A colleague was shocked to see the hand-written returns coding on magazines on the shelves of a newsagency he visited last week. The image is from the cover of Computer Music. It shows it as a Week 25 return and having a price of $19.95. Imagine the time this business must be wasting on hand writing details on magazines and hand processing returns. They have no stock control as sales are rung up on a cash register. Talk about living in the dark ages. I am disappointed that the magazine distributors let them get away with this.
So, Mark, with all due respect, what exactly are you saying here?
Are you suggesting that all newsagents should be of a minimum size/turnover to justify EDI systems?
Or just that such dated businesses have no right to be buying magazines directly from suppliers?
The dark ages aren’t all that bad. There’s satisfaction in keeping track of what you’ve got manually, if you’re small enough. Or if you’re big, and that’s your wont.. What’s the difference between writing something down, and printing / applying stickers, anyway? Or is that all done at the warehouse? After all, we all have to receive deliveries, put them on shelves, do the paperwork, and then do it all again in reverse for returns.
As for the concept of ‘stock control’, in your language is that only applicable to software?
And where does it say in any handbook that all newsagents must adopt compliant EDI or lose the right to call oneself a newsagent?
That attitude is one of the reasons why we’ve been a bit critical of the whole concept of ‘compliance’ in relation to ‘needing’ certain technologies in order to do business. Call me a luddite, but really, your agenda here is clear, and to suggest – no, to assert – that those of us not ‘complying’ are so disappointing, demands a response.
What is wrong with businesses choosing their own methods? Granted, we’ve seen how NDD treat businesses that don’t handle great volumes. And realistically, it is possible for others to go the same way towards we drops in the bucket. To be honest, to be referred to in such pejorative terms in this instance will only speed up that process. However, until then, if returns and deliveries/orders can be dealt with via a supplier’s website, then what is the problem?
I suspect we would be one of the smallest primary agents in the country. Do forgive me then, but seeing (and agreeing wholeheartedly with, by the way) so much said about a lack of respect for ‘the channel’ from big suppliers, it surprises me to see such discrimination towards the lower end of it here today.
Y&G, The newsagency was in a major centre and probably doing at least $300,000 a year in magazine sales. This size business operating manually would be dragging us down due to lack of sales data among other things.
I have no issue whatsoever with smaller newsagencies managing magazines manually. Any technology solution has to pay its way.
The EDI standards are important if our channel wants to be a viable national channel compared to other channels which, combined, sell close to half all magazines in Australia.
Being small myself (~$40000 magazines pa) and not using EDI, I can see Y&G’s point. However, I think use of a handgun, at least, to price things is not unreasonable, as the handwriting has made the photoed magazine virtually unsellable in my opinion.
Also, just because we can’t justify EDI doesn’t mean we’re all luddites! I keep track of all my magazines (and label print) using MS Access and it takes less than two hours a week to type in the info including returns. Yes, there is obviously the odd typo, but not as many as using a price gun, and it’s annoying not having Network’s info until the mags are delivered, but I end up with all the information I need to know about how each magazine and category is going.
Thanks, Mark, for the prompt response.
Perhaps all that clarification should have been in the opening post.
Then, maybe my small man syndrome might have been allowed to remain dormant LOL
Then again, again,with due respect, it does raise a lot more questions for me. I would presume the newsagent in question has his/her own reasons for the way they do business, and for not wanting their numbers included on specific databases.
Is it a franchised agency? Are there other issues with the technology? Are there other ways their data is included in supply/return figures to compete with supermarkets, multinational convenience stores and servos? Are you assuming that nobody gets their data except for suppliers via delivery/returns? Are you assuming their cash registers are only registering cash, rather than stock sold? They would know exactly what they’re selling, particularly if their turnover is that high.
The issue then, seems to be not so much that they’re using biros and good old elbow grease, but that they’re not sharing their data with you via EDI.
I’m not defending this agent – I have no idea who it is, but if it were my agency you were talking about, I’d be seeing what was said in the opening post as fightin’ wrrds.
Speaking as a customer I find this practise abhorrent. Here in Canberra at one of the major shopping malls there is a newsagency which writes the price prominently on the cover using an indelible marker pen. When I purchase high priced overseas magazines I don’t want them disfigured in this way so choose to buy from shops which use the peel off stickers. Coincidentally, casting about for another source of supply for some of these magazines I found that to subscribe direct from the UK is often at an acceptable price level given that I will receive current editions.
Y&G, It’s not about me. I don’t see the EDI data. This is about us not acting as a channel.
I can’t believe this is even being discussed. A compliant POS system is a basic standard. If newsagents don’t meet that basic standard then distributors should cut them off.
If the agent is too small to justify the cost of a POS system then I would think it unlikely that the account is profitable for the distributor – another issue for another day.
I was at a presentation last week by a publisher and they made it clear that times have changed. I would never buy a magazine with writing on it like in the photo. I stopped doing that fifteen years ago.
Maybe it’s a generational thing. I have a small IGA store near me that still use the old price guns to price their stock and ring it up manually.
This to me is a sign this business is out of touch and not moving with the times.
Niall, I wonder how that store tracks its GST with some products being GST free
Jarryd,
I think it may be you who is out of touch to say all agents should have a POS system. All newsagents should be compliant, but if they do that via online returns or other requests by the distributors surely that is ok. While EDI is fantastic, we should be able to make small allowances for agents who can’t justify the costs. There would a large number of agents in remote parts of Australia who fill a need in a community by selling magazines – would you want to be the one telling customers that their business is unimportant?
Jarryd, you’re entitled to your opinions, of course. However, to posit such a standpoint is pretty arrogant.
Why should EDI be a basic standard? Why should all newsagencies without it, be cut off, when business can be done electronically without it? Who died and made you judge of who can do business and who can’t?
If “the channel” will only embrace businesses with certain software, or a prescribed turnover, then you’re welcome to it. Seems to me that the only thing that’s to be channelled here is protectionism and generic uniformity.
So not my style.
I can see how some of you feel very protective of your assets. We all do, or we wouldn’t be in business. But to assert who isn’t worthy of their line of work is outrageous. Does that mean all corner shops should be stripped of their newsagency status? Give me a break.
As for the biro thing: What is wrong with a neatly written price in A$ within the parameters of the original price label? We only do this on OS mags, so what’s the problem?? Our customers certainly don’t complain about it. These are the only marks we put on any mags. Big deal.
Oh, actually, there is one more thing – I must confess to the cardinal sin of writing the adjusted price of Melbourne newspapers when they come in.
Put me in shackles and call me Tom Dooley.
Let me pose a question – should newsagents with accounts not large enough to justify the cost of a POS system be able to hold accounts with the distributors? Why should they not be subagents, considering some subagents would clearly turnover more than them?
Without offending others views I feel I am compliant, I use all the facilities that the Publishers & Distribitors that have helped make for smaller type business’s faciliate its data- I use Netonline, Gotchconnect, Fairfax connect & News Ltd Connect.
Y&G,
Business can be done without many things. But we need standards to ensure viability, efficiency, etc.
I’m not sure what your getting at with your comment regarding generic uniformity? This isn’t about a point of difference – it is about setting a base standard. When some in the channel don’t meet that standard (because it isn’t enforced), it creates barriers for those who want to exceed it.
Jarryd- With respect- I will not say what I think on the above comment, it is elitist and that is my tame response.
Derek
Derek,
My comment is the truth.
The industry is seeing a greater divide between those who want higher standards and those who want to keep doing things the same way they always have.
As an example – because many newsagents refuse to use EDI, distributors are forced to split their focus/resources between different platforms (paper, online, EDI). This makes for three substandard platforms, rather than one best practice platform.
Seem to recall last time I was in a Supanews (with my QNF Hat on) they had handwritten prices for mag covers.
I see the future as having, broadly speaking two streams, those larger perhaps, perhaps also with a marketing group being in a whole different place and offering a whole different experience to our collegues in the shape of Y&G and Derek and others.
It is not to say that one stream is better than another it is just different and thank goodness in Australia we have that diversity.
I run three tills pretty hot all day, we get the chance to chat with our well known regulars but we miss that heartfelt chat that others get to have, I envy them that.
I would however like to extract some more juice from this particular lemon and the new EDI looks like it may provide some further opportunities for those that take it on. This piece of technology, and others, allow me to maximise my staff’s time on retail and less on admin. I think that that is what it is all about as far as I am concerned, its more efficient, for me thats great. I won’t pass judgement on what others want to do, its their call, their business and I wish them the best for it.
I once read a quote that I like to keep in mind when going about my business. It was….
“If you only do what you always did, you only get what you always got…”
Brett,
Your point out that the new XchangeIT looks to provide some further opportunities. My gripe is that we could (should) have had these years ago, but didn’t because of, among other factors, distributors having to split their limited resources and newsagents not meeting the existing standards.
A newsagency specific computer system can cost as little as $50 a week. Used properyl it ought to generate at least five times its cost in tangible business benefits. I’ve seen newsagents turning over $300K or less make good money from the investment.
Jarryd,
I will say this. You should not gripe about other newsagents. Your gripe should be with distributors. If they wanted to move ahead they could have done so, those of us interested in the journey would have come along and the rest could make their own arrangements.
We started out as a small newsagent. 55sqm. Everything manual – cash register, price gun, and a Nikko. Everyone that worked in the newsagent spent 14hrs plus. We thought that was the norm. Every other newsagent was doing it. The longer and harder we worked, the better our business.
WRONG! I worked like a dog and earnt less than a 16 year old working at McDonalds.
I get quite annoyed when I hear business owners making excuses as to why they won’t invest in a compliant system. (My father included). Instead, they’ve got all the excuses in the world why they shouldn’t.
Sure, spend 14hrs plus on labour (each person gets paid ~$8/hr), pay a book keeper ($85/hr for ~2 hours each week), an accountant (~$3,500 a year if your lucky), stocktaking (~$5,000 a year if you’re using a stocktaker), etc.
BUT don’t spend $100 a week to eliminate more than half those costs!!!
I was taught that if you kept on going around in circles, you won’t find an edge. Newsagents tell me that they’ve been in the game for 20-30 years and they do the same thing and the results have not changed for them. All they are looking for is the payout at the end of the tunnel. How can they if they’re using the same system that was screwing them over???
Maybe Niall is right. It might just be a generation thing. Maybe it’s because the technology generation is not short-sighted and not to proud to try new things.
EDI WAS DEVELOPED TO MAKE LIFE SIMPLIER. In my situation, after 3 newsagencies (100+sqm), it has reduced our labour time for magazines down to 1.5hr a day (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) to do arrivals and returns for all 3 distributors. Don’t believe me? I’d invite you to come and watch my staff. They might be able to show you a thing or two.
I, along with my staff, no longer waste time doing the laborious jobs that newsagents are subjected to. Now, more than ever, I am focused more on my business and can actually come to work with a smile.
For newsagents who think that they are compliant by using the online stuff and are benefiting – think again. Revisit what you’re doing and compare that with newsagents whom are spending less than half the time you are and getting ALL their credits.
For newsagents who want to be working 14+hrs a day, how much longer can you last – particularly in this environment? Are you spending enough time with your family? For yourself?
Brett,
I have gripes with both distributors and newsagents. Distributors because they haven’t evolved their own processes and electronic platforms quickly enough, and with newsagents (not all of course) because they provide so much resistance to change.
I would love to see distributors move foward and let the rest “make their own arrangements”. Unfortunatly, “the rest” is a very large percentage of the industry – loo large. The opposition that distributors would face is huge.
ONE THING ABOUT THE DARK AGES THAT I MISS IS THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT ALL MY MAGS OUT FOR SALE ALREADY THIS MORNING BUT INSTEAD I AM WAITING ON GOTCH AND NDD TO OPEN AS I HAVE NOT RECEIVED HARDLY ANY FILES FROM THEM ……………….just noticed the caps was on sorry
This blog is like Home and Away – you can leave it for three months, come back and pick up the thread pretty quickly – same commentators with the same patronising remarks – same intra- industry bitchiness and producing the same overall impression that a newsagent is some divine being who should be held in awe by any other retailer – just get on with your own business girls and stop worrying about competitors or other small cheese stuff that Mrs Fletcher loves to wallow in
Jarryd, I fully support your right to say things as you see them, well done. I also reserve my right to say things as I see them and that would be that you are acting like a bit of a dick.
We are a small newsagency in a small town (800), yes we are compliant, which only means to me I have less work to do. To have someone judge my choices or business decisions that I feel are right for my business or to support business practices from Suppliers or software developers that jeapodise a small business, well lets just say they had better not show their face in my shop and should morally keep their destructive opinions to themselves. We all have choices.
We went from a DOS system to a browser based system about 6 months after we bought the business and have seen our workload and that of our staff reduce significantly, some 20 hours per week in returns alone right from the start.
We have since gone EDI with our returns and have also found significant benefits, we struggled initially with the decision as to who to go with but never to the decision to to go.
Jarryd seemed to be very ridgid with his views when I originally butted heads with him for this attitude along time ago on something not related, but I choose to now read into what he is saying and not so much into how he is saying it.
We all need to realise that forward needs to be direction we need to be heading and we all need to find a way to get there, what I have seen in the last 18 months with Gotch and Network with improved systems and better attitudes id remarkable.
We might ring now once a month, the websites now allow us to achieve what once required patience and stamina on a phone, we have taken advantage of these benifits and things are improving within the business, especially magazine management, and this has allowed other areas of our business to improve as well.
Every one to there own, but the future is forward and we should embrace change for the better
Luke, good points, well stated without rubbishing others. You make a lot of sense, thanks for taking the time to explain what WORKED for you. Not what others are doing wrong.
Andrew, I agree on your comments about being forward focused. This is what the new EDI standards are about. The changes in the next year are a tremendous opportunity for newsagents to get more control over the supply part of their businesses.
I believe Brett is right in your gripe should be with the distributors. Ultimately they decide the rules they engage newsagents. Right now everyone who is using EDI is effectively subsiding the inefficiencies of those who aren’t.
The inability to forecast demand and react quickly enough leads to over and under supplies and the whole supply chain pays for this.
I believe everyone should have a choice but why should you subsidize others’ choice?
Given that, as far as I know, only Network is using sales based replenishment, and even then only on selected magazines (not weeklies in Tas), it is fanciful to suggest that EDI users are subsidising those who aren’t. Also, given that even Mark continually complains about over-supply, distributors are clearly not using EDI to make supply decisions. As it typically takes a week to get extras delivered here and the overwhelming majority of sales fopr most mags being in the first week, I can only see SBRP effectively working if there is a more reactive delivery system, but that may well be unviable.
Peter,
I’m simply stating the effect the choices of newsagents have on the industry. I support changes in business practices/policies from distributors that make business more efficient and profitable (for newsagents or themselves).
Chris W, You assume that distributors are not using EDI to make supply decisions. I do not think this is strictly true. There will be contracts in place between publishers and distributors which require scale out regardless of sales. In other cases, contracts will exist with weak performance criteria – from which we suffer.
Despite not having EDI, I submitted both Network and GG returns for this week on the Internet yesterday, so it would have been as timely as returns submitted through EDI. Therefore, I can’t see why supply calculations would be any different if I had EDI. It wouldn’t bother me if they sent lower quantities of the major non-weekly magazines and relied on me ordering extras on the net to top-up (providing delivery was more timely, but that’s a separate issue).
Chris W, SBR decisions are based on sales data. I know in some other situations distribution decisions are based on sales data – it is more immediate than return data.
The issue with ordering extras is the distribution cost. They want to group as much distribution together as possible because the cost for each handling of an issue has a cost to the distributors.
Part of the challenge in all this is that magazine distribution is
As long as extras are ordered electronically, the distribution cost is the same as SBR, surely. Admittedly, SBR would make a more informed decision about when to order than a manual extras order, but those manual extra orders are likely to be on the lower side of SBR due to the effort required and desire not to have excess stock on hand.
Since allocation should be based on sales data from a number of issues, knowledge of sales from the current issue at the time allocation for the next is made should have only minor impact.
Having said all this, I do realise that because your magazine sales are probably ten times mine, the stats you generate are much more valid and useful in your case.
Jarryd, Mark.
This is going to be long. Sorry.
It just seems to me that when ‘basic standards’ language/statements are used in relation to ‘legitimate’ entry to a particular line of work i.e. livelihood, there are some of us who do question the relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of it all.
Firstly, be clear that I’m not against anybody adopting any tools they choose in order to get the most out of their business, for whatever reason. Hell, if the agent up the road thinks chucking eye of newt into a wok works for them, then whacko. The right to then judge the validity of anyone else’s based on their particular choices, however, is another matter altogether. I don’t have a problem with those selling or developing the systems either. But I can see where it could be going, depending on which and whose times we’re supposed to be keeping up with.
What I meant about ‘generic’, was that it seems to me that if you get your way, ‘the channel’ will comprise of shops turning over a minimum amount so as to justify a compulsory computer data system. In turn this dictates who has the right to deal with distributors. But where will it go from there? What other minimum standards will be demanded of prospective agents down the track to prevent being overlooked in favour of even higher-volume retailers? Besides, who will actually decide just what the channel will comprise? It seems to me that, ultimately, the distributors will.
They will be the ones still controlling our little marketplace, as always. Peak bodies, as has been repeatedly demonstrated right here, are toothless tigers in protecting agents from the arrogance and poor ethics of suppliers in so many instances. So, all this looks to me like the protectiveness of the channel by the agents advocating the minimum entry levels, are possibly giving those suppliers even more free rein to keep up their usual treatment. Your argument works both ways. Supermarkets et al are, increasingly, their bread and butter, so you’re playing right into their hands by demanding, as a channel, such things as electronic compliance which suggests higher volumes – to be like them. We have already seen it happen, with NDD’s decision to kiss off smaller agents. Why? Because they’re struggling, so they’ll scapegoat smaller agents. It’s not like we and others like us were that much of a liability – after all delivery costs etc are built in to prices, and we are as much as them, at the mercy of relevant markets in relation to operating costs. The only thing that we ourselves might have done wrong was to have opted out of their transport levy, having found a cheaper option. But how many ‘compliant’ agents were dumped by NDD? I’ll bet there were a few. To argue that we all should have this basic minimum requirement so that we are treated better by the big boys is rubbish.
So, I’m merely questioning the notion of compliance as a minimum standard for what is going to put a newsagency out of reach for many down the track. There is a faint whiff of elitism here, which has no room for the true diversity of the elements of the sum (the ‘channel’, as it is now, if you like) which, I’d venture, in this guise, will look more like puppets of big business. Unfortunately, it’s already starting to look like it. If terminology is anything to go by, the word, ‘compliance’ itself is pretty scary, and my main advice here is to be careful what you wish for. Are we as a channel complying with the combined glom of our print suppliers, or with ourselves? Honestly?
For example, we bought a newsagency a few months ago. It is very small, is not part of a buying group, and the business is heavily supplemented with convenience items. It is located on the seaside, supported by the very small local community, and supplemented by passing travellers and workers. It is in a very old building which is in dire need of maintenance and repairs, which the landlords aren’t too interested in keeping up. On the other hand, that in itself is part of its charm, believe it or not. It has been a primary agency for decades. I don’t mean to suggest that this is a sole reason for retaining that status, however while suppliers offer us this arrangement, and if the commission is worth our while, we will not knock it back. After all, we bought a primary agency, not a sub-news. We have other, much more sizeable primary agents on either side of us, which service much larger delivery territories than we do. They may not want to have us as subbies, depending on what their contracts will look like in the nearer future. Then what?
If all our suppliers came along tomorrow and told us that we would suddenly be subagents for whoever because we weren’t compliant, or didn’t sell as many papers/mags as the big NewsXpress 2 suburbs away, we’d be pretty PO’d . So, we’d be getting half the commission, and to add insult to injury, be giving who would have been once a competitor, full commission, for stuff we’re still accommodating, handling, and selling. We would probably still be getting the same volumes of newspapers, so that really would suck if we were forced to allocate the same real estate to a halved profit item. It wouldn’t kill us, but if we’re to provide our customers with their papers, we would prefer to do so in our own right. Ditto this week’s That’s Life promotion. Are you kidding?? Those of us in the bottom HALF near enough, weren’t worthy of promotional material to sell more of their mags. I sooo rest my case! So, ‘the channel’ as you want it to develop, could actually be looking like a threat to our business as things stand here, if we wanted to get so literal about it. You say that businesses like ours should fail because we don’t’ agree with you? Just because many agents have this system doesn’t mean it’s good for all of us, regardless of turnover. On this basis, we make yours look bad? It’s starting to look more like an exclusive club than a business sector, and worse, you’re starting to sound like the big suppliers you fear so much.
And the argument that compliant agents are subsidising businesses that aren’t compliant? You have to be joking. You paid for the benefits you were sold in your package. Nothing more. You have not paid for us to do business as we see fit. Did you pay for your convenience, or ours? To those of you who praise the benefits of your package, good for you. But don’t tell me that you’ve paid for the way I work in the process. Come here and say that. If a fully integrated, compliant channel was a selling point, were you given a timeframe for that to come to complete fruition (i.e. when all those without the systems have been chucked off the channel)? Or were you simply sold a more integrated system for your business? Give me strength.
How’s this for an idea? If the suppliers are so enamoured with compliance and other standards, how about they discount their titles to all the compliant businesses? That way, we could continue to pay the same as we always have, and you lot can have them cheaper, to make your investment work even better for you. Do publishers/distributors discount certain groups of agents already? You know, like price tiers for other merchandise? Is that happening already?
So, it is not a generational thing, or a case of resistance to change. It’s not about keeping up with the times. It’s about surviving the times, but more about thriving in them. We don’t need to have whizz-bang compliance systems to do that. What we do need is inclusion in the sector we work in. We also need to work as efficiently and effectively as we can, given our particular circumstances, advantages and disadvantages. Because that may not include your minimum standard, you would prefer we went under?
Some of you fear the channel will collapse because we’re not all integrated. Well, given the comments so far re the future of newspaper print media, don’t you think that’s a bit of a cop-out? You’re urging agents to diversify, and not rely on newsagent staples to further your business. I couldn’t agree more. This is why this whole bizzo of jumping up and down about standards and keeping up with the times seems like a bit of a double standard, frankly. I can see how it is relevant to magazine distribution, but as I’ve mentioned above, that has its holes, too.
The fact that we have a newsagency doesn’t mean we should aspire to be like a big, bright, shiny shop like in shopping centres. It shouldn’t mean that we have to qualify for membership in the EDI club in order to buy wholesale stock directly from print suppliers.
Y&G, You’re wrong. I don’t want you to achieve a minimum turnover to justify a computer system nor do I think the channel will collapse unless newsagents are ‘integrated’.
I invest time in this blog to get newsagents thinking about their future, to make business decisions for themselves.
I have been working in, with and for newsagents since 1981. I care about the future of the channel.
The channel has no national leadership.
These are reasons I publish what I publish here.
Standards are important today because magazines and newspapers are important to us today. The circulation train has slowed somewhat but it remains very important to us. Hence my views on standards. I worry that newsagents who do not keep up will drop off the supplier radar and that weakens the channel.
I know many small compliant newsagencies turning over $300K a year and less. Indeed, many of these are better businesses than newsagencies turning over five andten times.
It comes back to the individual.
This channel needs business people who think for themselves and who embrace the opportunities which flow from debate.
Mark
Y&G,
The newsagency industry has been living inside a bubble for a long time. At present magazine suppliers distribute magazines to just about any newsagent, big or small. Aside from newspaper publishers, I don’t know of any other supplier that does this. Many newsagents are not profitable for distributors, so why should they continue to supply to those accounts? If it were any other supplier the retailer would have to meet a minimum order requirement or pay some form of freight/handling fee.
Demanding minimum standards is not giving suppliers free rein to keep up their usual treatment. In fact, its the opposite. The more compliant the channel the more leverage it has in negotiating with suppliers. Large retailers can demand much more of their suppliers not only because of their size but because of the standards their systems employ.
The That’s Life promo was a very expensive exercise for the publisher. Why would they waste resources on giving it to every retailer when they can target stores where the promotion will have a greater impact? Newsagents can’t expect to be treated equal when there are many different shapes and sizes. That is a factor in all retailing.
We’re only a relatively small store and have sometimes not been able to meet minimum order requirments for suppliers. We accept that. We don’t exect to be accomodated because we are small.
I’m not saying that non-compliant agents are subsidising compliant agents. Im saying that non-compliant agents are costing distributors money – money that could have been used more efficiently if those agents were compliant. Distributors are having to split limited resources among different platforms to accomodate non-compliant newsagents.
To my knowledge, publishers aren’t discounting for certain groups already. What benefit would they get by doing this for compiant agents?
You say “It’s about surviving the times, but more about thriving in them”. I would almost garantee that compliant newsagents are doing better than those who are non-compliant. I would love to see that data from the distributors.
Mark/Y&G, very good points.
I think it’s a horses for courses situation. I’ve seen very big newsagencies with the writing on the top of magazines like above losing money because they haven’t up graded to an EDI software package, losing money because magazines don’t get sent back on time.
Y&G, I think I’ve been your Newsagency and would say that you probably would not need to do the EDI thing, or worry about it either – If you’ve got the shop I’m thinking of your on a winner! Great customer service, great mix of product, no close competiton, it’ll work out fine. (It’s on a corner, right?)
Mark, complience is a big word, what would be non-complient? Doing returns manually?
Guys, no probs re your views and explanations. I thank you for your time taken in posting them.
I just feel that it’s important to allow other PsOV to have their say. I don’t take real kindly to reading about how some can live while others can’t, so thanks also for providing right of reply.
Michael, “horses for courses” sums things up beautifully.
So, why didn’t you introduce yourself?
After I gave up looking due to not finding any that met the criteria and having to get back here in a hurry, I sincerely stumbled on it, raced in, bought a coke and raced back here.
No time to introduce myself, and I wasn’t sure it was it so I thought it would be awkward saying “Hello Y&G” and being in the wrong shop!!! And sometimes I’m shy… Next time I’m down there I’ll drop in.
Ah, that’s what happens with guesswork
😛