Discover magazine published an excellent article in April 2008 about the carbon footprint of each issue. It wroked back the carbon cost of each issue from in-the-field news gathering through production, the retail and subscription distribution channels and, ultimately, to recycling.
The article got me thinking about the carbon footprint for a copy of Discover purchased here in Australia. It would be far greater by the time you add the cost of shipping product to Australia and distributing this on trucks across the country to newsagents.
Discover is not the only overseas title we carry. Indeed, there are hundreds being air and sea freighted to Australia for distribution through the newsagency channel. With a (generous) estimated average sell through of 50% and the unsold stock being returned, the carbon footprint on these imported titles is significant.
On environmental grounds alone, the distributing overseas titles here needs to be reassessed. In some cases, such as Discover, they serve a purpose and fill a genuine need while in other cases, crosswords, craft titles and home furnishing titles for example, they are filler taking sales from an excellent range of locally produced product. The environmental impact of this unnecessary stock ought to bar them from entry. Yet we have them because magazine distributors make it cheap to distribute them without allowing for the environmental cost.
Take crosswords, I’d love to work out the carbon footprint of a Lovatts crossword title and a Penny Press crossword title. I suspect the difference would illustrate why we need to restrict overseas titles in segments where consumer interest is well satisfied with local printed and published titles.
Publishers are aware of environmental issues. Surfing magazine was onto this in 2007 – but only through an offsets program. The PPA in the UK undertook some research into this in May 2008. FIPP is also doing work in this area. There is an interested related discussion at Dead Tree Edition.
Just as packaged foods warn us about fat, sugar and sodium and washing machines are rated on energy and water efficiency, maybe products such as magazines ought to have a carbon footprint rating. At the very least, there could be a warning sticker on the cover of overseas titles in a category well serviced with local and more efficient titles.
Is this an angle we should be pursuing to help us get fair supply quantities. We are undertaking a study next week looking at the weight of magazines we throw out (from cover returns) and what we return. We are planning to divide into local and overseas. We are doing this mostly to satisfy our curiosity.
I normally go by the following-
1 wheelie bin = slow week.
2 wheelie bins = normal week.
3 wheelie bins = oh my god.
The carbon foot print for magazines is obviously taken more seriously in the U.S than it is here. From my understanding if a publisher over prints and copies have to be pulped in the U.S fines apply to the publisher. Hence the excess copies are then lumped upon the Australian newsagents. They then become your problem taking up space and eating into your overdraft. They then invariably have to be pulped here. Penny Press V Lovatts a local publisher is a good example. What should also be taken into consideration is the fact that we at Lovatts print all of our magazines in Victoria, employing Australian workers, very important in todays economic climate
30 years ago when I first purchased a newsagency I was appalled at the 53%
returns ratio from both magazine companies (Network and GG) Now, 30
years later I know it is their planned approach because my returns ratio from
3 companies (NDD have since entered the
fray) is guess what??? still 53%.
One has to be forgiven for thinking that
it is the companies’ target return because
mine never shifts from these figures.
If I alter supplies they just send me something else. The ANF should hang
their heads in shame that they have not
been able to negotiate any better outcomes for newsagents.
Terry, We need to take this issue head-on. How can we, in all conscience, carry product which is so inefficient for the environment?
June i think you are correct this must just be the standard % to return .I called up the QNF about mine and they were very helpfull each company called me within a couple of days and thing were supposed to be fixed i could understand that these things for some reason take time to doeventually the cut backs were done but as you said all they did was introduce more garbage so the return rate is still approx 50%
I don’t mind topping magazines seeing they can be pulped.
I’d rather order overseas magazines in for a guarenteed sale (customer order).
I’m more concerned on the trucking of full magazine returns around the country then having trucked backto us again in bonus issues, only to be trucked around again on the return.
“Kitchen Door Knob Varnishes” magazine coupled with “Classic Country Style Curtain Rods” as the bonus, for instance just ain’t gunna sell – really, if they were covers we’d save a lot of diesel and emissions.
Michael you are right – we should order overseas publications rather than have a scale out model with returns factored in as at present. These titles are not audited so a firm sale approach would work.
Mark
Not only inefficient for the enviroment but also inefficient for the individual Newsagent.
No one complains about ordered put away copies. There is a viable market for foreign language titles. It’s the unsold unwanteds that is creating a problem for the enviroment and the hip pocket