Thank God for an election year! Like bees to a honey pot the politicians are attaching themselves to any issue which may deliver a vote or two. Yesterday, the issue was small business and the Government came a running with open arms! Well, years of neglect have made this small business owner somewhat frigid. I’m not feelin the love.
This is the same Government which owns the biggest single threat to small business newsagents – Australian Post. The Government has knowingly permitted, even encouraged, Australia Post to expand its government owned retail network into space previously served well by newsagents.
The proposed changes to the Trade Practices Act, while welcome, do nothing for the credentials of the Government as long as they permit their wholly owned Australian Post retail network to stalk newsagents.
The Government’s line, eloquently put through Communications Minister Helen Coonan, is that Australian Post needs to diversify to remain commercial. That’s nonsense. Take a look at France, Austria, Great Britain and the US. We’re pretty much on our own in permitting a government owned retail network to pursue small business competitors as Australia Post does.
Yep, small business policy at work. Not!
Newsagents save themselves! Begin thinking like small department stores!
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
Great idea, CS! Newsagents should behave like department stores and have control over what they stock, not have rubbish pushed onto them by distributors.
Publishers provide incentives to distributors to put their product into the marketplace but forget that the newsagent is the one that does the displaying, that does the selling and suffers the cash flow disadvantage.
Tut tut, Fred, your comments border on misinformation. If rubbish is foisted on you, exercise your control by returning it promptly on the grounds you don’t have space for it.
As for newsagents being forgotten, you know very well that publishers contract distributors to deliver their product to selected newsagents for which distributors receive a small fee. For displaying and selling their product, magazine publishers pay newsagents 25% of cover price – hardly forgetting them!
And don’t carry on about your “real estate” costs – if a title doesn’t sell, get rid of it and remove the “real estate”.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
Mark
Take a look at France, Austria, Great Britain and the US. We’re pretty much on our own in permitting a government owned retail network to pursue small business competitors as Australia Post does. A look closer to home shows that some NZ Post Shops sell magazines. Will Australia go down that path?
Re The Government’s line, eloquently put through Communications Minister Helen Coonan, is that Australia Post needs to diversify to remain commercial – has the need to diversify been caused by Australia Post divesting itself of too many postal services in recent years? As an example, the cancellation of the Sea Mail to NZ and Asia-Pacific parcels service has imposed considerable additional costs on small business.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
CS
Glad to hear that that there are no problems with the Early Returns process in your world.
The true cost of carrying a magazine must reflect, among other things, its real estate cost – this being a fundamental aspect of cost accounting.
It is better not to receive than need to give back.
The iSubscribe system has zero cost for real estate and gets more favourable treatment than the newsagent who displays magazines which generates awareness of the product.
Sounds like it could be time to sell your newsagency (if you have one) and buy (or start up) a magazine subscription agency.
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile
CS
Despite the difficulties, I love the interaction with people that you get in a retail business.
A subscription agency with faceless customers may be your idea of a life but not mine!
Fred, you mentioned a magazine subscription agency. I took your comment one logical step further rather than view you as whingeing. I was wrong!
C Stephens, CEO and magazineophile