Yesterday, I lodged another submission with the ACCC in relation to the application by the MPA to trial new magazine supply rules for newsagents. Click here to download the submission. The submission is also on the public register of the ACCC.
Like my first submission which the ACCC already has to consider, this submission was made on behalf of newsXpress members, based on my experience through Tower Systems serving 1,800+ newsagents and in pursuit of fairness for all newsagents. Here is the submission in full:
——————
Our view remains that the proposed MPA Pilot is ill-conceived, poorly constructed and not appropriate to meet the public benefit claims made in Section 4 of the application.
No information was presented at the Pre-Decision Conference or since to address the concerns raised in the newsXpress submission of April 23, 2015 nor the oral submissions newsagents at the Pre-Decision conference.
We urge the ACCC to embrace the opportunity to more thoroughly explore the anti-competitiveness of current and proposed magazine supply arrangements to newsagents compared to those applied to competitors of newsagents. While this issue is considerably larger than the issue of the Pilot, it goes to the heart of the future of the small business newsagency channel in Australia.
While the Pilot has been proposed to test what is claimed to be a new approach to the supply of magazines, we note it only relates to newsagents.
Competitors of newsagents are already treated with supply rules considerably more beneficial than the magazine supply rules the MPA proposes to trial for newsagents.
This difference between the supply of magazines to newsagents versus their competitors sits at the core of concerns held by newsXpress and newsagents more generally. The proposed Pilot does nothing to address these concerns.
At its heart, this Pilot seeks to test the continuation of magazine supply rules to newsagents that ensure their inability to compete with supermarkets, petrol outlets and convenience stores in the magazine category.
PRE-DECISION CONFERENCE
Every newsagent who presented to the conference spoke against the proposed magazine supply rules at the heart of the Pilot.
The MPA did not directly address any specific issue raised by newsagents nor did it directly address the comprehensive and specific complaints raised by newsXpress. Instead, the MPA relied on generalities.
Considering various points made by MPA and Bauer Media representatives at the conference, there is a gap between what has been documented to the ACCC about the Pilot and what has been said will be done as part of the Pilot.
For example, newsXpress and others expressed concern that the Pilot is to test rules that deny newsagents the opportunity to early return magazines. On page 4 of the minutes of the Pre-Decision conference we can see Mr Varricchio of Bauer Media and the MPA to say the MPA plans to allow early returns after 30 days. While we say the 30-day moratorium on early returns is unfair, it is not referred to in the documentation submitted to the ACCC for authorisation.
Mr Varricchio advised that newsagents participating in the pilot will have control over the range of magazines they stock. This is not covered in the submission from the MPA to the ACCC. There has been no evidence presented by the MPA as to the extent of control newsagents could have over the range of magazines they stock, whether the claimed control is being or can be applied uniformly, what the claimed engagement of participating newsagents looks like for them in the Pilot and in the future and or the magazine distributor processes to be put in place to enable such newsagent control over the range of magazines they stock.
Ms Azer, Director of the MPA, said the MPA would use POS data, among other data, to research how customers shop the magazine category. We note that while such data has been available for years, the MPA has made no effort to access same.
Mr Alf Maccioni, CEO of the Australian Newsagents’ Federation, told the Pre-Decision conference that the ANF had informed its members about the Pilot, with articles in newsagency magazines and newsletters. We can only find brief and passing comment about the Pilot by the ANF: to its members once in one paragraph in its magazine; and, once in as a topic in a general email to members. In neither case did the ANF adequately inform its members. We therefore say the ANF itself is not appropriately informed to speak on behalf of newsagents on this topic.
The most comprehensive information from the ANF information was published May 6, 2015. The ANF has not actively engaged with its members about the Pilot.
Every newsagent who spoke at the Pre-Decision conference spoke against the Pilot rules and the inequity of newsagent magazine distribution arrangements. No newsagent endorsed or supported the position taken by the ANF.
While the Pre-Decision conference was a welcome airing of concerns, the disconnect between claims made by the MPA and the documentation supplied by the MPA is considerable. Newsagent concerns about the disconnect are heightened because of a lack of trust that has built up over decades of oversupply and anti-competitive treatment.
HOW NEWSXPRESS FORMED ITS VIEWS
newsXpress actively sought feedback from its members at face to face meetings, via a private online forum, through face to face in store visits and through thorough telephone consultations.
The concerns raised by newsXpress are the concerns of the vast majority of its members following this comprehensive consultation process.
Following the Pre-Decision conference, newsXpress invited further feedback from members and this feedback has helped inform the views reflected in this submission including our advice that all concerns in the initial submission remain of concern to us.
MPA NOT PRERESENTATIVE OF ALL PUBLISHERS
The MPA is made up of three publishers, less than 5% of all magazine publishers in Australia. The vast majority of publishers who supply magazines to the newsagency channel have not been consulted as part of this process yet the Pilot seeks to test magazine supply rules that will impact their businesses.
It appears to us the Pilot has been constructed for the benefit of MPA members to the possible detriment of newsagents and other magazine publishers.
The MPA developed its Pilot and associated rules without consultation with newsagents. While it sought endorsement from the ANF, there has been no consultation with newsagents by the MPA nor by the ANF.
Any Pilot ought to be constructed with a more representative group of stakeholders including more publisher representatives and more newsagents.
WHERE ARE THE SAVINGS?
The MPA says that the Pilot is about reducing costs. There is nothing in the Pilot that reduces costs for newsagents and no evidence was presented to the Pre-Decision conference about expected cost savings for newsagents. It appears to us that the cost savings will be to the benefit of the magazine distributors and some magazine publishers over others.
Whereas newsagent competitors can be certain they will not be supplied more magazines than they have space to display, newsagents have no such certainty.
The only way for newsagents to reduce costs associated with magazines would be for them to be supplied such that more than 60% of all stock of each magazine title supplied is sold within 30 days and that full copy returns are eliminated.
IF THE MPA WAS SERIOUS
If the MPA was serious about its intent to optimise the supply of magazines to newsagents and to assist newsagents to more efficiently manage the magazine category (MPA ACCC application 4.a) it would have undertaken a study of the current performance of newsagency businesses to uncover the most efficient, the most successful at year on year sales uplift and the most engaged with the category. It would have thoroughly analysed these businesses and provided best practice advice to the newsagency channel.
Coming at the problem as a supply problem but not looking completely at the supply challenges and issues, the MPA has come up with a draft set of rules, what they call a Code of Conduct, that inadequately address the key financial and operational concerns of newsagents, the key factors which drive current newsagent behavior.
If the MPA was serious about its intent to optimise the supply of magazines to newsagents and to assist newsagents to more efficiently manage the magazine category it would engage with the magazine distributors on:
- Supplying magazines based on actual sales data supplied by newsagents and to a sell-through target which makes these magazines financially viable for newsagents. As put already by newsXpress, the print run / supply matrix proposed in the draft rules are not viable for newsagents for most categories of titles noted.
- Understanding from each newsagent the total space available for magazines so as to put in place rules to ensure no supply beyond the physical space allocated to magazines.
- Ensuring newsagents had absolute control over all new titles to carry.
- Stopping the need for newsagents to return unsold stock. The current system requires many newsagents to pay to return stock that has not sold while not giving those newsagents the ability to control supply.
Instead, the MPA, and in particular the Bauer Media controlled Network Services, has participated in a process which as recently as this past week has seen newsagents reissued magazines which have failed, newsagents supplied magazines to a volume based on previous sales which will deliver a loss-making sell through rate of 40% or less and introduced new titles without any regard as to their appropriateness for the newsagent businesses to which they have been sent.
In short, for all its statements of wanting to help newsagents some organisation in the MPA have most recently been treating newsagents in ways which are contrary to what are claimed to be the goals of the Pilot.
THE DISCONNECT OF COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS
At the heart of the unprofitability of magazines for newsagents is the commercial requirements of the two main magazine distributors Network Services (owned by Bauer Media) and Gordon and Gotch (owned by PMP Limited).
Gotch and Network are effectively trucking companies – they make money on delivering bundles of magazines. They have complete control over what they ship to newsagents whereas they to not have the same control over what they ship to all other magazine retailers.
The ability of Gotch and Network to control magazine supply to newsagents is vital to their commercial performance. It is understandable that Gotch and Network make decisions to serve their commercial needs ahead of newsagents.
The supply decisions of Gotch and Network are the single biggest factor in the financial losses endured by newsagents from magazines as well as the single most significant driver of behavior of newsagents toward magazines.
The impact of deregulation has been Gotch and Network having less control over the volume of magazines distributed outside the newsagency channel. With newsagents the only channel over which they do have control through pre-deregulation contracts distributors engage in practices that have driven up costs to newsagents, creating the problem the MPA says it wants to address.
WHY THE IMPACT OF THE 1999 DEREGULATION NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED
At the heart of the Pilot is the goal to optimise the supply of magazines to newsagents and to assist newsagents to more efficiently manage the magazine category.
The situation today of magazine supply to newsagents being unfair and a hindrance to their ability to be competitive is a consequence of deregulation.
Given the ACCC role in deregulation, we consider it is appropriate for the ACCC to more completely assess the various magazine distribution models as we are certain that thorough research would reveal significant differences in the supply of magazines to newsagents compared to their competitors – differences that make newsagents less competitive, differences not addressed by the proposed Pilot.
THE MPA PILOT RELIES ON PROCESSES AND SERVICES THAT CANNOT BE REPEATED
newsXpress has become aware that some processes engaged in as part of the MPS Pilot will not be able to be part of any changes delivered outside of the pilot. These include personal in-store visits to change approaches to magazines and a level of labour involvement setting allocations.
Our concern is that the Pilot results could not be reasonably repeated unless equivalent in-store services and manpower are invested.
CONCLUSION
For newsagents to be viable with magazines, they need the access to business management levers that enable them to act in the interests of their businesses and in the efficient service of their customers.
The current magazine supply model applies what is effectively a tax on newsagents that is a major factor in the closure of many newsagencies in recent years. The proposed MPA Pilot does not address this unfair cost.
——————
This second submission runs to five pages. I wrote it to be read in-conjunction with the first submission. I encourage newsagents to read the entire document. I am not going to post it all here. Click here see the entire document.
It’s only after reading this follow-up second submission, that I realised how vitally important is was to submit.
It covers and encapsulates all of my concerns and then some!
If I could highlight just one of the many well thought out points I agree with, I think it is profoundly correct that the ACCC be urged to look more deeply into the post deregulation distribution model.
Thanks to you Mark and all the newsXpress Newsagents that provided the feedback enabling this additional submission to be put together and lodged with the ACCC.
Gold Star work
I Agree with you 100% Dennis. An excellent submission that has my full support.
As an independent newsagent I fully appreciate the work done by Mark, Newsxpress members and other newsagents who have taken the time to make submissions to the ACCC on this critical industry issue.
A massive thank-you to all.
An ACCC investigation into anti-competitive behaviour in the magazine supply chain is well overdue. The ACCC have the power to access specific information from distributors and retailers. Newsagents can only speculate.
Another reason for early returns which seems to have been forgotten is crushed, torn, grazed, bent and wet magazines. I frequently receive damaged magazines. My cutomers don’t want to buy damaged magazines. These are early returned to protect my business.
To me, an investigation is warranted as the federal government under John Howard pushed the deregulation through and there has been no follow up on the consequences of this policy implementation. Governments usually look back on such changes and assess whether they met their goals as well as the implications.
Have just read the National Newsagent and comments made by Mr Alf Maccioni ANF CEO in the article her refers to the people who “knock” the industry and the industry getting a bad name because of it.
I am not impressed with these remarks, if the ANF had fully consulted ALL members over this proposal by them and the MPA we wouldn’t be in a situation where we have to fight for a more equitable trial.
The ANF seems to take no responsibility for this monumental stuff up instead it puts the blame on those who speak out for “damaging” the industry.
When will the ANF get it into their heads that we are not happy with the rules of the trial and we want it to be fairer for Newsagents . At the ACCC conference EVERY Newsagent spoke about the need to retain early returns, were you asleep Mr Maccioni when Newsagents made their presentations?
He also comment how anyone can read these open forums like bank managers ect. Usually if you want to extend your overdraft or apply for any loan you will be required to present your most recent P&L’s to the bank how do you think the bank would respond if our P&Ls showed a fall in profit from the previous year. I think that would be more damaging to us than the bank reading this blog . So we need to make sure Newsagents are in control of their OWN businesses and be competitive in the magazine market
Do you think we don’t know that this is an open forum ? This is the only forum where we can push for change as the ANF’s blog is conveniently censored .
You say when you meet with members they are always positive about the work the ANF is doing but are not so positive about the “knockers” really !
So if the ANF went to all its members as it should have last year and conducted open forums around the country on the proposal from the MPA ,and the ANF fully disclosed ALL the facts, are you confident your members would have been happy with that ? I doubt it, I think you would have had a riot on you hands and membership numbers would have been affected
The ANF is not the industry. Newsagents knocking the ANF for poor leadership and bad decisions is no reflection what those newsagents may think about the channel itself.
It is disappointing the ANF make this about them – because their staff are happy to personalise this issue by reportedly talking disparagingly about me and others who criticise the ANF.
The ANF and NANA did not to damage the channel by saying newsagencies would close if Tatts went to supermarkets.
For all their resources, the ANF is yet to articulate anything on this MPA trial issue beyond blessings and platitudes. It’s pathetic.
Come on guys, lets reach for the chill pills. Newsagents have been trying for years to have a say in a fairer distribution model. Its only because of a the system is failing the publishers and distributors that we are finally getting a crack at it. The ACCC can’t do anything without all parties agreeing on a change. Let the trial go ahead so we can see the first draft of the “code of conduct”.
The ANF have been thrust into this position because only they are authorised to deal with ACCC on our behalf. The challenge is for members and non members to come together and work through the draft to come up with a deal that will benefit newsagents. Non members need to work with ANF to get a voice.
We seem to be going to war with ourselves at the moment.
Gary, the rules already published reflect the draft code of conduct.
The authorisation does not give the ANF any special status with the ACCC. It gives them permission to represent newsagents with the publishers. The challenge is they have done and continue to do an appealing job at this.
Look at their claim to have consulted with newsagents. They have not. Every newsagent who spoke at the ACCC conference disagreed with the ANF. I suspect the ANF has not reached to these attendees to work with them.
Their approach is agree with the view we have formed in our isolated situation otherwise you are against all newsagents.
Nonsense.
Gary,
The ACCC will make a decision about the trial, the only thing that Newsagents and some ANF Member Newsagents have done is to bring some serious concerns regarding the trial to the ACCC.
There is nothing wrong with having a robust conversation about what the MPA/Distributors have done for years and the level of mistrust that has created.
I don’t see it as a war with the ANF I just recognise the adversarial nature of the way Distributors conduct their business with Newsagents post deregulation.
It is best to get the rules of any trial correct before any trial begins.
If a trial goes ahead with the current rules, and is deemed to be successful by the MPA then the Code of conduct WILL be drawn up with the rules that the MPA has concocted. Newsagents are then buggered.
If Mark on this blog did not let the industry know about the MPA trial, it all would have got through without a whimper and we would be even worse off than now, at the whim of publishers and distributors if we wanted to continue to sell magazines.
The ANF rep I spoke to thinks the ANF can force rule changes with the MPA after the trial is complete. This ofcorse is rubbish.
The MPA is doing this for themselves and the ANF will have no input once a trial has got the result the MPA required.
The bottom line is the rules need to be set correctly and fairly BEFORE any trial gets underway.
Gary. Your statement the ACCC can’t do anything without all parties agreeing is just not true . The submission which the MPA has put to the ACCC was backed by the ANF ,that’s not all parties .If Mark Fletcher had not requested a pre determination conference ,the ACCC would have been under the impression that newsagents were happy with the MPAs proposal. That also is not true
Gary,
Just on the chill pill thing, it’s usually passion that brings about change rather than kicking back with a few pills or merely going along for the ride as some sort of a spectator (speaking generally).
Separate to that comment, I think that it was ok to see the ANF finally provide a glimpse of how it sees the situation with the Distributors. They did this on May 11th when, in a sense, they acknowledged the efforts of Newsagents who have cut magazine shelf space and are giving up on magazines. To this end, the ANF have suggested this gave cause, along with other reasons re diminishing sales, for Publishers and Distributors to realise they are in trouble.
I know, by virtue of what has been said on this site and on the National Newsagent site that there a lot of Newsagents who are passionate about magazines. Just as passionate as those who have perhaps sacrificed magazines, due to uncontrolled costs, for the good of their businesses.
I haven’t seen the comments made by the ANF CEO as re Mark Richardson’s post5 above, but they don’t sound helpful in the current situation.
There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in and there is nothing wrong with doing it robustly and with passion.
I think the ANF have almost missed the boat this time around given their stated historical mistrust of the ‘unacceptable’ supply performance, one would have thought that stated mistrust would have extended to the rules of the trial that MPA might legitimised (and find acceptance in some Newsagents eyes) by involving the ACCC. I do understand the reason for the ACCC involvement is to satisfy collusion aspects, but some Newsagents may see that ACCC involvement as the MPA getting a thumbs-up on the no returns issue.
I guess at the end of the day when the ACCC give the trial (with whatever rules) the nod, then it will probably be the most scrutinised result of any aspect of Newsagents work for decades. In particular how the costs will reduce for Newsagents. That should be quantifiable in $ terms from the trial.
Note to MPA/Distributors –
‘if whatever you have planned for Newsagents with the changing supply model ain’t gunna work for Newsagents, then it ain’t gunna work for the sustainable future for yourselves’.
So for once do something right that will put to bed the mistrust and justifiable suspicion you have generated over the years.
Interesting responses, not unexpected, but interesting.
Mark, no surprise that you find my opinion to be “nonsense”. We’ll keep working on the respecting the other opinion thingie.
Back to the trial. I found the MPA document to be credible. Here’s why. There is a realisation that without a viable newsagent channel they’re all screwed, publishers, distributors, the lot. It’s a case of they now need us more than we need them. MPA have proposed a rescue plan that involves supply reduction to newsagents, presentation of mags, and teaching us how to be good retailers to increase sales. These three “pillars” are logical because if supply is reduced the distributors will lose revenue. They will in turn ask the publishers for increased fees to cover their lost revenue. The publishers will either put up the price of mags (which is public detriment) or want to see increased sales from newsagents.
The ANF (mongrels) have told MPA that nothing will happen unless the supply situation is fixed. What a mess.
So the purpose of the trial. Distributors can prove to ANF that supply is fixed. Prove to publishers that they can reduce numbers because they are getting maximum sales. Distributors can ask publishers for more fees because newsagents sell more mags.
Sounds great in theory. But the only way to prove it is to conduct a trial.
This is why I believe the MPA has a credible arguement.
The whole process has been high jacked by mistrust and those dreaded words “no early returns”.
Whether newsagents can get past these blocks is yet to be seen. This is the first opportunity we’ve ever had to address the over supply issue. As I stated previously ANF members and nonmembers have to work together to get the out come they want.
Gary, you have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say your opinion was nonsense. The nonsense statement in my comment relates solely to the ANF approach.
As I have noted many times, I agree wholeheartedly with a trial. However, it must be the right trial. This trial is not the right trial as it is trialling processes which will not be implemented for all newsagents. further, it is trialling rules which maintain the uncompetitiveness of newsagents.
This trial does not address the supply issue. Sure it takes a step forwards but you would remain miles behind your competitors and left with rules which are potentially a bigger barrier than what you have today.
So, my advice is get the trial right – test how newsagents act when given complete control. I suspect you’d see magazine sales increase for many. That they won’t trial this leaves it open to a conclusion that it is not what they want.
or the first time ever newsagents got the attention in a public forum of the ACCC. The ANF squandered that opportunity indent they criticise those who don’t agree with them. Idiots.
Thanks for the clarification Mark.
It was interesting to note that at the pre determination video conference the MPA stated they would be happy to negotiate with any group.
This seems to be at odds with the ANF’s claim that as they are authorised to collectively negotiate they are the only ones who can negotiate
Gary, will a 3% reduction in magazines fix your oversupply issue?
Just took another 12 cartons of returns to the depot. 3% less won’t change that.
There is scope for much greater oversupply if the mags we do not at present get oversupplied are increased to the MPA’s parameters of 45%.
Nowhere does the MPA application to the ACCC account for how they will reduce supply, only to say they will.
There is no limitation on magazine pockets/titles mentioned.
There is only a sell through rate mentioned of 45-55% which we have already got – but not on all magazines hence the chance to increase supply on both of these points.
It clearly says no Early returns.
I cannot see how anyone can interpret the application in any other way!
The oversupply will effectively increase. All Network will do is to change the names and or barcode of each title each month and those titles will be classed as new titles. Take the Live to Ride series. Effectively we have 4 titles on the shelf of essentially the same magazine. This is repeated in the auto, 4wd, craft and many other sections.
We own a separate retail shop that is already full to the brim with Mags. We also have a separate magazine distribution business and my subs are full as well. It is ALL about the major publishers pulling in their collective heads. I am not directing this at the local niche publishers
Until there is a connect between print and sales this will never be fixed. We blame Network and Gotch for over supplying, not using the figures that we pay to give them, in supply and circulation, but ultimately the distributors didn’t have the
quantity of magazines to distribute, then hey, part of the problem goes away.
It is being said that as, newsagents, we are not doing our part of the bargin and early returning titles that we shouldn’t. I take offence to that as not only am I a proud newsagent but also a capitalist. I enjoy making money! I cannot understand how any part of the supply chain would think that I would undersell magazines just to indiscriminately early return. What fool in an office thinks I can make money by not “selling” magazines.
This I think is the crux if the matter. This whole system is not about the sales of magazines. 3% reduction of supply, 45 – 55% sell throughs….. these are all numbers. To the guys at the MPA, Network and Gotch the only numbers that matter are the bottom line $’s. All the rest just cost our industry.
Everyone representing newsagents, especially their representative bodies, ought to focus on one goal – fair supply that allows us to be competitive. Our uncompetitiveness is the key driver of early returns and newsagents reducing floorspace.
This is why say this trial is flawed.
Mark,
Do you have any sense of the timeframe for the ACCC announcement/decision regarding any proposed trial?
It doesn’t seem likely the 25th May will be enough time for them?
It has been loosely suggested to me it might not be until July, but that was before your subsequent submission and request for greater assessment of the impact of 1999 deregulation.
Dennis I don’t have a sense of their timing and I have not asked them. I hope the look at the broader issue as unless we address that the issues the trial was meant to help overcome will remain on foot.
Yes, thanks, I understand: just feeling the natural group anxieties I guess.
No doubt the longer the look takes, any response from ACCC will be keenly sought from another anxious party.
Hopefully there will be contact, this week, with yourself by the MPA given your subsequent submission comments that
“No information was presented at the Pre-Decision Conference or since to address the concerns raised in the newsXpress submission of April 23, 2015 nor the oral submissions newsagents at the Pre-Decision conference.”
The hope is that those concerns will be addressed shortly given that to a man all Newsagents participating in the video conference opposed aspects of the MPA plans and more. And also given that all opposed the ANF support of same.
Surely it would make sense that any party with the interests of magazines at heart would seek to allay the genuine concerns of Newsagents.
If they choose not to, that would suggest to me their adversarial program for Newsagents continues unabated.
I think in the meantime, given there has been no evidence change in the behaviour of distributors, newsagents ought to commence action in appropriate local jurisdictions to hold them to account.
I agree Mark @ post 24. We have collating figures backed up by photographic evidence as to the current oversupply(I never thought I would say this but IPHONES are fantastic). I urge other newsagents to follow suite as the more voices the better the outcome when required.
The fact that the MPA and a lesser extent ANF have not approached anyone voicing concerns, especially newsXpress, shows they are not at all interested in producing a fairer set of rules for any trials, and are not interested in the betterment of the newsagency channel.
The MPA would have thought the application for this trial to the ACCC was simple and straight forward and their arrogance would not have entertained the thought that newsagents would stand up for their rights.
This however will now go on past any trials ….. we want a fairer system.
There seems to be a belief out there that, once the trial has run and the data is collected the MPA will have to “prove” to the ANF that the trail was a success and that if need be the ANF will negotiate with the MPA
The MPA doesn’t have to “prove” anything to the ANF . The ACCC are the ones in control, certainly not the ANF
Gary says in a previous post that ANF and non ANF members should work together. So who do we work together with ? The ANF didn’t bother about their members when it was “negotiating” with the MPA on the structure of this trial .
I use the word negotiating loosely because if the ANF had taken advice from its members iam sure the application would have had a different outcome or the ANF would not have backed it at all.
By the ANF supporting the MPA it gives the appearance that also Newsagents to must support it.
But as the ANF did not widely consult with members providing DETAILED information as to the rules of the trial ,then this application by the MPA and ANF has no creditability
Mark, I’d say the ANF did not consult whatsoever. The only consultation has been after several of us proved they had let newsagents down and even then their ‘consultation’ has been more about criticising those who shone a light on their failure of their members.
If the MPA were serious about improving the situation they would seek to understand what is driving those newsagencies that are performing above average.
Any improvement has to start with the basics of range, space and scanned sales.
I would love to improve my magazine sales by culling some of the 76.6% of titles that represent 13.9% of my sales at a return rate of 63.3%, and giving other titles a run.
Interesting that the Australian titles that the dist. get paid on sales only are also the lowest return rates.
My top 47 lines only, average 2 sales per week or better, and represent 40.7% of my unit sales at a return rate of 30.5%.
Unfortunately every attempt to change in the past has had no long term sustainability as deleted lines are reintroduced.
There is no incentive for me to add titles to my range that I think may sell.
At the ACCC conference the majority of the speaking was done by Bauer.
They want to teach me how to be a better retailer.
First they need to get some credibility. This company is the main culprit in the over supply stakes.
49% of sales, 56% of titles received with 80% of titles selling 12 copies or less for the full year 2014.