Here is a video I shot Monday this week to explain what I think newsagents need to know about the trial of new magazine supply rules proposed by three magazine publishers. It’s a long video but brings to the view concerns about the facts. Please watch it.
In the video you are provides quotes from documents and links to publicly available documents.
Click here to see the minutes of the ACCC conference as released today by the ACCC.
Fantastic video, I recommend every Newsagent watch it.
An excellent and informative video that poses many questions that our industry representatives need to respond to immediately.
It is a must watch for ALL newsagents.
Par excellence.
Thanks for that rounded and compelling information Mark:- hard to believe it’s all free, without the cost of an annual subscription to boot. Meaning I would happily pay an Industry Body if any could aspire to such levels of professional service. Attributes that are sadly lacking in the current crop.
One can’t help but compere this with information received by members of Industry Bodies.
Speaking of documents to read, the ACCC’s minutes of the ‘pre-decision conference’ is a good read to gain further insight into this important matter. That will also be available by the end of this week on the ACCC’s public register.
The minutes generally reflect what Mark has said in the above video which, while not surprising, is refreshing given the spin put on some aspects by others on other websites.
Agree with Warrick & Vaughan, a must see.
And yet the QNF still has its head stuck where the sun don’t shine
Rick I am told Ann Nugent is one who spoke about this issue and my position at a meeting of newsagents recently. I emailed her but no response.
For some reason the sound is so quiet on my compute I can’t hear it properly.
I note the ANF has published a statement today in apparent response to this without mentioning it. The ANF statement contains inaccuracies. Further, it is more information than the ANF has published on this topic previously from what I understand. If that is true – shame on them.
Some comments from ANF representatives indicate that the ANF is clueless on this issue, reinforcing my view that the ANF does not deserve funding from newsagents.
In the statement today, the ANF says, in part:
The ANF and other state newsagent associations are the only parties that hold ACCC Authorisation to invite and participate in collective discussion with suppliers. Without the involvement of the ANF, these discussions would not have been possible. There would not be a discussion about oversupply, we would not be looking for solutions and newsagents would continue to suffer the consequences of this inequitable system.
The question newsagents must ask of the ANF is this: given your position re authorisation, what have you done? Indeed, what have you achieved for newsagents over the last five years? Many newsagents tell me – the ANF has achieved nothing.
Footnote: today’s statement from the ANF does not have a named author. If the ANF understood anything about communication it would personalise statements like this. It is the first step in building trust. Association communication 101 I’d have thought.
Well said Mark.
The only disagreement I have is that you said the MPA trial was not “thoughtfully constructed”.
It WAS VERY thoughtfully constructed, with intent and self serving to the MPA members and Distributors. It IS collusion between publishers to set new rules for Newsagents to enable Newsagents to be their warehouse and bank at once.
This was a back door attempt to get rid of early returns only.
Going to the ACCC, with ANF support to endorse this was a genious move which nearly went through to the keeper, and still may.
The MPA knew the ANF would jump on the bandwagon, they know the ANF are CLUELESS with a proven track record of no research or due diligence.
Thank you and newsXpress for standing up to the MPA, and giving the ACCC the Newsagency side of the story, which we live with everyday.
So the ANF are the only ones who have ACCC authorization can collectively discuss with suppliers ?
So does this give them the right to ignore their members and come up with an agreement THEY think is good for all of us?
What rubbish, they should have had fully consulted with all their members PRIOR to jumping into bed with the MPA
Of course whether you are an ANF member or not, ALL newsagents are dragged into this whether you like it or not .
Next excuse please ANF
Anyone with an open mind watching MF’s video would know that he put forward a number of positive solutions for the betterment of Newsagents and the sale of magazines in this country.
His desire to engage in a positive manner is almost palpable.
It is what it is.
I’m thankful that early returns are up for discussion and have been made an aspect of this trial discussion. Whatever the outcome (of the proposed trial), this needs to happen. It doesn’t feel right to adopt a closed mind about this vital aspect.
Given the statements from MPA about not losing any income (nothing wrong in defending your own patch), the outcomes of any proposed trial should be subject to close scrutiny by any Newsagent looking to protect his own patch of costs. (Nothing wrong with that either) And nothing wrong with shining a light into all the dark corners if as stated by MPA there will be full transparency. So why all the fuss ANF? There is still time to get on-board.
Well done Mark on a considered analysis of the issue at hand. Its devoid of emotional language and provides solid reasoning and potential resolutions.
Also well done to all those newsagents who took the time to either make submissions or attend the the pre determination hearing. Given the first opportunity in years you have taken it and had your position heard. Trial or no trial the conditions stipulated favour the distributors and MPA at our cost.
To those who didn’t take the chance, don’t worry – the ANF speaks for you.
Once again the ANF has been caught with its pants down and again refuses to admit it was wrong. I just cant believe given the documentation available they can still justify their position – actually I can, that’s one reason why my membership lapsed years ago.
Thanks for the feedback.
On the ANF, I think it is time for newsagents to decide the representation they want. Personally, I think it is a mistake funding the organisation today as it have not achieved anything tangible for newsagents in years.
Hamish, Having let my membership lapse some years ago I’ve actually taken the radical step of re-joining. Though I did make it explicitly clear I was re-joining because I was so disgusted with them and wanted some answers. So far I’ve been called Ronald in an email and told I was going to be given some WHS tasks I have to complete. That didn’t go down well with me.
I received an email from my state rep saying they will be in contact in the next few days to welcome me and answer any questions I may have. I replied that they had better have the MPA application on hand especially Annexure C plus any modelling the ANF has done on the impact of the proposed changes otherwise their going to find it hard to keep up. Now I’m just waiting for that call, should be most informative. I think my state reps going to regret saying they’ll answer any question I have.
Re-joining the ANF seamed the best avenue to put some pressure on and get some answers and if I’m not happy with what the ANF does I’m always free to walk away again
Steve I had that view in 2003 and ended up on the Board. That let me see the dysfunction up close. Board decisions comes down to the numbers. Unless smart and engaged newsagents can control the Board newsagents will continue to be let down.
My view today remains – newsagents could make better use of the money they would pay in ANF membership by investing it directly in their own businesses.
I 100% understand your view Mark I have for a long time been of the same opinion. I can think of a number of ways $73 a month could be better spent. However I really want some answers and this is the best way for me try and get the ANF to face up to what is proposed here.
446 views of the video so far. Pleased to see newsagents taking the time to learn about this issue.
Hi Mark, hard to disagree with anything you have said in this video, thanks for your efforts to date.
Capitalism gives us a wonderful mechanism called price. It seems to me that many newsagents are reducing exposure to a decreasingly profitable category, as superior returns can be achieved in other categories.
Did the price we pay (retail margin) for the magazines we sell change in the post 99/Howard deregulation era, or have they always been 25%? If so, who ‘sets’ this margin, and why didn’t it increase after the monopoly of the channel was dismantled?
If distributors REALLY wanted to grow magazine distribution, why wouldn’t they offer to increase the margins received by retailers? This would certainly go a long way towards re-engaging newsagents with this category.
While we are at it, does anyone know what retail margins Coles and Woolies receive for their magazine sales (ignoring their far lower CODB, as mentioned in your vid).
What are the margins received by our international peers (eg a newsagent in the UK or other countries?)
Why are all magazine margins the same? Shouldn’t some publishers be able to pay more to retailers for particular titles, if they deem it worthwhile to do so?
Would be very interested to understand these queries better, thanks again Mark.
Mark, well done on the video. As you say everyone needs to read the documentation and fully understand the implications.
What disturbs me is there are no specific measurable objectives in relation to the ratio between arrivals and sales in total.
Sales efficiency at a title level is a moving target based on the last 4 issues sales, at what point. The outcome will remain the same, no sustainable change.
There is no mention in the trial on range. Last Thursday alone I received 8 new titles from NDC. This is this issue, there is no cap on the level of slow selling rubbish they will distribute to make up their numbers.
The one measure that shows this trial as smoke and mirrors comes from the few numbers that have been submitted. In the Draft Determination and interim authorisation. Under the heading background. Point 6 “Network Services (the distribution division of Bauer Media Pty Ltd) and Gordon & Gotch Australia Pty Ltd (Gordon & Gotch) are the two largest magazine distributors in Australia, distributing 170 million and 190 million copies of magazines respectively through retail outlets and direct subscriptions.
And in Annexure C point 13. “The key to addressing the oversupply issue at the retail level is therefore for the major distributors to agree to simultaneously implement the proposed MPA Code of Conduct. The issue that then arises is that those distributors will be collectively implementing an arrangement that will substantially reduce their revenue, as current estimates of the effect of the implementation of the proposed Code of Conduct will be to remove approximately 11 million copies from the supply chain. This will require that distributors to renegotiate distribution charges with publishers.”
This is only a 3% reduction. This 3% reduction is to be traded for a change to the definition of an Early Returns (Definitions listed in annexure B) means the return by a Retailer of a copy of an Issue to a Distributor, in the case of:
a) a weekly, fortnightly or monthly Title, during the On-sale Period; and
b) any other Title, within 30 days from the On-sale Date.
Whilst this sounds like a small concession it virtually means adding 4 weeks stock to the stock on hand.
Any change affecting a newsagents ability to control their own destiny should be rejected forcefully.
Trent,
The commission (GPO) newsagents earn from magazines has not changed.
Publishers say that the supermarkets get the same GP and I accept this. Supermarkets have other fees, not for all titles, but for plenty from what I understand – marketing fees, pocket fees and, I suspect, handling fees.
As I understand it, many newsagents in the UK make less than us. This is in part due to an extra layer in the handling of magazines.
IPS pays you 27%.
Absolutely sick of having 70% of all returns being Network. So we are reducing the amount of pockets and magazines carried by culling only Network supplied magazines.We are culling, and culling hard. Whether it be publishers or distributors fault we have had enough. Network supplied mags are on the nose.
Peter, send a note to Network on letterhead advising the space available for titles from them. This provides you something on which you could rely if you issue a formal complaint against them. The note is your line in the sand.
Thanks Mark, will do.
Shocked to discover this video has hit 905 views.
Sounds like you are effectively informing the industry Mark 😉
Come on Mark, how many times have you watched it…..??
Haha Peter. What’s interesting is that the majority have watched it all the way through.