UFOlogist publisher unhappy with blog post

I received a phone call Friday from Diane Frola, publisher of UFOlogist magazine. She was upset by what I had written here in June. Over the course of our long phone conversation, Diane accused me, among other things, of lying, being a John Howard voter, being a lover of big business, only wanting New Idea, Woman’s Day and other “trash” titles to survive and hating small independent publishers like her. Diane is wrong on all fronts.

When I suggested to Diane that she post her views here as a comment she said there was no point as I would delete her comment. When I asked why she said that someone at NDD had said I delete comments.

I do not delete comments unless they are spam such as selling mobile phone products or seeking money. Anyone trawling through the comments at this blog will see that comments complimentary and critical get through.

Blogging invites conversation. I hope Diane posts her views here. Her contribution would be most welcome by me and, I am sure, other newsagents.

If Diane’s claim that “someone from NDD” said I delete comments is true it would be disappointing. She also claimed that I have never asked NDD to reduce supply for her title or other titles. While I should not have to do this – the state of the art NDD distribution system should do this for me – I have had plenty of dialogue with NDD about title supply in my newsagency.

I understand Diane’s frustration. She is a small publisher struggling to keep her special interest title afloat. Business is tough. Newsagents are key to her reaching her customers. The problem is that she is tapping into a business model which was created in the days of newspaper and magazine distribution regulation. This is when the price model was set. Following deregulation in 1999, the price model was not revisited. Newsagents make less as a result – with more outlets selling magazines but only the top sellers. This challenges the financial model of newsagencies. It is why the pre deregulation compensation model is unfair today.

Diane Frola’s demand – that newsagents should support her title – gains no traction with me. Business is tough. If I support UFOlogist as Diane asks, I have to offer the same charity to other titles. The two copies I sell every eight weeks lose money. I would have thought that those copies, and the other nine I get from NDD, would do better in a newsagency where more than two copies sell.

The shelf space I provide UFOlogist is cheap advertising for their brand. I suspect this is why Diane demands I keep her magazine on the shelf – to advertise her brand. With an 18% sell through rate the title is dead in my newsagency and NDD ought to cut it immediately. Either that or Diane pays for the advertising space so that I achieve a fair return on my shelf space.

This is business. My landlord expects me to conduct my business on commercial terms. Likewise, it is reasonable for me, as landlord of UFOlogist, to expect it to conduct its relationship with newsagents on commercial terms.

FOOTNOTE RE NDD: I acknowledge that I have been fierce in my criticism of NDD here this year. I did so because regular business communication with NDD failed to achieve an equitable arrangement. My blogging has resulted in more equitable supply of many titles for my newsagency – hopefully others will be fixed. I am disappointed that I have had to use a public forum such as this to achieve, in part, what ought to be delivered to every newsagent – equitable supply of magazines based on sales data.