I have been part of a discussion elsewhere over the last few days where a number of independent niche retailers are criticising newsagents for moving onto their turf.
Passions have run high in the discussion as the niche retailers and their fans have pilloried newsagents and claimed we don’t have the same care for their customers. There was anger as the niche retailers did not realise that some newsagents have been on their turn for over a year.
To an outsider, the newsagents now competing with the niche retailers are evil.
All through the several day discussion I felt on the wrong side as it is usually newsagents who are critical of others, like supermarkets, encroaching on their traditional turn. It felt odd.
Now, after the discussion has calmed down, it is interesting to look back with some perspective, to consider if there are learnings.
Reading the text of the discussion I am surprised at the lack of facts used to attack the newsagents encroaching on the niche retailers. Emotion is high in the comments, well ahead of facts. I think the niche retailers could have made a stronger case had they got their facts right as there are other factors at play besides newsagents taking on the products. For example, the active role of a key supplier.
I wonder if newsagents and the complaints we make about supermarkets could benefit from a focus on facts ahead of emotion. I certainly think it is true when we engage in the issue of shop local or the issue of lotteries in supermarkets.
The facts in any argument support the why. If we simply say shop local we are not making a case. The same as if we say we will close if supermarkets get lotteries we are not making the case. If we say shop local and here practical reasons that affect you, we cover the why and make a stronger case. Or if we say don’t give supermarkets lotteries and here is why we make a stronger case.
We support too many arguments with an emotion and not facts. Maybe if we stick to the facts and bring our case back to the why for our customers we could have a better chance in making our case. But if we look at magazine oversupply we all know that no amount of facts are fixing that for us.
The experience of engaging with the niche retailers who feel threatened by newsagents has me looking at making the case from the other side. It is interesting and fascinating all at once. I think we can make a better case on a range of competitor issues.
I know magazine subject has been gone over thoroughly lately and I apologise in advance, but in the context of this post about facts and the statement that no amount of facts has fixed the problem I have this question.
Has anyone ever seriously gathered evidence and facts about magazine oversupply, documented it then presented it to the relevant forum(ACCC, small business commissioner, politicians for example) in an attempt to get the system changed?
It seems there may have been token gestures in the past but not a coordinated approach by a number of newsagencies or a group.
3 likes