For decades newsagents have had to purchase stationery through one or the other of the newsagency stationery wholesalers.
Even when the supplier rep has been in-store, written up the order and, on occasion, supplied stock, the ‘order’ has been turned back through the wholesaler – for a premium … kind of like a tax to support the warehouse.
This order turn back has been a tax on newsagents, making their purchasing cost higher, all in the name of supporting the newsagency stationery suppliers.
What has the order turn back approach achieved? Are the stationery warehouses stronger as a result? Have newsagents themselves benefited by paying a higher price for stationery, have they received some other benefit as a result? No, I think the approach has had its day, I think it has not achieved anything and, today, it only acts as a tax.
For newsagents to be competitive in stationery, especially, with branded stationery, I think we need to be able to purchase directly without any additional cost being imposed to support a warehouse that often does not add value to the transaction.
By dealing direct in some cases we will have access to a broader range of product. This will facilitate specialisation, helping to drive sales.
Suppliers don’t need to increase their costs by increasing in-store contact with retailers. Rather, they should ensure they have a best practice website through which newsagents can order and see new products.
In my own newsagencies my focus 100% is on national brands of stationery. I want to go deep for some brands, to ensure a strong visual story in-store and online. I am better able to do this if I can go direct.
So, yes, I think it is time for stationery suppliers to offer direct accounts to newsagents, to enable those who want to specialise and go deep with a brand to do so.
Sure, there will be some newsagents who still want to go through the warehouse, and they can.
The world has changed and how we buy stationery needs to change. As I wrote recently about GNS, the model needs a shake-up for it to have a future.
As I previously posted overall the stationery section in a Newsagency still looks like it did 20-30years ago.
We are being left behind, there is no vision or innovation . A new line of notebooks won’t fix our dated look .
I haven’t done a outside order with Ancol for some years, as they not only added their margin to the invoice but also introduce a $4.00 procurement fee
This was a foolish move as it only encouraged Newsagents to seek alternative suppliers.
I am currently a convenience store for stationery. We stock many items and serve office, school and home markets. Using Ancol enables us to stock many lines and buy in small quantities with all stock kept in store.
Buying direct from suppliers would potentially mean less product lines, having to meet minimum order levels with each supplier and buying minimum order quantities of each item.
If I could source everything from 2 or 3 branded sources then I could see direct purchasing working. But I don’t want to end up multiple suppliers and greater stock of less items.
The distribution warehouse system should work but isn’t. Your previous blog GNS was spot on. We need a central buyer who gets the right branded products and operates efficiently, so that volume discounts achieved by GNS offset the tax on the newsagent.
The situation is similar to GG and magazines. Buying direct might cut the ineffective middleman out, but what would really be like without them.
They need to innovate and become the solution not the problem.
Colin,
For magazines , I prefer go direct to publishers and control my own mags supplies, i don’t need those 70% of the titles that never sell