The sell through rate for any magazine is an ideal metric indicating the efficiency of the magazine supply model. The crossword category is an ideal place for comparing titles. Take NDD crossword related titles for example: more than half NDD supplied crossword titles in my newsagency have a sell through rate of 30% or less. That is, 70% of what NDD sends fails to sell.
I have Dell crossword titles with an annual sell through rate as low as 6%. The overall average for Dell titles is appalling – if the NDD supply model was as good as they claim to publishers I would not be receiving this range. That NDD still supplies me says more about their business model driving their cashflow than what is best for the title and the newsagency.
Other ranges which sell poorly include: All Star, Easy and Variety. In can tell this from my sell through arte data – the same data the experts at NDD have access to when deciding what I should receive.
NDD has good titles like the Lovatts products – they have a sell through of 70%. The problem is that crosswords space for Lovatts is taken by the overseas and other junk from NDD.
Before people say I should contact the publisher – they do not supply overseas crossword product as these titles are purchased by NDD and distributed here solely by them.
In Chopping naturist magazines on 7 May 2007 you wrote: This is what newsagents must do – decide on the threshold, where depth of range can be cost justified and then kill the titles which fall below.
Time to follow your own advice?
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
C Stephens,
The point is newsagents shoud not have to micro managing their magazine range to such an extent.
When NDD and the other distributors have access to data that overtly shows gross over supply, one may begin to perceive their conduct as unconscionable.
The advice was to make sound business decisions based on range and costs.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
We run tower at our newsagency and when I did a sell through report for the last 6 months for titles that on average sell through less then 40% from all three distributors I got 36 pages of titles. Thats 36 pages of titles that I have to return over 1/2 my supply.
C Stevens I only hope that as well as monitor this blog site you are talking to your staff as to these problems raised here. Yes newsagents need to manage thier stock but distributors need to manage thiers.
Luke
Mark wrote decide on the threshold, where depth of range can be cost justified and then kill the titles which fall below. If your current depth of range is cost justified, you are free to ignore his advice.
If, however, you cannot cost justify your current range, Mark recommends you kill the titles which fall below, presumably removing magazine display furniture as it becomes surplus to requirement. I would also recommend that newsagents in this situation put up a sign that states “If we haven’t got the magazine you want, we can get it in for you.”
Being a magazine specialist does not mean stocking nearly every title or having a range of similar titles, however knowing how and where to get individual titles and being prepared to offer this personal service to customers will soon have customers believing their newsagent is “a magazine specialist”.
Regarding newsagents need to manage thier stock but distributors need to manage thiers the point is if enough newsagents start following Mark’s advice, distributors will realise newsagents mean business, and distributors will have to pull up their socks.
It should not be necessary for you to “kill off” all 36 pages of under-performing titles. Just make a start with some of your worst-performing titles. If enough newsagents do likewise, distributors will have no choice but to appropriately supply titles to those newsagents or stop supplying them. Until then, keep “killing off” a few more under-performing titles and focus on how best to re-use the floor space your store is gaining – while enjoying your improved bank balances, of course.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
C Stephens,
The point is that many many newsagents are “killing off” under performing titles and distributors are simply not changing their ways. And there is no evidence to suggest they are looking to do so in the future.
But we are not only discussing underperforming titles here. Some titles may be performing well on a quantity sold basis, but the initial number being distributed is blatent over-supply. In these cases it is not about range at all. It is distributors having a cash grab at newsagents to improve their own cash flow. Why would they stop doing this in the furture if they are getting away with it now?
Killing titles can mean cutting space or better displaying the better performing titles.
The problem with the magazine supply model is that the resulting excess stock at the distributor end has to go somewhere – so, other newsagents suffer.
The problem is systemic and it begins and ends with the magazine distributors as they control the system.
Jarryd – you;re right to point out that it also related to oversupply. The discussion about Emporium is a good example.
mark
Jarryd: You call it “blatant over-supply” and I call it “inappropriate supply” – same thing.
Another difference is you are waiting to see evidence of changed behaviour, whereas Mark indicated the need for newsagents to ‘make it happen’ – This is what newsagents must do – decide on the threshold, where depth of range can be cost justified and then kill the titles which fall below.
newsagents shoud not have to micro managing their magazine range to such an extent Fair enough. Newsagents obviously understand that micro-managing their magazine range also micro-manages their bank accounts.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
C Stephens,
I have not said anywhere that i am waiting for evidence of changed behaviour, i am simply stating that distributors are unlikely to change their behaviour in the future, regardless of the actions of newsagents, because it will not benefit their cash flow to do so.
Many newsagents are doing the best to ‘make it happen’. But the fact remains that there are limitations to this when one considers that they cannot change the parts of the system they don’t control (ie, the parts the distributors control).
Jarryd: It seems you are happy to go round in circles. You refuse to accept that distributors don’t have all the control, that many publishers control their own scale out. You knock back the suggestion of how to legitimately regain control of the number and supply of titles you stock, even though it would vastly reduce monthly outgoings and improve your cashflow position. You blame distributors for your current situation, yet the supply problems have been escalating for many years due to the large increase in the number of titles being produced. The warning signs have been visible for years and newsagents should have made sure they retained control years ago.
Solving problems late in the piece is harder than preventing something from becoming a problem in the first place, but difficulty does not mean impossiblility. The fundamentals of the existing magazine supply system are fine. They don’t appear so now because some newsagents have allowed title supply to become a problem. Saying ‘someone should not have to do something’ is passive and has never solved a problem. Deciding ‘I must get on top of this problem’ is the forerunner of action. If distributors don’t listen to newsagents, newsagents obviously have to go elsewhere. Regaining control is always much harder than letting it go.
I have owned and run several businesses plus run several others, successfully, over the past 40 years. The first rule of success is ‘keep a tight rein on outgoings’.
This is my view, of course. You are equally entitled to your view, even if it is circular.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
C Stephens,
Dont constrew my view as circular when you persist in preaching the same repetative and misguided information.
I don’t refuse to accept distributors don’t have all the control. I am saying that as part of the sytem that do control certain parts. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t be a fundamental part of the system.
We are knocking back your suggestions, yes, because they are simply not time or cost justifiable, nor are they long term soultions.
You are right in saying that newsagents should have made sure they retained control years ago. Unofrtunatly this should have been done at higher level through our representative bodies. The issues that have surrounded these bodies are another story altogether. If these issues hadn’t occured, the problem may have been addressed much earlier.
You state: The fundamentals of the existing magazine supply system are fine. – The fundamentals of the existing supply system are not fine, they are far from it. They don’t appear so now because some newsagents have allowed title supply to become a problem. “Some newsagents” have not allowed title supply to “become” a problem. Title supply is a problem accross the board and it has become of problem because of what distributors send. I would suggest their actions border on unconscionable.
And again you proceed to feed us generic babble. Business philosophies that may work ok holistically, but provide little help in addressing individual issues.