For decades, newsagents selling Tatts products had to pay for infrastructure in their business for promoting Tatts products. Such infrastructure included poster frames and other fixtures necessary to host marketing materials – posters, signs and the like. Tatts provided the posters at no additional cost.
Now, Tatts is set to levy newsagents a fee to fund management of content.
This fee for content by Tatts looks like a ‘tax’. It requires newsagents to pay for something they previously were provided by the company for free.
In the material from Tatts I have seen I have not found a reasonable explanation for the new fee, no adequate justification for the additional business cost.
Newsagents have no control over the marketing content, no say in products promoted, marketing style. This is a Tatts focused marketing channel with 100% Tatts controlled content. Given that the company marketing serves it’s own online sales as well as the retailer, and given Tatts used not charge extra for marketing collateral, unless I am missing something here, I think the charge by Tatts for content is unreasonable.
While this does not affect me as I do not have Tatts products in my newsagencies (by choice), I am concerned for newsagents I work with. I am raising this specific topic here today at the request of some of them as they are frustrated that this ‘tax’ is being applied without discussion or negotiation, that is apparently being done without pushback from those who claim to represent newsagents.
I know some newsagents have complained to politicians with little interest being expressed on the issue. This is unfortunate as any politician claiming to support small business ought to be actively engaged on this issue.
Since we are in the middle of a federal election, take a moment to ask your local candidates if they could lobby Tatts on your behalf abut this new ‘tax’.
There is no time like right now to get their attention.
While I am not happy at what appears to be an ureasonable cost for the DigiPOS infrastructure, I am more frustrated with this cost for the marketing collateral and that it is a percentage of sales. The costs to Tatts should not be a percentage so why charge small business retailers a percentage?
This looks and feels like a tax to me.
If there is a charge at all it should not be a percentage. How can they possibly charge one outlet $100 and another outlet $1000 for the exact same service?
This is gauging at its finest.
Tatts trying to squeeze more profit out of Newsagents.
Does anyone know how NANAs complaint to the ACCC regarding Tatts and digipos went or is proceeding ? Not in NSW and wondering if they make inroads whether the ANF will jump on the bandwagon and do anything too ? I suspect they will just do nothing as usual .
How much commission do retailers make from Tatts? I’m in WA so I know we get 8% from Lotterywest but we don’t have all these fees that always get mentioned.