Brand Lab UK has published an overview of The Loyalty Challenge – How Consumer Magazine Subscriptions Work. The report by Jim Bilton draws on some interesting market research from the UK including, in part:
70% of subscribers buy their magazine from retail prior to subscription.
When the subscription lapses, 45% go back to purchasing the title at retail.
The report looks at the cost to publishers of loyalty and the consumer habits subscription drives have created.
I’d like to see similar research as long as it includes putaways in the mix. Some newsagents have up to 500 putaway customers, many long term, having titles put away behind the counter for full price. This is the type of consumer publishers and newsagents like yet publishers have no idea of how many there are and cannot therefore assess the importance of a strong newsagent putaway service.
While the Loyalty Challenge report says that subscriptions are about price, putaways are about service, showing that excellent service for the right product takes price out of the equation. This is why all newsagents should offer a well structured and disciplined putaway service and promote it at every opportunity. It’s our point of difference. Ideally, publishers would partner with us and financially allow us to afford to reward putaway loyalty.
If your intention was to convince newsagents to have a well structured and disciplined putaway service and promote it at every opportunity – bravo. If it was to prove that your recent statements about magazine subscriptions are accurate – you failed.
Astute business people compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges. Your business and your customers are in Australia. The Australian market differs markedly from the UK market, viz
Australia has one of the world’s highest per capita rates of consumer magazine sales.
and
The vast majority of Australian consumer magazine sales are made at retail level rather than through subscription. Newsstand (newsagent, supermarket and other retail) sales account for approximately 90% of all magazine sales in Australia.
[Source: Nielson Media Research]
High quality Australian market research is based on scrupulous research methods and 100% objectivity. The BrandLab report does not employ such standards. It grabs attention because it is chock full of “emotive” and “empty” statements. While commissioned by “PPA in association with Royal Mail” it suggests the Royal Mail paid for it. It is noted you did not mention the report was commissioned while the UK is experiencing “a declining market in consumer magazine sales.” [source: Office of Fair Trading].
Conclusion: The BrandLab report is not objective and it was not conducted in Australia. Simplistically stating Brandlab ran a series of focus groups and a major online quantitative survey to find out what is actually going on is a very poor substitute for providing a full description of the degree of pre-survey research that was undertaken on the subject. Equally poor is the omission of the number of people (and their occupations) who participated in each focus group and online survey. Due to such overt lack of transparency, the BrandLab report is ‘caveat emptor’ and therefore of little value, even in its country of origin.
You are seriously misinforming your colleagues by mentioning this report on this blog. You need to lift your game.
C Stephens or it is M Stephens or Jim or Lee or Denise – or other names being used from the last IP address you used…
I suggest you read my blog post again. The intention is most clear.
Mark Fletcher
PS. Step out from your pseudonyms and tell people here who you really are and what your background is for without that they will disregard your
Dear CS
Your attempt at an academic dissertation and critique is interesting but would score a fail. Reason: you miss the point, Mark would like an independent survey which takes into account the service provided by Australian newsagents via the putaway model.
Fred
No point was missed, simply not considered worthy of response, however as you insist:
If Mark wants an independent survey which takes into account the service provided by Australian newsagents via the putaway model he should commission and pay for one.
Putaways are delayed retail sales, at the discretion of the newsagent who chooses whether to provide such a service for their customers. Akin to the lay-by service some merchandise retailers provide. Such services are
provided to build store loyalty, not single item brand loyalty.
Re: Ideally, publishers would partner with us. Publishers do partner newsagents, they provide the products which the newsagent – i.e. retailer – sells. Like the partnership between hammer manufacturers and hardware stores.
C Stephens
C Stephens or it is M Stephens or Jim or Lee or Denise – or other names being used from the joint IP address you used…
It is not my place to commission such a survey. But hey if you want me to pay for that what else would you like me to personally fund?
Your description of putaways is wrong and demonstrated ignorance of how they operate in many newsagencies. But you will not be told.
It is clear from your comments here that you are not interested in newsagents who do want to grow sales.
Mark Fletcher
CS
I doubt you understand the Put Away model.
The way it works is, a customer asks the newsagent to “put away” an edition of a publication for collection at a later date. The newsagent takes the risk that the customer may choose to not collect the publication. It is a customer driven service.
To say that the supplier/retailer model of publisher/newsagent is analagous to that of a hammer manufacturer and a hardware store is hopelessly wrong. The hardware store, if it wants 10 claw hammers, orders and gets 10 claw hammers. It does not receive 5 claw hammers plus 3 ball and peen hammers plus a mallet. He gets the quantity and type wants.
Compare this to the newsagent who is deprived of wanted product and over supplied with poor sellers and bogus special packs.
F
You’re a whiz with a sledgehammer, but your eyes aren’t the best. You’re seeing things that aren’t there.
Publishers do partner newsagents, they make products which the newsagent sells. Like the partnership between hammer manufacturers and hardware stores.
No mention of supply there and the analogy is clearly a publisher to a newsagent is like a hammer manufacturer to a hardware store.
C Stephens
CS
You are ignoring the supply chain via the distributors. The magazine model is that the publishers provide product to the likes of Network, NDD and Gordon & Gotch who then distribute the product on their behalf.
The agents of the publishers, that is, the distributors, who in some cases are part of the same ownership group as the publishers, have the major control over what is supplied.
The publishers, rarely, if ever, go directly to the end seller, nor are end sellers readily able to contact the publisher.
As has been documented in this blog, there are are many instances of product being foisted on newsagents that are unprofitable because of the effect on cash flow and the taking up of space that could be better used.
Publishers make product that newsagents sell, true. But that does not mean that the products are advantageous to end seller.
Publishers routinely overproduce and supply, and they accept that they do by allowing returns. Very few other industries have such a rampant sale or return regime.
Maybe, publishers/distributors should go to a consignment basis of supply! This would transfer the risk back to the publisher.
Another nice try, Fred, but you chose earlier to focus on Mark’s words Ideally, publishers would partner with us… and I responded to your focus (stayed on topic) despite Mark’s valiant attempt to avoid recognising that publishers partner newsagents.
You are behaving just like a pompous politician who responds to a simple question with a long dissertation on extraneous matters when a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ would suffice. Very silly and very boring.
Yes, there are 3 players – publishers, distributors, newsagents. My point being that if newsagents recognise and acknowledge the publisher-newsagent partnership, the supply problems caused by many publishers could be solved collaboratively by that partnership.
C Stephens
I saw this post about ‘putaways’ and it made me remember a convo’ I had with a newsagent on Jetty Rd Glenelg. He had tis really odd looking 3 tiered rack opposite the counter with a whole heap/mishmash of magazines in no order at all. A real grab bag of a selection. When I asked if they’re for sale I was told “Sure, help yourself” but what really surprised me was that after enquiring why would you have such a hideous layout I was told “It’s mag’s/putaways that customers come in to put on hold and they had never come in to pick them back up !” At least 50 mags all up. So Mark has got it right.
Apparently in seaside/tourist spots like Glenelg visitors can cause more of a problem being more ‘transient’ in nature.
something i just noticed at big w while shopping tonight placed at every checkout, don’t know how new they are…
http://www.bigw.com.au/Pages/Product_of_the_month.asp