The latest issue of Mediaweek, self labelled “media industry bible”, reports on page 6 about my blog post about the performance of Universal Magazines titles. The story calls what I wrote “gripes”. It calls the comment posted by a representative of Universal a “response”. Language is everything here. Mediaweek, through its choice of words, belittles my legitimate and documented complaints and sides with the publisher. Mediaweek would have known from other comments posted here that plenty of newsagents agree with my assessment. Had they called, I could have shared cash-flow, sell through and other data which refutes the claims made by Universal Magazines. I could have challenged the claim that 78% of Universal titles are either monthly or bi-monthly and explained that a title with n on sale greater than 30 days is a cash killer for newsagencies.
What really gets to me is the bold face repeat in Mediaweek of the Universal claim that they are the most proactive publisher in pursuing efficiency. This is nonsense – unless you call recycling stock which does not sell through newsagencies on a repeat cycle until it is sold, lost or stolen efficient. Universal expects newsagents to pay for the freight to ship this dead stock which does not sell around and around. Sure, this is the magazine supply model I signed on for. Times have changed. Publishers have an obligation to be better citizens. I have an obligation to be efficient and profitable. I can be neither with Universal titles in my shop.
It is not easy to cancel the Universal titles from my shop. I have made the request but it is now being put to the publisher. My letter should lead to immediate cancellation.
Well it just goes to show that the newsagents are trying to move with the times but the dinosaurs sit still. Universal is but 1 publisher that I have found to be nothing more than odd padded sale. I generally don’t join the mob but in this case Universal will be removed from my shop based on their lack of understanding and more importantly the lack of sales.
It’s interesting that you think Mediaweek “sides with the publisher” in your dispute with Universal. Universal responded to us that we were siding with Mark Fletcher. Having a similar comment from both sides of the argument makes me feel we some how achieved what we strive for…independence.
Something you would expect from the “media industry bible”. A term by the way we haven’t made up, but a comment made by a reporter in The Australian’s Media section.
We continue to recommend the Newsagency Blog as a “must read” to our customers as we admire the passion for the industry.
I am in dialogue with Universal at the moment about delivery quantities, they have sent me the sales figures for my shop that they were given by NDD. In a number of cases this was different to my sales figures (of course the error was always to increase distribution #’s)
After reviewing their suggested #’s for delivery I have sent a letter stating that without a more agreeable scale out I will be cancelling all Universal Mags. I am also looking into the obvious benefits of cancelling my NDD contract all together.
Thanks James for commenting. Both sides saying you sided with the other is a good sign. My issue was with the choice of words – gripe etc. Maybe Mediaweek could moderate a debate on the magazine supply model. I know newsagents would welcome such a forum.
mark
I think you have right of reply via the same publication Mark. This journalist must of accidently come across this blog by chance I believe and not been used to fire a shot over your bow!.
For example it maybe true that 78% of their titles are Bi-Monthly or Monthly, this indicates nearly 25% of their magazines are on the shelves longer than 2 months taking up valuable real estate.
What would be interesting would be the split between Bi Monthly and Monthly, Wonder why that figure was grouped together.
I dont think you or your other contributors are saying that this publishers magazines are crap, quite the opposite, they are in some cases specialty & quality magazines.
They just dont want to admit that their are oversupply issues, resupply issues, long shelve life issues, returns costs issues and cash flow issues associated with more than 50% of their titles which in short means some Newsagents are losing money on them. I am certain unless the above issues are resolved more Newsagents will be following suit and eventually will have no choice but to go with two distributors to be able to survive. Publishers and Distributors need to address these issues because Newsagents cannot carry the above burdens anymore. Its not a matter of won’t its a matter of can’t.
Distributors and most Publishers each say its each others fault, thats the first issue that needs to be resolved.
Derek, I personally think their magazines are okay. The problem from a newagents point of view is a magazine that is over supplied and does not sell is crap.
I’m here to sell as many magazines as I possibly can from whoever, but not to wharehouse them.
I was also a little dissappointed this morning getting the “launch” issue of Backyard Designs and Ideas. My customers get irate at stuff like that – buying it twice.
Mark, I would hardly call that a “response”, I would almost call it a death throw. When your on a good thing stick to it, but when it comes to the light of everyone and you realize you may be losing it, that is the type of reaction you get.