There’s been some recent circ chatter about Ontario Out of Doors’ decision to take a shot at competitor Outdoor Canada in a recent circ piece. Without actually naming OC explicitly, the piece (signed by publisher Mike Reader) clearly calls out the magazine’s decision to decrease it’s annual circ from eight to six in it’s opening line: “Why would anyone settle for only 6 issues on an outdoors magazine, when Ontario OUT OF DOORS magazine delivers 10?”

And it doesn’t end there.  “How does a national magazine expect to cover a year of fishing and hunting with 40% less of the issues delivered by your Ontario OUT OF DOORS?” Once the piece has established that OOD is a superior product by virtue of quantity, it then tries to convince the reader that it doesn’t suck like it’s unnamed competitor: “we will never get soft on fishing and hunting content…we will never deliver a skimpy-thin issue…”

My immediate thought? Dirty pool.

First things first: to say that a magazine’s true value is dictated by its frequency is ridiculous. In fact, some of the best magazines this country has to offer have as few as two issues a year. This kind of quantity over quality thinking is what got us into the Canadian Periodical Fund mess. (See Taddle Creek’s recent thoughts on that here.) While I do think any circ piece needs to emphasize the value of subscribing, and that, yes, there is a vast difference between a weekly and a quarterly, saying that a magazine that comes out two more times a year is somehow a better magazine is a weak argument at best.  I like to give consumers credit, and I truly believe that they get this.

This kind of message fails simply because it suggests you have to resort to taking down the other guy to prove you’re any good. We hate people like that in our day-to-day lives, so why would we want to buy a magazine that does the same? There are certainly more subtle and tasteful ways to imply a superior product, methods that in my opinion are more successful. 

I asked Emma Woolley, associate web editor with Quarto Communications/Q on Q Media, for her thoughts on this circ tactic. “I think it makes them look bad to other magazines and advertisers. It's generally a bad idea to compare negatively with other titles (named or unnamed), especially in niche categories, because it results in the entire market seeming weak. Knocking the competition makes a brand look petty and cheap, and distracts from its own value.”

Perhaps it’s naïve of me the think so, but I always believed the magazine industry in Canada to be the kind of place where we were all stronger together. Certainly that is how the magazines I’ve represented have played the game⎯building relationships, doing favours, supporting a community. Woolley sums up my thinking on this by concluding “If OOFD really wanted to emphasize how many issues it produces for such a great deal, it could have been done without the mud-slinging comparison to another title.”

You know who else sums things up well? My mother. She used to always say "they're just jealous."

For more on Ontario Out of Doors’ questionable marketing efforts see the Canadian Magazines Blog.