With more and more newsagents reducing space allocated to magazines newsagencies are no longer geared to warehouse stock sent to last through a long on-sale. Whereas in the past holding bundles of stock for three months was acceptable, today it is not.
Technology should be used to apply product based on sales through the on-sale. Publishers will say this is not viable for them.
My message to publishers is that the model of supplying to us stock to hold for three months through an on-sale is not viable for us even if all supplied product will eventually sell. Today’s efficient newsagency does not have the luxury of the space required.
I am more likely to cut off long on-sale titles supplied in this way.
The distributors can and should deliver 3 month on sale titles to us on a monthly basis according to the previous months sales. Even delayed billing does not help this situation and we return excess stock at the end of each month to make room for the new magazines that arrive.Retail space is too expensive and valuable to stock 20-30 phone book size publications for extended periods.
Mark, when we talk of mags we need to categorise them into weeklies, monthlies and the rest.
It’s the “rest” that is the problem.
Once again I am out of stock of Take 5 and That’s Life today.
I’ll probably get some on SBR too late next week.
These large mags retailing for only $6.95 are not worth my time. They are so bulky and take up so much space + I can sell other home mags of this nature for $15 to $20. I now return the lot, if they want me to take this bulky product they can give me minimum 50% GP.
Some of the MARRY ME magazines are the same. They are so thick you can only get one on the shelf and returns they want the full copy. Are they magazines or BOOKS.