More than 170 newsagents met in Adelaide yesterday to discuss the new contracts from News Limited. Over the course of three hours a many views were shared. These ranged from information on problems with the News Ltd migration project (were News takes control of the newspaper customer from the newsagent) to the threat of total loss of newspaper sales should a newsagent refuse to sign the contracts.
The meeting was attended and addressed by three politicians: John Darley – Independent Member Upper House SA; Steve Georganas MP Federal Member for Hindmarsh; Robert Brokenshire MLC – Family First Member Upper House SA. They committed to helping newsagents achieve an equitable outcome and expressed their support for small business – not just lip service but practical support. Nick Xenophon, while not in attendance, had a representative there to indicate his personal interest in this matter.
The most significant contribution at the meeting came from Professor Frank Zumbo from the University of NSW. Frank outlined several go forward options for newsagents based on his reading of the proposed contracts. He also provided useful commentary on legal avenues as well as an understanding of the challenges of various options open to newsagents. Frank’s options were discussed by the meeting and plans made to make progress on these.
News Ltd sought to take some sting out of the meeting by announcing a deal late Thursday which they had brokered with the ANF. This deal offered SA country newsagents an increase in delivery fees if they met certain stringent conditions. Unfortunately, the deal could see some newsagents worse off if their customers move from a two day a week delivery to a heavily discounted seven day a week delivery. The mood of the room was one of cynicism and disappointment with the deal and that newsagents had not been robustly represented in the eleventh hour talks.
Three larger postal boxes in the corner of the room showed what newsagents can do – they contained proof that customers did not want their details handed over to News Ltd.
Kudos to the two newsagents who independently organised the meeting. This shows what newsagents can do when they work together.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the meeting. It highlighted to me the extent of the negative impact of the new contracts and migration on the family businesses represented. It also demonstrated that newsagents are prepared to unify around this issue.
I am not reporting here in any detail on the meeting as this would provide News Ltd visibility of the options under consideration.
This is the best news I have read about the contracts. Finally there seems to me to be a plan for newsagents to follow. Can we get these South Australian newsagents to share their ideas with the rest of us. VANA is keeping us in the dark by just feeding the ANF line which is words and not much else.
Was the ANF involved in the meeting?
There is something in there regarding the mail from customers that I must admit is something I always had in the back of my mind.In the state I am in, it is illegal AFAIK to pass details of a customer onto a third party without the express written consent of the person or company concerned.It’s not the exact same relationship, but personally if my accountant passed my details onto a third party financial services company they have a relationship with, without my permission, I’d be pissed.
John, at the meeting in Adelaide on Friday it was interesting to hear how many customers had said they did not want their details handed over and who had therefore cancelled subscriptions.
Whilst not being a lawyer, I have had considerable exposure to the Privacy Act as it relates to Financial Services organisations and can say that unless consent is given information is not allowed to be passed to a third party, and the customer is not allowed to be solicited with offers from this third party.
Given this, and if consent is not provided I beleive that the contracts themselves could well be in breach of the Privacy Act.
Also, does this not potentially mean that when an existing Newsagency customer is solicited with an offer from the third party (i.e. QLD Newspapers)and offered this ‘special’ on the condition that they pay direct to them that they have in fact already breached the Privacy Act?
Lastly, if the above points are true, this would then place more value on the Newsagent with the direct supply as they own the customer and their information which is what suppliers are trying to assume ownership of for nil consideration.
Ann would be interested on your views?
Cheers
Peter