Michael Byrnes posted on Twitter: If newsagents treat selling papers as peripheral or a nuisance then why are we protecting them through lottery franchise? They’ve lost me. While I responded and we engaged in a respectful and useful back and forth about issues surrounding newspapers, what gets me writing about this today is that he linked support for newsagents on lotteries to other behaviour. It highlights a weakness in the NANA approach on lotteries.
If you ask the public to support you, you need to have something the public will want to support. By you here I mean all newsagents, the whole channel.
We are only as strong as our weakest link.
Michael Byrnes had a bad experience in a newsagency and we are all affected by that bad experience. This is why the newsagency shingle is a risky shingle to use – because there is absolutely no discipline behind it.
Byrnes makes a valid point we need to listen to and think about. We want public support yet some of us are not doing enough to warrant that.
Huh?
Does Michael Byrnes see a lack of enthusiasm with newspapers as being somehow connected to the push by the duopoly to get lotteries in?
Maybe he feels that the newsagent he visited doesnt deserve lotteries because he cant make v much out of newspapers.
I fail to see the connection, unless he feels that newsagencies should be unrelentingly enthusiastic about everything they sell?
Bruce customers make connections for themselves. That the comment was public provides us with an insight from which we can learn.