To reflect the reality that many readers now read across both print and digital platforms and so a questionnaire which focuses on print reading and asks about digital reading separately is no longer appropriate. To reduce the potential for confusion between print and digital reading (and possible over-claims for print). To collect claimed readership data for all publisher brands which is then used to provide ‘links’ for the fusion with Ipsos iris digital audience estimates. Claimed digital reading is very different from Ipsos iris estimates, and usually lower, not least because participants will not usually remember all the sites they have visited. There is no intention of publishing the claimed digital behaviour, but it helps to have these data in the background for the data integration process.

PAMCo incorporates Ipsos iris estimates for digital platforms, rather than issue its own estimates because Published media wish to have a level playing field with all other digital brands in the market. Buyers have told PAMCo this is critical to enable like for like comparisons and it would be unhelpful for PAMCo to release a different and conflicting set of numbers to those issued by the UKOM approved supplier and de facto industry currency.

For information on Ipsos Iris methodology for measuring digital audiences please contact Tasneem Ali on tasneem.ali@ipsos.com or Jing Yeow on jing.yeow@ipsos.com

In essence, data integration (also known as fusion) transfers audience estimates based on participants in one dataset to participants in another dataset so that there is a combined dataset that represents the data contained in both, as well as the relationships between variables from different datasets.

In order to do this, the fusion finds the best possible matches between participants in the two datasets in respect of their demographics and behaviour.

For more information on the fusion between PAMCo and Ipsos iris click here.

The data integration procedure is designed to match Ipsos iris published estimates as closely as possible.

Users will, however, notice some differences. Ipsos must align the Ipsos iris and PAMCo universes, as there are some differences (notably that Ipsos iris includes Northern Ireland). While the PAMCo survey data is completely preserved by the fusion process, the Ipsos iris data is slightly distorted but is almost always within +/-5% of the original GB part of the currency at the Total Digital level for monthly audiences.

The profile of the monthly digital audiences will match the Ipsos iris data in respect of age band, gender and grouped regions but will not match for other variables, as demographic data from the Ipsos iris data has been replaced with the demographic data of the fused PAMCo survey participants. As most variables present in the two datasets will not have been exactly matched at the most detailed level, differences in profile will be observed.

Click here to see the PAMCo Measurement criteria.

Click here to see the PAMCo Publication rules.

The disruption caused by Covid from March 2020 onwards made it necessary to evolve the PAMCo methodology. Even before Covid struck there were plans to take a small proportion of interviews online in 2021 (as a follow-up to improve response) and to test taking a larger portion of interviews online via an ‘online first’ mixed methodology.

As a response to restrictions on face-to-face interviewing following the onset of the Covid pandemic in March 2020, plans to test ‘online first’ were accelerated. What followed was an intensive period of testing in 2020. 12 separate tests were conducted, culminating in a large ‘live’ test which started in September 2020 and was completed, post lockdown, in April and May 2021.

The new method was approved by the PAMCo Board, with the advice of the PAMCo Technical Group, as “the best possible in the circumstances”. Now restrictions on face-to-face interviewing have been lifted, the option of a face-to-face interview is also available in many cases. However the new method remains primarily online self-completion.

There are major differences in both interview mode and sample. The interview mode is self-completion, completed either online or using a paper self-completion questionnaire. Previously the interview was conducted in-home face-to-face by an Ipsos interviewer.

Around 60% of interviews are completed online. The remainder are CAPI interviews conducted by an interviewer or paper self-completion questionnaires. There are different rules as to who can be interviewed than was the case with pre-Covid PAMCo. Previously specific households were sampled, and then specific individuals aged 15+ within the household, with no substitutions allowed. For the new method specific households are sampled in a similar way, but the invitation is for up to two household members to take part, without restriction as to who they are, other than that they are aged 15 or over.

Response rates are different to the previous method, both overall and by particular demographics. This has implications for the readership data obtained and is discussed more in response to the next question.

The effects for the data collected are as follows:  

• As participants go through the questionnaire themselves, they are more likely to identify the full range of titles they read, including infrequently read titles. 
• However, the self-completion method is more prone to title confusion, particularly for certain types of publication, especially those with generic sounding names.  
• It is not possible to collect all data in full using a paper questionnaire.  For instance, it is not possible to ask source of copy and attitude statement data for individual brands.  This is collected generically for types of publication and then allocated to titles with average issue readership claims.   
• Inevitably, not all questions will be answered in the paper questionnaire.  
• It is particularly challenging to collect the information required for allocating social grade via a self-completion questionnaire.  Detailed social grade classification requires a sequence of questions which it is much easier for interviewers to administer, and interviewers receive special training how to elicit the information required.  Inevitably there will be some gaps in the information collected by the new method either because participants are unwilling to give it, or because it is not possible to anticipate follow-up questions required.  Full social grade information is not available for about 13% of the weighted population.  This gap has been filled by a modelling process based on other information given in the interview.    
• A considerable focus of the development testing was in improving questionnaire design to minimise the impact of the issues above, particularly in respect of the paper self-completion questionnaire.  

Although over 90% of the population use the internet, not everyone is able to, and there are also some users who would not be comfortable completing a detailed questionnaire online.

It is important that households are sampled in such a way as to ensure everyone has the chance to be selected and the sample is therefore representative of the whole population. Using the postal address file to select addresses is the best way of doing this. There isn’t an equivalent comprehensive database of email addresses to use for sampling purposes. Where email databases exist they will be incomplete, get out-of-date quickly and be subject to GDPR restrictions.

Participants are offered an incentive for completing a questionnaire. This is given in the form of an Amazon or Love2Shop voucher (the latter can be used in numerous high street stores). Alternatively, the participant can opt to donate the sum to a choice of three charities.

The previous PAMCo method did offer incentives in London and the South-East where it was more challenging to get response, but not elsewhere in the country. With the switch to a self-completion methodology, it is necessary to offer incentives throughout the country.

It is not possible to carry out the field stage (i.e., the in-person visits to non-responsive households) if lockdown restrictions are in place. For this reason if restrictions are imposed fieldwork must be suspended in the affected area.

If the restrictions are in a very specific area this should not interrupt reporting and the sample in that area will be re-scheduled for when restrictions are lifted. More widespread restrictions are likely to affect the reporting of fresh print data. The digital audience estimates are unaffected.

No. The differences in sample and method mean that it is not possible to make a like-for-like comparison or look at trends between the two.

The new method makes it more challenging to get those in DE social grades to take part, and has brought other changes to the sample profile before weighting is applied, including an increased proportion of C1s.

It is also worth noting the challenge of collecting the information required for allocating social grade via a self-completion questionnaire. Interviewers are trained to elicit the detailed information required. Full social grade information is not available for about 11% of the sample and 13% of the weighted population. A predictive CHAID model has been used to assign social grade where it is missing. The CHAID model is informed by other information given in the interview such as Chief Income Earner income, working status, terminal education age, household tenure etc.

Long before the Covid situation PAMCo had decided to move to a two-year reporting database based on a sample of 44,000 from January 2021 onwards.  This replaces the previous one-year database of 36,000.

• To save on fieldwork costs as 22,000 interviews rather than 36,000 would be required per year.  Fieldwork accounts for the majority of PAMCO’s costs.
• Moving to 44,000 sample two-year database gives a larger reporting sample for small brands relative to the previous 36,000 sample one year database.
• The change was in the context of a shifting focus, with a changing balance between print and digital readership in many cases.

PAMCo changed methodology to ‘online first’ in Q.4 2020. The decision to change the methodology arose from a need to adapt to Covid times (which meant it was no longer possible to rely on face-to-face interviewing in home) and to ensure that the measurement solution for print remains future facing, flexible and efficient as digital growth continues.

As expected, when there is a major change in methodology there will also be a step change in the readership estimates. The ‘online-first’ approach brought considerable change to both the sample and interviewing mode compared to the previous in-home face-to-face method. More information about the methodology change can be found in the FAQs (13-15).

As a generalisation, most print titles measured by PAMCo recorded higher print readerships using the new ‘online first’ method, despite declining circulations. PAMCo’s digital estimates have not been impacted. The change to the print estimates was an anticipated outcome from the methodological changes and given the research challenges faced one that was supported by both the PAMCo Board and Technical Group as best possible readership estimates in the circumstances.

Higher print readership has resulted in higher readers-per-copy (RPC) estimates for most paid-for titles, however the degree of increase in RPC for a number of news and magazine titles has raised some questions. For more information on RPC and reasons for variation in RPC click here.

The PAMCo Technical Group is currently investigating several options to see if improvements to the measurement can be made. These include a review of survey prompts and questions for all titles, to emphasise further that participants are being asked about PRINTED copies. A test of changes to the readership question for weekday newspapers is also being considered. An increasing proportion of interviewer administered interviews (as an alternative to self-completion) may also help.