Funny numbers: Well, while I’m blogging G+J’s fast numbers, I decided to link to David Carr’s NYT story yesterday about Conde Nast’s decision to do like everyone else, and inflate its “implied” advertising revenue numbers.

Quote:

P.I.B. revenue figures bear little relation to a magazine’s actual advertising revenues - think one part smoke, two parts mirror - and it is hard to defend them.

The totals are calculated by multiplying the number of ad pages by the amount a magazine charges on its rate card, an immediately suspect equation because magazines routinely offer volume discounts, both those published on the rate card and those that are not. (Advertising Age, a trade publication, reported last year that the standard industry discount off the rate card was 32.1 percent.)

Michael J. Jeary, president and chief operating officer of Della Femina Rothschild Jeary & Partners, suggested that while magazine rate cards were made of Silly Putty, other media industries traffic in their own questionable metrics.

Lies, damn lies and rate cards.

Fast numbers: No, I am not the complete and total geek implied by my posting to the rexblog on Christmas day a story about magazine circulation. However, as a couple of Santa items are computer-related (and lots of fun), I happened to be online and, well, the next thing you know I’m blogging someone else’s blue, blue Christmas.

Quote:

For the months of June, July and December 2002, Fast Company overstated its newsstand circulation by around 50 percent each month, according to a report that first ran in Women’s Wear Daily.

Not, that I didn’t suggest earlier that the folks involved had been naughty, not nice, during the past year. No news yet on the company’s new years resolutions.