In the case of Blum’s “choice” to advertise in a competitor, the competitor’s breadth of market reach can be reviewed through its third-party circulation audit. In that case, it is clear the competitor has had serious irregularities in its reporting. Those irregularities are reported, in part, here. Since these are third-party audit reports, and the irregularities have not been resolved, it is apparent that Wood Industry has a superior market reach –magazine recipients – by over 15 percent.
Second, the depth, or focus, of the market penetration can be assessed through readers’ surveys – magazine respondents – an analysis Wood Industry performs every November. In Wood Industry surveys, which publish their methodologies in every report to show statistical validity, you, the readers, report overwhelmingly that you do not like advertiser control of magazines, that 66 percent of you do not read the competitor and that you want Wood Industry to be active and professional in protecting you from commercial control of editorial content.
Third, the issue of standards has been a major point of contention. Wood Industry’s position is simple. Either standards exist, or they do not. For one example, one magazine standard clearly says it is not permissible to put ads on the cover. If you review the competitor’s magazine from 2005 through 2014, there are either ads on the cover, or there are not. There are. So the question is obvious. Why flaunt the standard? Wood Industry has never put an ad on the cover, nor have we violated a number of other known and published standards. Wood Industry does not, for example, promise editorial coverage as part of an ad package, does not allow advertisers to control editorial coverage and does not allow staffers or writers to accept gifts or travel in return for positive editorial coverage. Wood Industry does not plagiarize and does not give away full-page ads, then claim the donation as proof of “support” from the beneficiary.