Reader’s Digest is not socially responsible in my view. We continue to be supplied way more copies than we sell. Sure, supplies are reduced but they soon spring back., This month we received one more than last month – despite sales data not supporting such a move. While in the past I have blamed NDD – and still consider they have a role to play in this – I place the majority of the blame for oversupply of Reader’s Digest on the publisher. They set the print run and it is the print run which presents the challenge to the distributor. A print run which more accurately reflects net sales would suit the retail channel and, I suspect, NDD.
So, the question has to be, is Reader’s Digest a good corporate citizen, one who cares for the environment? Based on current supply to newsagencies I suspect not.
The distributor earns a fee from the publisher for every copy supplied to newsagents regardless of how many sell. There is no incentive for the distributor to minimise supply. The distributor should be responsible and either advise the publisher to reduce the supply (print run?) or bill the supply in the month of recall so that newsagents are not excessively out of pocket. Additionally the distributor earns interest on newsagents money until returns are transacted. There is no pressure for a distributor like NDD to enter into a sustainable relationship with newsagents – there is too much money involved.
Anon you;re right about the model. This is what newsagents need to appoint a magazine czar and collude to block access to their network. It is only when we take control over our real-estate that we can commercially address the problem.