You will see that I take a considerable swipe at magazine distributor NDD today along some publishers. They deserve it. They permit titles to be oversupplied and on terms which financially abuse newsagents. NDD can fix this. In fact, they will tell us they have been talking to publishers and to the ANF and that progress is being made. Progress is not being made. NDD has no financial interest in fixing this, no distributor does. Magazine distributors are paid a fee to distribute titles. They get paid regardless. Newsagent, on the other hand, are only paid for what they sell. We provide capital to magazine publishers and we weather the cost of theft.
I like the folks at NDD and I like many of their titles. I just wish they had the balls to act fairly for newsagents. More important, however, I wish newsagents had the balls to act against unfair publisher behaviour. Mat action by us could kill off some of these poor performing magazine titles.
The over supply and long shelf life of the three titles I focus on today is an example of the cancer hurting newsagents. Other suppliers ought to care about this – for the good of the channel.
How is this for over supply from the great people for network normally sell 6 TRADE A BOAT so they decide to send 18 when i normally get about 10 , and WONDER TIME last time i received 4 and did not sell any so they send 18.The funny thing is 2 weeks ago i called them and they were supposed to be cutting back on my stock ,looks like they are doing one more dash for the cash and do you think that you can talk to anyone with any authority at that place no you can only contact them via email
NDD is by far and away the worse for oversupply and bad returns policy, this was why, 12 months ago we pulled all NDD supplied magazines out of our store and stopped our account.
Since then our mag sales have increased as we can allocate more space and time to productive mags that makes us money not just sit on the shelf.
We tried asking NDD for reduced supply to the titles we request instore but the answer we got was “take what you get or get nothing” so we chose to get nothing and have not looked back, the only titles we really miss are Lovette’s but the publisher will not direct supply us so too bad for us and them, it just means we promote other crossword mags instead.
If there was a blanket ban on non performing titles from about 150 odd newsagents it will hurt them in the hip pocket.
I thought the way to fix over supply with NDD was to adjust the standing orders on the net.
Wrong, after a while I realised it was showing that I had sold stuff when I hadn’t and when I had reduced certain titles to an acceptable amount, they went and put it up again.
The other thing I don’t understand with them is when you increase or decrease title it says “Pending”. Is it their right to decide what fits on my shelves? If I can sell more I will and if I can’t, I know that I can’t so let me use the site they’ve provided as an effective tool.
same situation with us on NDD.
I go on the net to adjust supply quantities but they ignore my changes to reduce.
Last month for NDD returns, I early returned what was not recalled, and also extras which I could not sell.
I was happy I cleared my NDD shelf but after this week, it’s piling up again…..
I’ve started being ruthless with Gotch returns as well since it started online.
With the economic downturn and lack of shelf space anyway to accommodate all titles, I have to cull all non-selling titles.
If only the online tools to reduce supply with all 3 magazine distributors work as they should, that is, to let us manage our own supply of titles when necessary.
Bario,
The so called’on-line solution’ is a scam.
Yes, you can go and change your allocation. Yes, most of the time the request is honoured.
Why should you have to go online and do it in the first place when the distributors have the sales history from every store?
It is time consuming and is not user friendly, and as you said, they still have control to say yay or nay.
What’s worse is after a period of time the title will reappear in your store.
Until NEWSAGENTS start to act together on this issue and drive change, nothing will happen.
We can talk about it until the cows come home.
Vaughan we need all state assosiations and the anf to be on the same page this has been going on for as long as i can remember.if we all sent back all ndd stock untill supplie issues are resolved how long would it take? 1 week perhaps 2 cheers andy
anecdotal evidence on these issues will fill a medium sized swimming pool. The delivery operator last week asked if we had enough of the dolly mags. when he arrived. we said we only want our allocation. “That’s OK here’s another two boxes full in case you run out.”
Generosity? Corruption? Complacency?
We rang network and said NO we don’t want these extra boxes come and get them. NO they said we will bill you for them and return them when you are ready. Is this collusion between Network and the delivery companies to download stock, bill the agent and free up the space in the warehouse?
We scratch our head on a regular basis at the commercial arrangements that exist between the agent and the supplier. We can’t wait to get out of this business
I recently stopped 98 titles from NDD, they approved 93 which was good. But they soon start to filter back in, then you need 3 month sales history to stop it. Doing early returns never works as they will always knock you back on something for some reason, and too much time is spent trying to get the credit. NDD supply the biggest variety and lowest sales. I have thought down the lines of stopping total supply, it is interesting here someone has done it.
Well said, Vaughan.
If indeed, the distributors/publishers are reading this website blog, please take heed of what we say.
If only everyone take the trouble to do early returns, then only this might be a wake up call to them.
But I believe most newsagents are time-poor but this shouldn’t be an excuse.
Since Gotch came online, it has allowed me now to manage my supplementary returns well.
It’s so much easier to find the magazines whereas b4, I had to go through piles of invoices.
I hope Gotch will remain fair to keep this online avenue open.
With Network Services, I find that they have closed off some titles from online supplementary returns compared to before.
Last month was the first time I ventured back to a paper early supplementary return for unsellable copies piling up in my store. To my surprise I got a return email about 3days later telling me they have processed it. So got to give them some kudos for it.
Now NDD is the only one left not to provide online supplementary facilities. I do hope it’s in their upgrade pipeline!
So to all Publishers/Distributors, we have to work together for the benefit of both, it’s not a one-sided affair.
Had no choice but to pull out of NDD like Luke, missed some great titles like Lovatts, Trading Post, Live to Ride. I took a stand/Risk and I am happy and I regained some cash flow. Can the Bigger Newsagents afford to take a stand/risk like this?
Shaun tell me about Wondertime, 1st issue sold none, second issue increased 60%.
The big Newsagents must get so much oversupply it must send them nuts. How are you expected to pay an account on time, it is not logical.
Andy, the ANF has failed on this for years. We need to take action ourselves. Kill titles. This is why I think we should kill Universal Magazines titles and make a point.
If distributors only got a fee per copy sold it would fix the oversupply problem overnight because they most certainly wouldn’t want to carry bad performing titles (this system works fine in other countries)
There are some valid points here and given that we are powerless on a national level, it may well be worth investigating the use of the ACCC in this matter. I have heard they take a very dim view of large companies bullying little businesses into positions like we are forced to put up with.
Is anyone willing to put up a nominal amount say $100 to have someone investigate the matter?
Mark, When you say ‘kill’ titles, what process do you have in mind? We have tried supply adjustments and early returns (which we do religiously with all underperforming mags, regardless of supplier) and yet we still receive these titles. What is your recommendation for killing the titles we don’t want?
I forgot to add that I have also noticed that ‘overclaims’ on my Network statement have been increasing. This is my punishment for managing my mags efficiently.
Wen,
Same here on the overclaims. I send an early returns form from my system, they input quanties incorrectly, then advise us that there was an overclaim
I’m thinking we all boycott a couple of titles unless we get paid to hold them when they don’t sell.
NDD has our cash in the bank for 2,3,4 months which (I have no real figures) might equate to say $1000 per agent. Multiplied by 3500 is 3.5 Million earning interest each month.
I say we should get paid this percentage on stock we send back for the time it sits on our shelves. If we sell it great, but when we don’t NDD pockets a tidy sum and we lose.
The interest earned on OUR cash might just be the reason they’re so slow to change?
Simple boycott the most popular selling mags eg womens day new idea and so on untill these companys start to listen . just imagine not one newsagent in australia selling womens day for one week it would have to effect them .
All,
I’m not sure that a boycott on a sale/line would be lawful.
The TPA however does not forbid us charging more for an item than the RRP. If, coincidentally, all WD and NI were $1.00 dearer one week – as set by the local newsagent – that may well pass a message.
Brett, I mean boycott by not putting it on the shelf because we are already over supplied with titles. I can’t see anything wrong with in the perspective of them taking our working capital when they oversupply.
We don’t need to do anything drastic to start with. Just a few magazines that have been proven to be money losers.
you need to boycott the mags that sell so they start listening they will not listen if you stop selling something that does not sell anyway
Shaun, at the present time niche magazines are the major problem. Seeing we’re basically the only retailers that support them, that would be the better target.
how does something like this get arranged ,it needs to be done as we will be getting walked over for years to come if we don’t make a stand
It does need to be done, I’m gathering up a few ideas I have and what other people have put down on this blog. It would be trail blazing though.
We have a couple of options as I see it – either shut our account with a distributor or write formally canceling supply by a publisher. I know of newsagents who have done the former successfully. I am planning to take the latter route with Universal Magazines. They are Australian, their products, overall, fail for us and they are an easy target.
Mark
Mark, write formally to the distributer saying you no longer want to hold them? Or wirte to the publisher?
The root of the problem is that publishers are over printing, which I would have thought would be something they want to fix as quickly as possible.
What is causing it? Is there a sweet spot in printing that with volume discounts etc its better to print quantity x even if you only need a quarter of it? Are they just blindly over ambitious thinking the next edition will pick things up? Or do they get into problems where they can’t service the returns credits without again overcharging(oversupplying) on the next edition?
I just can’t think why these magazines don’t want to cut back their production to a more realistic level.
Walk the talk, a good idea to write to the Distributor formally canceling supply by a publisher. Newsagents have to make some decisions themselves to survive.
Closing an account from a distributor should be well thought out. Although I did close my account with NDD because I had way to many titles and negative cash flow because of they did not have the ability to put the brakes on after requesting a number of times to do so, , I am so much better off, postage is down, cash flow is reasonable, labour was freed up. One must weigh up the pro’s and con’s by doing something that may affect your business.
Mark, In relation to Network Services and doing returns online. When we also have had too many magazines supplied or magazines we would not sell in a blue moon, I have not been able to return them early via the supplementary return on Netonline as the magazines are listed “not for supplementary return”. At this point in time, we currently return our magazines to Network by paper return and supps by paper return. If we swap over to doing returns on Netonline, my concern is, will we still be able to send magazines back early because if not, I’m sure they will send us more to tie up our money and space.
Dianne , Netonline is a complete waste of time ,yesterday i gave it a go out of about 60 different titles there was 14 that could not be returned early and some of thoses i have had sitting on my shelves collecting dust for at least 2 months .So i have gone back to the paper type return at least when it comes in and i know it will not sell it can go straight back again
Shaun s is right, trying to do supplementry’s online is biased towards Network Services, it just wont let you supplementry return the majority of long life shelf magazines, such as Sydney eats (help meeeeeeee) I dislike that mag so much, Hunter valley wines, etc…
However I believe the AWW Books & DLL childrens books can be Supplementry returned after a week or so using Netonline.
What would happen if ALL newsagents cancelled one particular distributor at the same time?
Would it serve as a warning to the others to lift their game? Could it be done?
If the distributor had no-one to distribute it to, what would happen?
I’d say the publisher would be hit hard in the pocket and would have to sit up, the smaller ones would be possibly put out of business, the distributor would be hit hard in the pocket and the newsagent would still be able to sell mags delivered by other distributors.
So, which distributor doesn’t listen to you all the most?