I received a letter from lawyers representing NDD today claiming that my post on Monday contains false, misleading and deceptive statements. I have reread the blog post and don’t see how they can reach this conclusion.
I wish NDD were as attentive to calls for more equitable supply arrangements with newsagents as they appear to be in worrying how they look to others because of a blog post here.
Two comments could well be contenders Mark (from your post):
“beg questions over the viability of NDD”
“an average sell through rate of 50%”
Obviously for regular readers the second comment would be based on your own data / what you see from the benchmark studies made up of all the newsagents that take part, but it’s not really qualified in the post itself as such.
Andrew, NDD representatives regularly read the blog and would therefore know the context of what I write.
“false, misleading and deceptive statements”
Do their lawyers want to look at some of the shoddy stuff listed on my standing orders???
I sell magazines. NDD distribute them. Concentrate on doing a better job at it NDD, rather than take aim at others.
Amazing how thin skinned and precious bullies really are. They’ve been rubbished here and elsewhere for years, so why get all prickly now? If nothing else, it really does look like a desperate attempt at saving some face. Too bad the horse has already bolted..
Man, I could say plenty, except I don’t have the legal wherewithall to determine just where that fine line runs between free speech and defamation.
I’ll just have to be satisfied with the cheque having finally cleared and be happy with having my working life simplified no end. Even it it took more than two months to finalise. Talk about adding insult to injury – so inflexible that they even make we nonentities still wait for our money. And they still haven’t acknowledged our written response to our shafting yet. Would it be defamatory to make that public? Or maybe it’s with their legal team :-p
Of course it’s perfectly licit to be inflexible, unapproachable, unworkable, ineffective, untimely, etc etc. But woe betide anyone who tells them so.
Hmm, I guess that the only way to solve this is to get a forensic accountant in to analyse the balance sheet and P/L for NDD, and announce the findings to all their customers in order to give us the confidence to deal with them without worrying about losing money as unsecured creditors.
Here’s a short point about a possible legal defence. Though it has limitations, in some cases section 65A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) has provided what has been described as a “safe harbour” for a “a prescribed publication”. That category is defined in the section and includes “a person who carries on a business of providing information”. The section has been applied to traditional news media. In each case it is a moot point as to whether it might apply. All this is only relevant if your post is exposed to the trade practices claim in the first place.
Section 65A can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s65a.html
First of all this is a blog, and like I said previously in another post the best thing that could happen in the Magazine Channel is to have NDD exposed to all and sundry, the Industry has a number of years of factual proof availiable to go toe to toe with this mob.
If I were a Association member or not an Association Memebr I would be lobbying them to push NDD about unethical practices, the ACCC should also be required to investigated what is happenning to Newsagents via the NDD distribution model to get an unbiased view and provide recommendations so Newsagents are not left consistantly with cash flow problems because of their unethical distribution model.
Who knows what correspondence has taken place between NDD, Associations and the ANF regarding the numerous unethical behaviour by NDD. It is documented and will be used I suspect to support its Members and Non Members.
It needs to be exposed and the publishers who use NDD as their distributor should also know what is happenning as they are being drained of it’s potential profit margin.
This industry will not let one man take the fall, we I hope will be in it all together.
Derek
Thanks Noric. I appreciate the comment. Hopefully, I will not need a line of defence.
Mark, if you’ve any understanding of how lawyers operate, it’s one thing to ‘SAY’ something contains “false, misleading and deceptive statements” then another to prove it in court.
This letter they sent you is just plain intimidation. Just follow the banter that’s been going on in the Crikey daily email about our current defamtion laws.
Like John Kirkman said, letters like this are just about intimidation. Fortunately Mark probably has the resources not to have to worry about being bullied by letters like this, but for smaller operators like a newsagents the possibility of racking up legal expenses in the 10’s of thousands of dollar to defend frivolous claims can be a worry. It’s an unfortunate side effect of how our legal system works, more about money than justice.
No one wants to go down the legal path. However I am positive if money is required it will roll in from many Newsagents to fund any legal expenses.
NDD has the mentality pick on 1 newsagent at a time or smaller operators, they do not want to work with Newsagents, engage with Newsagents and they lack transparency.
I could of sold some great News Ltd Mags & many trading posts, but no they want to send everything in their Arsenal, for the life of me I do not understand Publishers on this issue- They are losing money also.
Derek, I don’t know why they have that mentality as well.
If a cheque goes missing in the mail they’ll cut you supply. Then when you wonder why mags haven’t come you phone them and find they cut your account – Saves them a 50c phone call by you calling up I guess. This happened to an agent that had an eight year relationship with NDD.
This is the equivalent to me telling an everyday customer I won’t sell him a paper because he’s five cents short.
If publishers worked with us, both parties would both, make and save a lot of money. It’s there to be had.
I can’t understand that ‘save a phonecall’ mentality either. Particularly when they can spend multiples of that amount on proforma letters, stationery and postage to tell operators they’ve been shafted. Clearly they can wear that cost, rather than actually deal with the people at the other end. Indeed the expense of courtesy and courage is just too much for them to bear. Money is not the only thing they’re short of, then.
Malice on the blog?
Nay, sir. It really is Tall Jan who be malicious. And paranoid.
What was that TV ad pushing again?
Oh yeah, Irony is Delicious…
I am encouraged that many seem to be on the same page regarding this overall issue..