In October 29, 2008 I asked Is it time to Kill off Universal Magazines? I wrote this in frustration about my inability to control the supply of product from Universal Magazines. After years of getting nowhere with suppliers on achieving an equitable supply arrangement for I felt I had to strike out and bring the supply model issue to a head. That morning, Universal was on my mind because of what I saw in my shop.
A couple of weeks ago I met with senior executives of Universal. This was a good business discussion around the challenges from both sides and how the magazine distribution model is a real barrier to publishers and to newsagents.
In the months since the initial blog post, Universal executives have dug deep into the magazine supply model to understand why I and other newsagents who commenter to the post were so angry. The result of their investigation and reflection is improvements to processes and around the supply of their titles which did not exist last year.
From my own face to face discussions with the folks at Universal I also understand more about their goals. Interestingly, we agree on many discussion points. It is the magazine supply model between their business and my newsagency (and newsagencies around Australia) which is the barrier to an idyllic relationship.
magazine distributors lept to the defence of Universal quickly in October last year. The issue underscoring the blog post was their performance and decisions they make and not so much about Universal – it is breathtaking that they did not out their role in the problems at the time.
Hopefully, over the next few months, progress will be made on the model so that independent publishers and Australian newsagents can achieve a more mutually beneficial and rewarding relationship.
It’s great they had a chat to you to understand more about what goes on.
With the distribution model and some interesting things I’ve heard in the last weeks, both Universal and Newsagents are losing money needlessly – a lot of money! Hopefully it will be resolved
Good to know common sense prevails and that all parties need to come to the table at the same time,
ie the publisher, distributor and the retailer.
This way, no misconstrued statements or findings are made unnecessarily.
we hope then for a positive outcome.
Good on Universal to sit at the table. Trying not to start a negative post I will refrain from why others have not gotten this far, good onya Mark- Looking to the future!
Derek
Mark, you haven’t really said what UM’s points were ?
This “about their goals. Interestingly, we agree on many discussion points. It is the magazine supply model between their business and my newsagency (and newsagencies around Australia) which is the barrier to an idyllic relationship.” is a bit on the vague side.
What do you mean by their goals ? It never looked like they had one…
John,
They want to sell more magazines and have fewer returns. Nothing new there. The result of the work sicne the blog post is that they have an understanding they did not have previously and this will drive greater efficiency for them and we will see this in our stores.
The conversation is part of a process which will help them and us.
Mark
Unfortunately while the distributors control who gets what, i fear the ditribution model will never change.
We have monitored titles at our shop that we either cancel or early return; I can tell you within 2 weeks new titles turn up in greater quantities that we have never received before.
Call it a Conspiracy Theory, but i wonder whether the distributors have a scale out model to my business based on copies sent. As i said, each time we return to get on top of the oversupply of crap, more crap turns up :-(; we never seem to get ahead of the problem.