Reader’s Digest oversupply continues

My estimate is that Reader’s Digest magazine has a sell through rate of around 25%. This is my experience in at least one of my newsagencies. It is a poor performing title yet the magazine distribution experts at Network Services decided I should get an increase in supply. While they will have their excuses, I see no justification in my sales data for them sending more copies of Reader’s Digest. All their action achieves is taking up valuable time dealing with the unjustified supply quantity, taking time from more productive magazine management work.

Looking carefully at the sale and return data, it seems to me that Network will increase supply if you have one good month but they will wait for three or four bad months before decreasing supply.  This suggests double standards.  It is not, in my view, fair or responsible. They are spending my money, giving me little control and expecting me to pay their accounts on time without being fair or ethical about it.

Publishers who supply more fairly, to achieve a sell through of 60% or more, are being hampered by whatever it is which sees newsagents supplied titles like Reader’s Digest with such a more sell through rate. The good publishers should be demanding of their magazine distributors. There is proof in distributor data of gross oversupply – if only you could get your hands on it.