the Mach Basic from the K1 to the LpA value".
Nevertheless, many publishers still do not know when the new currency will apply - from 2005 or from 2004? Both are possible, but it depends on the statistics you consult. This is because the Wemf published two sets of statistics in 2004: On January 14, 2005, it published the version tracked up to December 2004 according to the old system, whose volumes are comparable to those of 2003 or 2002.
The currency break therefore occurred at the turn of the year 2004/05, which meant that it would no longer have been possible to make comparisons with the previous year from the AIS-based data for January 2005. In order to still provide publishers with a comparison with the previous year, it recalculated the 2004 page volumes on the basis of the AIS data that was also available, took the
In February, the company removed the first published 2004 figures from its website and instead published the AIS-based volumes at the same time as those for January 2005.
With these new statistics, the currency break was elegantly brought forward to the turn of the year 2003/04. But with parallel statistics, a jumble of figures was almost inevitable. Part of the confusion mentioned at the beginning can be attributed to this alone. Blum, on the other hand, emphasizes that he announced the exchange campaign in an e-mail on 21 December. This is true, but he did so in such a casual manner that the implications of the move were almost lost on him shortly before Christmas. And even in Wemf press releases, there was at best talk of "innovations", but never of incomparable currencies.
In addition, Wemf only pointed out the start of the "innovation" once, in January, but since then has blurred the date of the currency break: anyone calling up the 2004 volumes automatically receives the incomparable data from 2003 without any warnings. Nevertheless, Blum wants to put an end to this automatism from the June data onwards: The break should become visible.
In other respects, too, the advertising statistics hardly correspond to the state of the art: six newspaper titles whose 2004 volumes Wemf did not reconsolidate according to AIS are not included.
will continue to be reported according to the old system. Even in 2005, "as a transitional solution," Blum reassures us. However, Wemf is systematically mixing cabbage and turnips without making a note of this anywhere.
Anyone who experienced the exemplary Wemf communication at the time of Mach Basic will get the impression that the institute underestimated the problem this time, then covered up the mistakes and finally wanted to pass the buck to the publishers. Many titles had not declared their volumes correctly, which made the switch to AIS necessary in the first place, Schmutz and Blum complain. This is undoubtedly true, but does not make their own actions any better.
However, Blum rejects the accusation of a cover-up: "I believed that we communicated sufficiently via e-mail. All the more so as e-mail is the only means of communication between Wemf and publishers when it comes to advertising statistics. However, we have since realized that we need to follow up and communicate further."
Blum will now "specify" the statistical guidelines and clarify each individual case. Reprogramming is also necessary in some publishers' accounts. From the fall, he then wants to approach each title again, evaluate an issue with each one and
Compare results.
Conclusion: The advertising statistics - contrary to Wemf's reassurances - are still far from balanced. There is still a lot of patching up to be done on this construction site.
Markus Knöpfli
