Media news website Mumbrella yesterday covered the ACCC conference held last week to consider the application by the MPA to trial new magazine supply rules. I appreciate the time they took to learn about the proposed trial and the concerns it represents for newsagents.
This the first time I can recall such public coverage of the uncompetitiveness of magazine supply to newsagents compared to our competitors. It is good to see the story out there.
Newsagents interested in the issue of magazine supply should read the Mumbrella report.
I wish the ANF would be more complete in its coverage, more transparent with newsagents. Yesterday, they published a post which I say shows the ANF acting as a mouthpiece for the MPA when they should be the mouthpiece for newsagents. In a comment to the post the ANF says: there are no plans to disallow early returns. The problem for the ANF is that rule 4 from the MPA says:
A Distributor will not be required to accept Early Returns from Retailers, except where such Early Return is made by a Retailer to correct an error in allocations quantity.
The ANF needs to stop defending the trial by saying any trial is better than no change. They need to robustly represent newsagents if they are to recover credibility from their current low point. They need to demonstrate to newsagents that they are fighting for them and not publishers.
As I told Mumbrella yesterday:
“Newsagents want to be magazine specialists, they want to be the go to place for all your special interests. That is only going to continue if we can find a way for that to be economically viable,” he said.
People at the ANF seem to think I am against change in magazine supply. Not true – I am all for change, fair change. It is unreasonable for newsagents to accept anything which does not improve our ability to compete as that is of no benefit to us.
The folks at the ANF need to realise that newsagents deserve professional, thorough and energetic leadership – backed with open communication.
On the ANF website yesterday the ANF appeared to suggest the no early returns was for the purpose of this trial only. The documentation submitted to the ACCC by the MPA does not indicate that. Further, if this was the case the MPA members could have ensured fair supply and therefore seen early returns decline – and negated the need for the trial. Publishers do not trust this will happen because magazine distributors Gotch and Network have driven newsagents to use early returns as the only reasonable in-store magazine management tactic.
Finally, I have heard from several newsagents that they have been approached by ANF representatives to discuss this matter and the ANF reps comment about what I have written here. To date, no one from the ANF has contacted me on this issue.
Seems to me the ANF are now spending more time and effort communicating with members to defend their stance to support the MPA.
Pity they didn’t put a similar effort in the beginning to consult with Newsagents over the rules of this trial
ANF should have consulted with THEIR members and then taken action based on members input.
To not widely consult with all members is unforgivable.
The NANA representative said at the conference oh its great we are all here talking about magazines and lets have this trial . This is not a Wizard Of Oz fantasy world .
Mark, your reference to rule 4 – “no early returns” comes under the heading “Limitations on the distribution of magazines to be trialled during the
Pilot”. So no early returns for the 20 newsagents in the pilot program while the pilot program is running. Results would be meaningless if the 20 newsagents did early return and the sold out.
If the pilot is seen to be successful and implemented, then over supply as we know it will be reduced and therefore early returns would be reduced. I think the early return issue is a non issue.
My main concern is the advantages supermarkets have over newsagents. I think this needs to be addressed.
Dean if that was the case why has the MPA made that clear in ins representations including to the ACCC at the conference. What was said was that the trial was to test new rules. At the heart of it is tighter control over supply. They can do this today.
Look back through the entire trial document. You could be supplied a title with a sub 50% sell through and you cannot early return. This forces you to lose money.
Sure, you lose money today. Why not focus on fixing the issue in fairness for newsagents rather than using this trial mechanism to remove early returns which is a live prospect.
So is the early returns ruling only for the purpose of the trial or not , I am getting mixed answers to this question and for me it is the only thing I really care about . Anf says there is no such rules ? Mark says there is ? Deans comment sounds how I think it is … so bloody confusing
Shaun, neither the MPA nor the ANF made such claims at the ACCC conference.
The purpose of the trial is to test a proposed national Code of Conduct. The rules for the trial encode the rules for the Code of Conduct.
Based on the written submission from the ACCC it is not possible to conclude that the early return rules are for the purpose of the trial only.
Page 11 of the MPA submission makes it clear that Early returns is a rule they want to trial. So, no, it is post application spin to say no early returns is for the trial only. Anyone saying this cannot have read the submission.
There is no confusion here other than that caused by people looking to dig themselves out of a hole.
There is just NO WAY ON EARTH that the MPA are going to trial something for the better good of newsagencies.
It will be in the interests of the publishers and distributors and we will not figure in that decision.
Get that into our heads peoples because I have been doing this for 40 years and I have NEVER seen a decision made for the benefit of newsagents.
Xchangeit should be free for newsagents and EARLY RETURNS are (or should be)
NON NEGOTIABLE.
Ive read the comments on the ANF portal comments made by ANF staff include ,early returns are not being removed and there are no rules as such
These comments are misleading, the line being pushed that they will get their supply perfect so therefore we wont need early returns is mischievous .
As Mark stated the application by the MPA to the ACCC is clear.
If you want to believe the ANFs back peddling or Gotch or Network that’s fine
But I don’t think Newsagents should accept the proposed changes
Did the ANF advise its members that the ACCC had approved a predetermination conference ? Did the ANF advise a time and a location of the conference so concerned newsagents could voice their opinions ? Although Mark via newsXpress was the driver of this conference any newsagent could have applied to attend.
The ANF by their recent announcements is keeping newsagents far less than fully informed on this matter.
They don’t like criticism do they
I don’t understand it. The ANF position ought to be what newsagents want. At the ACCC conference, every newsagent who spoke disagreed with the ANF on early returns.
Newsagents should quit in my view.
From Mumbrella – MPA response “In the pilot we will do that, we will make the stores work with the distributors and publishers to choose the right range for them”.
“We will make” does not engender any collaboration at all. Who owns the space? Do we not have information on our demographics!!
This is Australia.
The MPA has been quoted in a follow up article in Mumbrella: http://mumbrella.com.au/magazine-body-disputes-claim-distribution-changes-will-leave-newsagents-uncompetitive-290998
The MPA CEO does not answer most of the issues raised and fails to acknowledge that many newsagents have complained about theatrical.
Is the MPA trial testing rule changes that will make newsagents equal with supermarkets on control: No. Does the trial address magazine profitability such that we can compete? No.
The trial has ben designed by three publishers. A fairer trial would have been designed with active newsagent involvement.
The MPA and the ANF continue to sit in ivory towers and not engage with those who have been held back by an out of date supply model.
I urge all Newsagents to read this follow-up article and comment accordingly. (link in the above post)
Mary Azer from MPA has put forward some views that seem at odds with what has happened and what the ACCC has said.
In one, she indicates it is the MPA that are controlling the schedule of events regarding the proposed trial rather than the ACCC. To me it was the ACCC who said they would consider the concerns of Newsagents and other parties before making a decision around mid May.
In another comment in the Mumbrella article, she speaks for the ANF when making a comment about Mark Fletcher’s call that the ANF had not done it’s research on this issue.
Whilst Mumbrella has attempted to put a balance on the subject, I don’t think they have mined down deeply enough to get across the real issues, but at least is does give us a greater coverage of the matter.
When one looks at the language used by Mary Azer – “we will make the stores work with the distributors and publishers” it cements the mistrust I have for the proposed trial.
I think any Newsagent comments on their site would assist readers gain a better understanding of what Newsagents have had to put up with in comparison to Coles/WW etc.