I have been thinking about the April 23 ACCC convened conference to discuss the proposed magazine supply rule change pilot and, in particular, the contradiction of submissions of newsagents by the CEO of the ANF.
Every newsagent speaking at the ACCC conference objected to the pilot as proposed and the magazine supply rule changes at the heart of the pilot. It was only after every newsagent had spoke that the ANF CEO tore them down. Here’s how the minutes record his contribution:
Alf Maccioni (CEO, ANF) said the ANF had informed its members about the Pilot, with articles in newsagency magazines and newsletters. He said the ANF currently had around 2300 members (of a total 3500 newsagents). Mr Maccioni said the ANF supported the trial because oversupply of magazines was an issue which needed to be discussed.
What the ANF CEO failed to detail is exactly what informing ANF members involved. I have been told it was a passing reference in an issue of National Newsagent magazine and a passing reference in an email to members. ANF members tell me there was no consultation. I am certainly not aware of any effort whatsoever to determine the views of newsagents.
What if the ACCC places more seated in the views put by the ANF CEO than the newsagents at the Conference? What if this one small contribution from the ANF CEO is considered to be representative of newsagents?
Talking with newsagents over the last couple of weeks, I know this is not what they want. The do not want the ACCC to consider for a moment that the ANF understands what newsagents think about this trial.
I am in the middle of the Newsagency of the Future workshops and there are many questions about the proposed pilot and the position of the ANF. Had the ANF CEO made himself accessible I am sure he would have had his position challenges by newsagents who disagree with him.
Footnote: going into the meeting I shook the hand of the ANF CEO. He didn’t seem to want to talk. While some newsagents held back and talked, the ANF CEO was gone. Two more opportunities missed for discussion with newsagents. So much for consultation.
Usually I would not care about what the ANF says. However, in this situation, they have some standing. It is unfortunate they use that standing to sprout ill-informed and ignorant views.
I am an ANF member, and had no idea about this trial from any communication from the ANF until after I read it here. Any information I have seen from the ANF has been less than useful as they have not included all the facts, and often have been to simply criticise any dissent rather than to inform.
I also have seen no proof of any consultation with their members on this matter, despite claims that ANF consulted its members.
I have lost all respect for the ANF due to this issue, not that I had much respect for them before this.
I only hope the ACCC can see through the ANFs poor response to questioning at the conference.
The ANF is playing politics with Newsagents they appear to have become very skilled at putting out spin, you only have to read the latest edition of the National Newsagent.
Time has come for ANF members to seriously consider continuing to funding
them.
I think the ANF might have done considerable damage in muddying the waters for the ACCC who would hold value in what they say.
If only they had consulted with Newsagents beforehand, perhaps a different ANF point of view would have been realised.
So why didn’t they consult and consult widely?
Is it incompetence if any Industry Body appears to make an arbitrary decision that could have important consequences without appearing to consult members?
Perhaps inexperience or a we know best attitude. Who knows? Certainly not me. And it would seem neither does the ANF CEO who apparently does not want to clarify the position despite the genuine concerns of Newsagents.
Why would trust in the rules of the MPA trial be granted and none in the concerns of Members?
Which way will the ACCC jump in their determinations?
A lot of rhetorical questions!
The only thing I’m fairly sure about is the level of spin from certain quarters will reach astronomical heights in the not too distant future.
Dennis , There can only be 2 plausible reasons as to why the ANF did not properly inform it’s members.
1. They deliberately chose not to inform members
or
2. They think they know what’s best for Newsagents and therefore they didn’t think it was necessary
It certainly wasn’t an oversight
ACCC/MPA aside I’m actually curious as to why people are members? Reading this I find the statement that 2300 out of 3500 are members surprising. I looked at membership when we entered the industry and couldn’t see what value I would get for over $800. Three years later and the idea of joining is laughable. I work hard for my money so I’m not in the business of giving it away for nothing.
Mark, the outcome as a result of aligning themselves with MPA and misreading how Newsagents view the situation could be deemed as incompetence.
Only the ANF really know why they made certain decisions.
It’s never too late for anyone or any organisation to turn things around and make good. Even some dead-duck politicians have shown it is never too late to take certain actions which seemingly contradict past erroneous decisions which have not gone down well with voters (read members).
Stacey, years ago when I was an active and contributing (time and work) member of the ANF, a state manager said to me that if he couldn’t effect change and make a positive difference within 12 months of his role commencement, he would walk away and do something more useful with his life.
He walked.
There are a lot of people putting a lot of faith in the ANF.
After 4 years of listening here about the problems and lack of evolution of this industry, both current and going back years further, it is clear the ANF hierarchy has always had a lack of passion to force change, lack of knowledge of what their members need, and a lack of spine to upset those they need to deal with to make change.
Alf Maccioni and Co. may turn up for work each day, but get their pay under false pretences. Our staff have to actually do something useful at work to keep their jobs. Why should ignorance and complacency at the ANF be tolerated??
Has anyone at the ANF ever worked in a newsagency, or even been in one??
It’s a disgrace that you call yourselves the “peak body” ANF when newsagencies have been bullied by publishers and distributors for years and you have just sat on your arses getting paid for nothing.
Peter it is easy to be rude and disdainful of the ANF but it is truly the fault of EACH STATE ASSOCIATION not the ANF.
Years ago we were on the cusp of uniting all the states under one national banner (read federated banner if you like).
There were hard choices to make and my state (SA) made the choice to become part of the national unification of newsagents under the ANF banner.
Greed, prejudice and outright cynicism from the CEO’S of all the other states prevented nationalism/federalism and those CEO’s are directly to blame.
The large eastern states particularly, VANA, NANA, QNF were not interested in us being nationalized/federated because they were afraid that their power base would be eroded and their incomes (very substantial incomes) might cease.
They had a backpocket mentality which meant that newsagents were poorly represented at the state level which, in turn, has eroded our strength at a national/federal level.
So, in the interests of fairness, it is not entirely the blame of the ANF.
Having said that – the ANF has done little to improve their status and the one outcome that might engender a positive approach to joining/rejoining the “peak body” would be to ensure that the ANF facilitates the absolute must have of early returns and the MPA needs to compromise on this issue.
It would be a win/win if this outcome was realized.
If VANA, NANA, QNF, ANF and CEO’s are not united, that is the crux of the disfunctional system that we have now with the MPA, and the ANF are therefore not the peak body that will represent me in any discussions without my consent.
The ANF are funded by Newsagents and sponsored by publishers and distributors. There is no difference here so the ANF will not represent newsagents interests against the MPA.
It does seem that VANA, NANA, QNF, ANF and MPA are united in opposing the evolution of the NEWSAGENCY channel.
We are obviously overdue for a separate RETAIL ONLY group, call it whatever you want, to be a united and peak body that WILL fight for Retail Newsagencies rights.
June I think you will find that all states have fallen in line and are now virtually branches of the ANF
I realise that Mark but it was too little too late – the horse has bolted
It’s actually only ANF, NANA and VANA now as the rest have ceased operating as state associations. I expect NANA to go the same way shortly. VANA is a pale reflection of the past. This is not a criticism, of the states but rather a note about the reality. So, more eyes on the ANF. Their failures are more affecting. Their lack of consultation and weakness for detail hurts all newsagents.
Just last week their appalling attention to detail was on show. One mouthpiece says they have 2,000 members while another says they have 2,800. They cannot even get basics right. Snd they will complain about those who challenge them rather than owning and correcting their failures.
out of the blue few weeks ago ANF came to my shop encouraged me to join ANF. what a joke and now they even send me up to date news by email
Eric, we have asked for the ANF to be more accessible and accountable and I think it is a good thing that they came to your shop.
I certainly haven’t seen anyone in my shop but I have received phonecalls asking me to join (rejoin) the ANF and I
reiterate an earlier statement I made here that when I see some runs on the board with the MPA in particular then I might rethink my position because we do need to
be national/federal in our approach to our industry and its flourishing into the future.
I use the word flourishing and not survival because we have spent the last decade just surviving and that isn’t good enough
for our industry.
Since the ACCC conference I have been tracking the number of additions to my range by NDC. It’s averaging 10 per week. All low volume rubbish in categories that are a low volume.
Today I arrived the Quarterly Essay. I struggle to give away a current affairs mag these days, but the experts a NDC add 2 @ $22.90 to my range. This is the 2nd mag addition in this category received in as many weeks. Straight to Early Returns.
Where is the MPA’s credibility in wanting to educate retailers on category management?
I want to know what the Distribrutors and the MPA do with the data that we send them every day via a system that WE pay for.
At the moment, it’s clearly NOTHING, as we constantly see increases for no reason, re-issues of issue 1 of a magazine that failed to sell the last 5 times issue 1 was farmed out, and the blatent oversupply of existing titles.
I think the ACCC and the MPA needs to manage this from the TOP DOWN rather than the BOTTOM UP
Subaru I agree. These points have been part of the various submissions I have made to the MPA on this issue. My second last submission included this:
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Ensuring newsagents had absolute control over all new titles to carry.
4. 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.