I have been working in six different newsagencies in the last few days on magazine layouts and related matters and have been surprised at the differences I am seeing. I expected four of the six newsagencies to have a demographic similar to that of my newsagency based on the ratio of sales of several niche categories to women’s weeklies. That anticipated similarity is not reflected in magazine range. In these four of the six they each had no more than six crossword titles on the shelves. Here’s our crossword category as photographed yesterday:
Okay, we made a decision some time ago to use the crossword category to declare a point of difference. We did this because crossword customers are loyal to a retailer with a good range, they are regular and they buy other products. In fact, crossword titles are among the most efficient magazines – that is, sales with crossword titles have more items and are worth more based on the data I see.
So back to these other four newsagencies. With only a few titles on the shelf the crossword is not a section. You can barely find it. So, these newsagencies need to either get more stock or get out of the category. The challenge is that if they ask for more stock, what other supply situations are they likely to unlock for their businesses? There is huge mistrust among newsagents about the magazine supply model and no wonder based on common behaviour.
It’s easier and probably safer for the four to leave things as they are and concentrate of more successful categories – they are the low-hanging fruit magazine growth opportunities. Taking a tiny category in pursuit of growth takes capital, space and time – three things newsagents scrounge for.
The question I have is: how did this happen? In my mind every newsagency ought to have a strong crossword category because no other retailer will. It’s a significant point of difference we can embrace. So, how did the category fade and in how many stores?
I don’t mind stocking all the Lovatts and Puzzler ranges.
I do however draw the line on most of the imported magazines as their sell through rate is 0.
Hello.
I have been reading your blog for a while. I have absolutely no interest in newsagents, to be honest. But your passion for your business and your incredible enthusiasm for finding ways to make it better makes this one of my favourite reads.
And it has changed completely the way I look at newsagents and newsagencies. Good on you.
Keep it up.
(Interestingly, I work for Neighbours, so undoubtedly my colleagues are popping into your store on a regular basis).
i agree with matt re: lovatts and puzzler. I stock a couple of imported ones, but there are just too many too carry.
Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to read the blog. Newsagencies are unique to Australia. While they have the ‘shingle’ in other countries, none are like ours.
We see several of the neighbours team regularly. Thankfully they prefer the newsagency over the post office.
mark
Mark
You wrote: “The challenge is that if they ask [the distributor] for more stock, what other supply situations are they likely to unlock for their businesses? There is huge mistrust among newsagents about the magazine supply model and no wonder based on common behaviour.
Distributors offer Magazine Publishers a facility to alter the number of copies supplied to individual Newsagents. Have you ever contacted a Magazine Publisher and asked them to do this for you?
The sale of magazines is a 4-part process: Magazine Publisher to Distributor to Newsagent to Customer. You write factually about the last 3 parts (distributor, newsagent, customer) but appear to have very little knowledge of the 1st element (magazine publisher).
Successful business owners make it a point of knowing all the ins and outs of every aspect of the business they’re in.
It is obvious that Magazine Publishers and Newsagents have the same aim – both want the highest possible sell through rates. Just as Newsagents don’t want to waste valuable “real estate”, Magazine Publisher don’t want their substantial production costs ending up as pulp. Logic dictates that Newsagents make Magazine Publishers their friends, rather than simplistically labelling them as the enemy.
Sure, there are things wrong with the current supply model, but show me something that’s perfect. Instead of constantly focusing on its negative aspects, try viewing it positively and constructively. There are plenty of opportunities just waiting to be discovered. It behoves Magazine Publishers and Newsagents to fully explore each and every one of them so that both parties can achieve the best possible results.
Working together would enable Magazine Publishers and Newsagents to understand each other’s operational needs and they might just find they work together very effectively indeed. That could lead to the formation of a new professional body (association) to provide assistance, support, protection and promotion to its members which would be a powerful force in the industry. An industry association made up of Magazine Publishers and Newsagents (“MPN”) could even set up its own distribution system based on the combined needs of its members, which would be a huge improvement on the flawed distribution methods that currently prevail.
If distribution were handled by “MPN” there would be benefits to both Magazine Publishers and Newsagents. Magazine Publishers would receive sales revenue faster and Newsagents would not have to pay upfront when titles are delivered, thus freeing up their operating capital.
This idea deserves some thought. It may well be the ideal solution to all the difficulties both Magazine Publishers and Newsagents currently have to endure.
United we stand, divided we fall.