I'll try to explain the deal on monthly reports as sent from congregations to the branch. In previous years, the monthly report would go in stating the number of pubs, aux, and reg pios just for that month. For the last service year, they added a new box to report the number of "active publishers". This "active publishers" total would include pubs, aux, reg pios, and irregular publishers. Irregular publishers are those who have submitted a report during the last 6 months. Inactive are those that haven't reported in over 6 months. So, they are asking for a count including irreguler publishers, not inactive publishers. This switch in accounting would easily inflate the number of publishers, as evidenced locally. 2 years ago, Br. Hateservice reported 2 hours in September and 2 hours for March. In the total count, he would have only been 2/12 of a publisher for the year. With a new accounting method, last year Br. Hateservice reported the same activity, would have been irregular for the entire year, but would have been counted as 1 publisher for the year's total instead of a fraction of a publisher.
Have they really changed their accounting methods to include irregular publishers? I don't know for a certainty. While there was a 3% increase, I would have guessed that if they really started including the number of irregulars, it would have been an 8% increase at least. Also, the hour and placement averages show a growth rate which may indicate that there was a genuine growth in the number of publishers... or it may just mean more work done by the already existing publisher base. Are they fudging the figures? Time will tell. Any growth reported by a switch in accounting methods only lasts during one adjustment period. Future years will reveal what direction the trends are really moving.
Will there be a mass exodus? I don't know. But there's plenty of time to watch, and wait, and see.
B the X