While magazine publishers and distributors don’t like early returns, we are using them to manage the cost of fat titles. Take Two Wheels magazine. It has a sell through of 50% – less for some issues. The latest issue, with a free back issue, takes twice the retail space. In our case Two Wheels this month demands four pockets instead of two. Rather than keep stock in the back room until return time (as sone newsagents do) we return what we can’t fit early.
Magazine distributors know the usual size of a magazine pocket in a newsagency. They know the dimensions of titles. Their systems ought to cut allocation where it will use more than the usual number of retail pockets and where the sell through history shows sales will not be affected.
Just spoke to a distributor a week ago and they said this type of problem should be rectified in around four months.
It was explained to me that publishers push a heap of product on to them and they then pass it on to us even though they know we can’t sell it.
-So their cash isn’t tied up for a month?
THIS PROBLEM WILL NEVER BE FIXED WHY FIX A GREAT MONEY MAKER LIKE THAT (FOR MAGAZINE COMPANYS)THEY HAVE ALL THE DATA THEY NEED TO FIX THE PROBLEM NOW AS THEY USE THE DATA ON MAGAZINES LIKE TAKE 5 AND THATS LIFE ,THE ONES THAT SELL WELL THEY ARE QUITE WILLING TO CUT BACK ON THESE MAGAZINES THAT DO SELL BUT THEN OVER SUPPLY ON THE ONES THAT DON’T
Regardless of size, distributors systems should adjust allocations based on sell through history.
Publishers need to take into account the risks associated with ‘fat’ titles. If only one or two copies can fit in a pocket at any one time, there is an increased risk of that magazine selling and not be restocked until a later time. This means that there may be a period where the magazine isn’t on display. Niche title in particulr should be conscious of this. Where a niche title is only allocated one, maybe two, pockets the risk increases.