Australian magazine publishers need to understand that they are all judged by the actions of each other. All it takes is for one publisher to oversupply and there are consequences for others.
I lay the blame with the publisher as they set the print run. This is where what we receive begins. The print run determines what is sent to the distributor to distribute. The distributor may have a contract requiring all copies sent to be distributed.
As newsagents have embraced better IT infrastructure they are better informed. The screen shot below shows the supply and return history for Australian House and Garden. There is no reason the newsagent should have received more stock on the new use. But they did.
I know of newsagents who respond to blatant oversupply by striking back at other titles from the same distributor. I don’t blame them sometimes as they feel helpless to manage cash-flow in any other way.
Take a look at this evidence for Australian House and Garden below from one newsagent for yourself. I am left wondering about the IT infrastructure at Network that allowed this to occur.
What newsagents want is fair supply, to a level that helps them actually make money from magazines. The supply model in the MPA code of conduct does not have settings to enable this. Unless that is resolved, newsagents will have no alternative to early return and cut magazine space allocation.
If we cannot make money from any product it is not worth stocking and any model that forces us to do so would be unfair.
Publishers need to engage on this issue with thoughtful newsagents. Not the ANF as they have shown themselves to be out of touch, to not know what is appropriate for newsagents.
Mark, in addition to fair supply we need a cap on magazines titles distributed in relation to the amount of pockets available(maybe x 1.5 or something like that).
The MPA Trial rules don’t consider that as well. The trial also doesn’t look at overlapping return weeks, many mags overlap by a week, some mags overlap by up to a month where the old one will not be able to be returned.
This all retains us as a bank for the publishers/distributors.
Peter that should be addressed with one distributor.
Hi Peter B, one of the problems discovered from the trial was the overlapping return weeks which both Pacific and Bauer have agreed to fix.
Look at Better Homes and Gardens presently two issues on the shelf and within date till XMAS.
Peter and both selling well. The gifts with purchase work a treat.
Thanks Chris, that is good to know, will cross that one off the wish list.
No matter what our returns are Distributors take it upon themselves to increase a certain issue if there is something special within the content of the magazine or attached to it.
The allocations by publishers are to drive shelf space, the more they send the more room they need on display.
Not with me, no title outside the top 20 deserves more than 1 pocket. The balance is either stored or more likely early returned.
In the case above 1 copy was sold 3 days after being put on display, and despite having a poor sales history, another copy was sent on SBR.
No title outside the top 20 needs SBR or an allocation more than 25% above it’s maximum sale over the previous 3-5 issues.