I suggest that the publishing industry establish a full-time (paid) position called, for lack of a better name, Title Proliferation Prevention Czar.
The person in this position would be responsible for developing a program that defines distribution criteria guidelines for all publications going to chain stores.
That’s Brad David writing at Circulation Management magazine, April 3, 2006.
Around the same time, I blogged here and wrote elsewhere about the need for a magazine czar to manage the newsagency channel. Our czar could/should go beyond that proposed by Davis for the US. They ought to have the final say on whether a title can access our network.
Newsagents offer the most cost effective means of publishers getting their product in front of consumers yet we do not control depth of range.
Many of our categories are overloaded. We expect magazine distributors to manage these categories and some do. However, magazine distributors only look at the titles they offer. An appropriately resourced and strong magazine czar could approve every title before it could access our channel. This would stop us carrying too many titles in any one category. They could set KPIs which distributors would need to adhere to for their product to continue to have access to the channel.
Unless newsagents manage their (our) network as if it is the most important asset we will continue to be over supplied, under supplied, supplied on poor terms and expected to outperform – in terms of space and display allocation – every other retailer provided with magazines.
The newsagency channel magazine czar needs to be funded solely by newsagents. He or she needs the authority to operate without fear of reprisal from magazine distributors and publishers. Newsagents need to build a fence around their network, set KPIs for access and manage those which vigour.
This approach is not new. Phillip Parsons started work on magazine KPIs when he was Managing Director of Network Services. I was fortunate to see early drafts and agreed with most points. When Parsons left Network the KPI project stopped.
Senior management at Gordon and Gotch have implemented changes which have addressed many of their over supply issues. Their work a couple of years ago was based on KPIs for titles which they determined after researching title performance.
Sometimes newsagents are fooled by this activity by magazine distributors. While it is helpful, it is narrow in its focus. The challenge newsagents face covers all titles. We must look at everything from all distributors.
With commercially appropriate KPIs and a strong czar, publishers, distributors and newsagents ought to make more money from magazines that they do today. The current situation means that newsagents are often unable to display titles sufficiently for them to reach their potential. In some categories, the range is so great that consumers walk away frustrated. Having less of a range but made up of the best titles could address this.
While I accept that the ACCC would need to approve the appointment of a czar, I am confident that newsagents can make a business case. The current situation is too unfair for newsagents. The lack of central control is a reason that 65% of all titles distributed through newsagents are cash flow negative.
This is not a matter to debate with publishers or distributors. We know what their views will be. We need to understand that the network is ours and that it is time for us to manage that asset in the manner which best serves us and our customers.
Brad David actually suggested that “the publishing industry establish a … Czar” NOT the “newsagent channel”.
You must work harder at grasping the point first BEFORE you attempt to amplify it.
When you fail to grasp the point first, your words are meaningless.
Lee, Mark did not say that Brad David said the newsagency channel shoud establish a czar.
I suggest you read the the post again.
Dammit Jarryd, go obfuscate somewhere else.
Brad David stated the PUBLISHING industry needed a czar.
Mark rambled on about a NEWSAGENT CHANNEL czar.
So Mark’s DISAGREEING with the US guru.
How many czars does it take to change a light bulb?
I do not know whether or not Mark is disagreeing with the Brad David.
From what i read, he has simply drawn a link between two similar czar ideas.
But the needs of the publishing and newsagency industry are very similar if not identical in respect to the need for a czar. I think both industries would benifit immensly from a czar.
As Nelson pointed out, the czar will be paid for by taxpayers, and now you want 2 of them – you’re dead keen on making sure prices escalate and losing your taxpaying customers.
Get real.
Lee,
I read what Brad David wrote last year and understand the difference of what he proposes compared to what I propose. The approach is different but the goal the same.
Newsagents are oversupplied and over ranged. A czar, working for newsagents and controlling access to their network, could help address that. The current approach of three distributors controlling only their own turf suits them but not always us. The distributors are doing what is right for their business and I respect their right to do that. Newsagents need to act in a way which is right for their businesses.
I see the czar as a cost of business – publishers and distributors could pay.
Either that Lee or newsagents do nothing and the bitching and moaning and losses associated with the current system continue. I am offering a practical solution for debate. Surely that is better than doing nothing?
Mark Fletcher
Why would a czar be paid for by taxpayers?
You must have missed the part where Mark states “The newsagency channel magazine czar needs to be funded solely by newsagents”.
And i did not say I wanted 2 czars. I said “both industries would benefit from a czar. A czar, being one. I did not mean to imply that they each needed one.