VANA, under their parcel brand of Nparcel, yesterday sent out an email to newsagents claiming the ANF endorsed and promoted Hubbed is ‘piggy backing’ off the VANA platform. Yesterday’s email was a follow up to an earlier email. yesterday’s email was explicit in its allegations:
Further to our previous communication regarding other providers piggy backing off our industry platform (CLICK HERE), we are of the understanding that a parcel provider (HUBBED) is allegedly continuing to solicit our members.
As advised by our members on multiple occasions, it is alleged that the above mentioned company may be sending out free hardware without obtaining authorisation from newsagents.
Upon further investigation, we have discovered that their assertion of free hardware and no cost may be misleading. In reality, it appears the hardware is linked to a repayment structure whereby newsagents forfeit approximately 50% (capped at $100.00) of their monthly commission as they transact over time.
While this looks like a commercial dispute between Hubbed and Nparcel, it could also be seen as a dispute between the ANF and VANA in that the ANF launched Hubbed into the channel long after Nparcel was established by VANA. Further, I think the ANF launched and endorsed Hubbed on the basis of a commercial relationship. At the time I asked ANF representatives to outline the due diligence of parcel platforms on behalf of newsagents. From what I understand, none was undertaken.
Hubbed has had a rocky road with the ANF reportedly handing back their share of the business but continuing to support and promote Hubbed. Matt Handbury, an original investor in Hubbed quit the company and, as I understand it, remains in dispute with them.
Hubbed took on a new investor this year in the form of Singapore Post through their Quantium Solutions taking a 30% share.
In the meantime, newsagents have contacted me saying they are unable to get out of the Hubbed contracts as promised by the ANF.
The ANF and VANA need to deal with this mess and deal with it in public view of all newsagents. However, I doubt that will happen. If the ANF follows their usual playbook, they will say nothing, ignoring the whole issue. Their lack of transparency on these types of issues is a well practices game.
While the newsagency channel contracts, it is ridiculous that the two largest industry associations, who claim to be partners, take such a different approach on parcels. That they do speaks to a split in leadership, a split that costs newsagents.
The directors and VANA and the ANF need to explain to newsagents why they allow this split, this competition between the associations, to continue for along as it does it provides another example of why newsagents should to fund the associations. For all their rhetoric about unity in service of newsagents their actions speak to other focus.
For the record I think parcels are not core to the future of a newsagency. While they can play a role, the traffic they generate is not as valuable as plenty of other new traffic newsagents can generate. Associations ought not involve themselves in any commercial activity. Rather, they should spend their time on representing newsagents on policy and other traditional association matters.
Footnote: I have no commercial interest in these businesses or any parcel business.