Despite promises that they would address the supply of comics, magazine distributor Gordon and Gotch continues to fail newsagents by supplying to a level where most newsagents lose money carrying the Simpson comics. Take the latest Bart Simpson comic, we should have received 40% less stock than the magazine distribution experts at Gordon and Gotch sent us.
Gordon and Gotch holds us accountable for paying them yet they continue to refuse to be accountable for fair, ethical and responsible supply. The time spent on this, while not massive on only title, adds up and detracts from investing in more successful magazine titles.
Publishers who treat newsagents fairly by supplying to a 60% or more sell through should demand that Gotch stop supplying where their own sales data proves that they are oversupplying.
For the record I note that I consider supplying to anything less than a 60% sell through target is over supply.
Gotch should stop using our newsagencies as warehouses. Supply fewer copies and use sales based replenishment techniques to replenish based on demand. Making the retailer pay the price of an inefficient system is unfair.
Footnote: it’s not only the Simpson’s comics. Gotch’s own sale and return data has evidence of plenty of oversupply like this.
This is a continual problem.We received 40 copies of Ride Cycling Review, we normally sell 3-4 copies.I realise it is a souvenir edition of the Tour de France and would get a slight increse. When I spoke to someone at G&G about my oversupply, I was told this allocation must be right as “we are making money so our allocation system must work.”
She would not listen to what I was trying to tell her about oversupply. A waste of time and effort.
so what can we realistically do? (using their wesbite to control stock doesn’t count because they just send other junk)
how can we stop this unethical behavior?
hate, get your evidence of oversupply – if you have the tower software your sell through rates report offers excellent evidence. Check this out and consider lodging a claim in an appropriate place: CTTT (NSW), VCAT (VIC), QCAT (QLD).
The key is to ensure you have the right evidence for your business and that you have the stamina to mount a case.
Sadly, too many newsagents complain without following through.
ok, just for discussion sake……”divided we fall” individual newsagents might be too small/too poor to be seriously listened to. however, in a world of class-action stuff….. how come the associations don’t request members for sell thru data and use the collective evidence.
i mean, there are suppose to be roughly 4k newsagents around country, lets say the associations have 2k worth of sell thru rates and im sure the data will show the truth.
why is it always just talking with distributors? why not let a bigger body lodge a claim on behalf of all members with proof from all participating members?
hate, the way these bodies work is that we have a better chance if we individually act. the trouble is that newsagents individually have never done this. We have not much to lose in trying.
We need to be accountable for our situation. This means acting on our complaints, ourselves.
Why are we part of these associations if we are better off individually trying to solve this problem?
I thought the idea behind VANA, NANA, ANF etc if that they represent the interests of their members?
I have not been in this industry as long as many, but I know the magazine distribution problem has been around for many years. Have the associations ever worked for change in this area?
Any newsagent can tell you the oversupply borders on criminal, and I would think our data shows clearly that.
Maybe I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the best course of action be for the associations use our collective data to lodge a case against Gotch and Network with the ACCC on the behalf of the members?
The associations are working on magazine supply issues. However, newsagents need cannot contract out accountability. Fight yourself for your rights.
i agree with steven. collective data from multiple sources would hold more sway.
even if the associations don’t lodge a complaint, they have never asked for data to use for their “discussions” with the distributors.
hate, you’re wrong. Associations have asked for data several times over recent years. The problem with data from multiple newsagencies is that the other side will divert attention and shoot holes in it. An individual newsagent making a complaint will have only their own data to defend. You have nothing to lose by taking personal accountability.
The problem is we need change across the board for everyone. As hateBullies said, individual action may not be viable for many newsagents because of financial/time constraints. Not to mention the stress.
As I see it, if any one newsagent is successful with a claim (has this even happened?) things will only change for that one agent. So unless we have the vast majority of newsagents make independant cases, I don’t see any change happening across the channel.
Excuse my ignorance, but are we in BUSINESS? Shouldn’t we be devoting our efforts towards building successful businesses and not frigging around with suppliers/CTTT and doing endless time-consuming admin rubbish to get a fair deal? I didnt sign up for this crap and i will be getting out of this ridiculous industry ASAP
Hate to tell you Chris, but what you call admin rubbish is a significant part of every business I know. Its not a part of the job I enjoy, but it is a part of it.
@vicki
sorry but you are wrong. i don’t believe that there are a lot of businesses (aside from us) that has to put up with so much excess crap.
how many businesses are there that the suppliers tell you what to do, when to do and how to do things.
if i’m not crazy, i would think that suppliers should be the ones chasing our business.
admin stuff yes its normal…… delberate cash grab and wantom disregard to our concerns…….i don’t think so.
Chris, such challenges are not unique to newsagencies. That said, our suppliers are less fair than most.
Steven and hate, we can debate this forever or someone can give it a crack as I suggest. There’s not much to lose and plenty to gain.
I have been in this industry for 12 years, and despite the promises of better supply models if we signed up for Xchangeit, then the promises that came again with the new version of Xchangeit, nothing has changed. I have fought suppliers for years and nothing changes. Weekly returns has seen a marginal improvement, but ultimately the contempt shown us by GG and NET is as strong as ever. I cannot understand how SBR can automatically send me one extra copy of AWW within 5 days of it going on sale, but long term allocations cannot be adjusted despite the proof of supply requirements going back to them on a daily basis.
My personal view is that there is no longer a reasonable return for effort to be made on print, and I cannot see it getting any better. Distributors going direct to the P&C outlets and papers being given away at virtually every location other than newsagents serve only to dilute the value of printed material to newsagents – in my view, and one that I accept will not be shared by some in our industry.
One week we have McDonalds giving away a free paper with breakfast, then it is the drive thru coffee outlets this month giving them away with a coffee. I now sell 30% of the volume of newspapers I used to when I entered the industry (prior to Coles and Woolies selling them), and still premium display space is demanded for the product.
Gifts, ink, stationery and greeting cards are a very different story. We see healthy growth in all of them, and we shifting our focus to the areas of the business we can control. In 6 weeks I have a new shopfit going in to replace 400 magazine pockets (from the 1000 I have now) with shelving and hangsell for our new opportunities. Publishers need to take note, because many of the small titles that are there now will not be in 6 weeks time.
I have lost interest in the magazine specialist fantasy – I don’t see it being a profitable reality. I am sick of being treated like an idiot and dictated to by these distributors. I want control over my supply and to be given the opportunity to manage my supply for maximum return on MY investment, and as that seems impossible to achieve, the time to change focus is here – in my store at least.
Glenn if you are right then we will see a wholesale pull out of magazine retailing just as we have seen happen with newspaper home delivery.
The sick magazine distribution model could be so easily fixed.
I think the key is to eliminate the distributors.
Glenn- Enjoyed reading your post. I do agree with what you are saying, your last paragraph I think the majority feel.
Unfourtunately I do not thing Newsagency specialist are at the point at the moment to not continue putting up with this crazy system where a supplier holds the Vendor hostage. We need customers and Print is still a drawcard although as you said the key is to change focus, their are many posts regarding this in the archives.
Interesting comment regarding the eliminating of the Distributors. I dont disagree however what would the supply chain / model look like. That one caught me off guard. Its a big statement.
Mark, the current magazine distribution model is not just sick, it is in palliative care, and everyone is waiting for that miracle cure to appear from the shadows. In the meantime, many of the patients will pass away and by the time a cure is found, for many it will be too late.
I see more and more evidence of newsagents either changing their focus and reducing dramatically their focus on magazines, or at least starting to think about it and discuss it. I have no doubt that newsagents will gain strength and confidence on the successes of those other retailers who have the courage to make the change, and change will come, but not to the benefit of the print industry. Again, publishers need to take note and act now – in their own long term interests.
I agree, the key is to eliminate the distributors, or at least dramatically change the model under which they operate, but I am sick of beating my head against a brick wall and putting up with the condescending responses of distributors and newspaper publishers.
Derek – you are right about the big statement, but, as the saying goes, there is only one way to eat an elephant, and that is one bite at a time!
Mark, yes, someone should take action. The associations have an obligation to address this problem.
So far there has been very little leadership or advice on this issue, and the situation is only getting worse. It seems some sort of legal action is required, either by individuals, as you suggest, or as a group.
Whatever is required, at this moment, not enough is being done.
I agree that the model is sick. It is likely that the progressive newsagents will sell less and less magazines as they take control of their own stock and move on. The delivering newsagenxcies are finding their businesses to be worth less and less as free newspapers are been given away and the costs to deliver go up without a resultant increase in delivery fees. Magazines will go the same way. to save your business you must look for alternatives. it may even be that magazines will only be available on IPADS because it is not viable to sell any otherway. The options are with the distributors and the publishers. If they dont change they wont have a business either. We on the otherhand will still be here selling other stuff as convenience operators and in charge of our own stock and margins.Interesting that the subject of magazine delivery creates the most comment on this blog. ie this blog and the one about early returning new magazines.
Wally it is sad that these topics about decaying parts of our businesses attract so much discussion while those posts about opportunities we can take to embrace change are neglected.
Maybe Mark it is the only part of our business that we have hardly any control over , let alone being able to discuss any of this with them directly . Whereas oportunitys to embrace change is something that we can control
Spot on Mark. The distributors need to be removed from their position of power. An alliance between pro-active publishers and newsagency groups could achieve that outcome. The reality of the modern Newsagent is that published product does not meet the profitability requirements for retail as it once did. Publishers/distributors haven’t met those needs in time and so our industry moves forward, increasingly without them. The amount of responses you get on these topics should be looked upon as an opportunity to make change sooner rather than later as it is the strong agents that are leaving them (publishers/distributors) behind first – just as Glenn is.
20yr, newsXpress is doing this now with direct to publisher relationships with Pacific magazines, ACP magazines, Lovatts and Universal. The most important benefit of these exclusive relationships is around allocations in my personal view.
Which gets me to thinking.
It is clear that newsagency – specific print media is in big trouble. Agents are voting with their accounts, yet those who remain are still being treated with contempt by the big 4 (News, Fairfax, Network & Gotch). The marketing groups have been very proactive in addressing this within their own ranks, in terms of what Mark has just posted.
Thing is, not all newsagents are members of buying groups, however I see, not too far down the track, that many will either have to subscribe (hee) to membership of such groups, or be left very much out in the cold, in relation to fair deals with the Fab Four. I also see these groups increasingly more able to swing good deals for their members, as opposed to the various associations who, frankly, appear to do a few good things on a micro level, however are still completely useless in terms of meaningfully addressing gross exploitation of agents by distributors and newspaper publishers.
Y&G my understanding is that only newsXpress has done this with the four companies. A good marketing group easily pays for itself for any size newsagency.
That’s my point, Mark.
To my mind, the future existence of newsagency as we know it, would only be possible via eligibility for membership of such groups. It’s pure speculation on my part, looking to the more distant future, however if positive change is coming, a logical option could be representation and buying power via a buying group, rather than ineffectual associations which, to date, have not changed the lot of distribution agents one jot.
This would, of course, require changes within marketing groups’ structures, to address inequitable terms and control.
A pipe dream, perhaps, but doable, I reckon.
With respect Y&G you’re making an assumption about inequitable terms and control.
Whose?
I assume, then that you’re assuming I mean those of the buying groups?
I actually meant those of the big 4.
If you meant the latter, I have to ask.. are you serious? If you meant the former, then apologies for not being clear.
Okay, sorry. Some progress has been made already on terms and more is to come. To be fair to associations, they have no mechanism of compliance and so can’t commercially negotiate for newsagents.
No probs 🙂
If the associations have no mechanism for compliance, they how can the negotiate on our behalf for the ATO distribution contract? It seems to me that they put in the too hard basket and move on.