Yesterday, I received an email from the ANF CEO despite the ANF Chairman saying ANF staff had been directed to not respond. Here is that email:
Mark
I am writing directly to you as I feel that I need to respond to your comments, in relation to what I have supposedly done.
Firstly I have not and do not talk behind people backs. Those who know me know that I am very direct and do not hide from confrontation; unlike you where you have apparently personally attacked me on your blog.
I responded to an email from a member. In this email I did not disparage you in any way. I have not gone around the country telling newsagents not to be part of Newsxpress once again unlike you.
I am happy to work and discuss issues with whoever but will not engage in a debate with someone who sole intent is to bring the ANF down.
In regards to the MPA trial, have you spoken with the whole MPA committee re your issues rather than just publish them on the blog? Have you requested to sit with them and express your views?
I am happy to see a trial taking place because at least we can use this to help newsagent’s get a better supply of magazines. Get the product they want and the quantities they need. Until now no publisher or distributor was willing even to discuss this, and now it is on the table, with not just one but all of them leading to the ACCCs involvement in the first place.
Mark I will not keep corresponding on this issue with you as you have made it clear that this is just an opportunity for you to attack the ANF, and to attack those newsagents who have put their hand up to help the channel. If you truly want to work on bettering the MPA trial then why not try to work with them rather than throw stones at everyone who does not agree with you views.
Alf
Here is my response:
Alf,
Thank you for your email.
You are wrong. This is not just an issue for me to attack the ANF. I would rather not have grounds to say you have not served newsagents well.
It is not my sole intent to bring the ANF down. I have told newsagents they should quit as it is a good way for you to understand that you don;t have their support. Stuart in his letter said you have grown in members as a result of the MPA issue. I am waiting for evidence of this.
If you go back and read the correspondence, I have documented to you and now to your Chairman concerns about reports of what Ann Nugent said about me recently in Queensland. Usually I would not worry about this but several newsagents coming to be with serious concerns encouraged me to bring it to Ann first and then you. I note that neither you nor Ann have responded on what she is reported to have said despite several emails on this. Either the newsagents have misrepresented Ann or Ann has attacked my character.
In your email to Yackandandah you were not as accurate in your responses as you could have been – but I understand you have to protect your turf.
In terms of correspondence with the ANF, I am concerned about the ANF handling of the MPA matter. It is flawed for the reasons I have explained: you have not consulted, you have not sought to have documented rule changes that you say will apply yet are not in the documentation submitted to the ACCC and you have not sought to thoroughly inform yourself about whether the trial is actually trialling real life situations as I understand it is not.
The MPA has been aware for almost two years concerns I have had about the trial. They were aware of this prior to their approach to the ACCC when I advised I would not be part of the trial given the rules it has been established to test.
Alf, this trial is not testing new supply rules that will make newsagents more competitive with magazines. Indeed, it is a trial of rules that continue to treat newsagents as we were treated prior to deregulation and that is, at its core, unfair and commercially disadvantaging. This is what the ANF ought to fight.
The final issue for the ANF is one of communication. Your email says it all. I don’t agree with you so you therefore refuse to discuss this with me. That does hot make sense.
I don’t know what you would be like in a public forum on this topic yet I have suggested we talk about it in front of newsagents. My view on any issue such as this – an issue at the very heart of newsagency management – is that each of us with an opinion ought to agree to have the opinion tested as much for us as for those we serve. That you will not do this ensures you remain less than open to the possibility that your approach on this issue of magazine supply is wrong.
I want to close with a comment abut newsXpress. newsXpress petitioning the ACCC led to the conference. This conference was an excellent first-time event for our channel. You do not even have the grace to say publicly that this is a good thing. That, to me, reflects a bias in your opinion and communication that I see elsewhere in your handling of this matter. The vie appears to be if you disagree with the ANF you are not relevant to the organisation.
Mark Fletcher
I have published this here as I think everyday newsagents are too often kept in the dark by people engaged on matters affecting them. There is nothing in the correspondence that is sensitive. I hope readers here find it helpful as they consider the issues discussed.