The Financial Times reports on changes in the UK around the distribution of newspapers and magazines.
We ought to expect structural changes globally in the distribution of newspapers and magazines as publishers look for ways to improve efficiency and increase or at least protect sales.
While not on the scale of the UK changes, the changes about to flow here in Australia around the new XchangeIT platform will separate newsagents into those moving forward with magazine distributors in pursuit of efficiencies from the shop floor right back to magazine publishers and those standing still with more manual and less flexible processes.
I think that’s a bit unfair, suggesting that those who are small; and are either unable to afford, or disinclined, to toe the line of the IT compliance mechanisms in place so far, are standing still. I don’t really relish that others need to be ‘sorted’ from us.
If subscribing to particular packages and networks means getting a better or more efficient service from our major print suppliers, then I’d consider it, if we were big enough for the cost of it to be viable. Maybe. Actually, maybe not.
From what I’ve read here, from many who I assume do already have these measures in place, it would be no guarantee that the suppliers get it right more often. Any assumption that we’d be linked to particular networks more readily, would not necessarily induce suppliers to treat us with more respect than they already do, for example. I have my doubts that companies like NDD or News would treat us any better, or work more efficiently with us if we did.
I reckon it would actually give them easier routes by which to continue to do whatever they like.
So far, in our short time in this industry, we’ve seen no evidence that our business would grow because of it. It might make life a little easier (for whom, exactly?), but why would I want to worry about compliance on any level, let alone where so many decisions are affected by the concept, as Mark points out so often?
The fact that we can do 99% of our business online anyway negates any imperative for us.
This story has got me thinking more about toeing establishment lines. The other disadvantage of ‘moving forward’ in this context is that not only is access supposed to be easier FOR us, but it is also easier TO us, potentially. At the risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, has anyone looked at all this a little more critically?
So, on the one hand, there is a lot of talk of growing our own businesses in our own right, shaking off archaic shackles of publisher influence on our own concerns. The downside, on the other hand, as I see it, is that this is another way for these entities to ensure those shackles remain, albeit in another guise.
As for the scale of change, let’s remember that it’s already started, from the end of the chain, backwards. If it wasn’t, we’d probably still be costing NDD money. I hope the supermarkets give them what they deserve.
Besides, why does one seem to always assume ‘moving forward’ is the same as getting bigger. Not all of us want or need to get bigger. Not all of us want to be tied to a franchise.
We want to run our business well. We want it to be efficient and effective. We want it to pay its way. Our aspirations don’t include acquiring multiple sites or winning awards within our networks.
We don’t think we should be paying or doing extra for our suppliers to do their job better.
Well said, Y&G.
Us newsagents can/should stand united on some fronts.
But when it comes to IT compliance, it’s very much a case by case basis in the sense that it is a financial burden for smaller shops where the cost is not really justified.
Y&G, compliance can have manyn forms, not just pouint of sale technology. For example, magazine distributors would consider online supply of returns data as compliance. I’d agree.
As the the business benefit of smart use of point of sale, I have newsagents you can talk with about that – but that is a topic for another day.