The dispute between magazine publishers and wholesalers in the US is hotting up. Billboard.com has a good summary of the story as it stands today including these two paragraphs:
Source argues in the letter that while the magazine publishers characterize the brouhaha as a dispute over seven cents, the whole situation is actually a part of bigger picture negotiations to “secure necessary financial adjustments to outdated distribution agreements.”
According to a story on businesstn.com, retailers like Wal-Mart are increasingly turning to scanned-based-trading (SBT), which means they pay for magazines when the products are scanned at the check out counter, rather than purchasing them in bulk from wholesalers like Anderson and Source Interlink on the front-end. This new business model impacts cashflow and squeezes liquidity for wholesalers and inflates inventory on their balance sheet.
I have called for scanned based trading (SBT) on this blog for Australian newsagents for years. See my Nov. 21, 2005 post. It is the fairest way for our resources to be used to sell and distribute magazines. The technology exists. It it were used, newsagents would be more motivated than ever before to transact their business is a compliane way. Magazine distributors will not implement SBT here because the could no longer use newsagents to financially prop up their distribution model inefficiencies.
Until newsagents take firm action the opportunity and benefits of SBT will remain locked away and in the banks for magazine distributors.
Mediaweek also covers the mess in the US including speculation that two magazine wholesalers were set to close and therefore put the distribution of many magazines at risk.
That’s the first time I’ve heard of SBT and it sounds great.
Wouldn’t it stop things like:
Having to call the distributers saying we didn’t get That’s Life today, here’s the proof – it’s 11am and we haven’t sold any.
Or when another agent gets my delivery and doesn’t call me up, would SBT be to see that they have sold more than what they received?
Sounds promising.
How can publishers be brought to the table to discuss this but who ?????? has
the capacity to understand and discuss this at the relevant level. The ANF should
have had this under total control by now but the associations (who also have to take some responsibility here) didn’t want
to give up their right to represent their members, rightly or wrongly and the politics got in the way of good representation or NO REPRESENTATION.
So who can go into bat for us with this
suggestion because cashflow problems are
out greatest problem.
Most state and national constitutions have
a charter that says they must look after their members’ interests????????? I’d like to see that!!!!!! I would happily pay membership to the association who can
get a positive outcome on this issue.