I see plenty of newsagencies where products are held for customers at the counter for purchase later, that day, that week or even that month. While this is a nice customer service touch, it can cost you sales – especially if the item is highly sought after and the customer may not collect it.
Take a look at your processes and be more firm on how you handle this.
It’s called customer service when I do it for a trusted regular.
It’s called a layby with the attendant deposit, etc when it is for anyone else.
So far today we have had 2 phone calls from newsagency customers (Melbourne and Murwillumbah NSW) enquiring about subscribing to our magazine.
Both told us the people in their local newsagency were nice, but not helpful, and they were tired of having to try so hard to get the magazine. That is such a shame, as we do not push people to subscribe, for several reasons:
* We understand that many people do not want to subscribe
* We understand that many people cannot afford to subscribe
* We appreciate the Putaway Service provided by newsagents to our mutual customers
* Genealogy is addictive (and there’s no known cure) so they will not be casual customers
It seems odd to us that anyone in business today is happy to turn customers away. Even if that customer only comes in once a month, there’s every chance they will buy something else while they are there.
AFTC you distribute through IPS don’t you ? That may be part of the problem !
I for one, and I know of many others, refuse to deal with IPS because of the terms and conditions they place on the Newsagent. I used to keep and sell your publication several years ago before you switched distributors and unfortunately it just isn’t worth going through IPS to obtain the handful of publications I would sell.
AFTC you probably should ask your distributor IPS how many active newsagency accounts they have. Customers can no longer purchase your title from my shop because I no longer have an IPS account, something I’m very happy about. And as much as I try and be helpful I have to say no to customers who ask about AFTC because I’m not dealing with them again, nothing against you or your magazine. I hope thats given you some food for thought
Hi AFTC
there are only 4 titles worth selling that we can get from IPC. They have too many terms and conditions for it to be worth dealing with.
Paul, Steve and Bruce G
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Having followed this blog for some time, I know that quite a few people weren’t happy about IPS having a “no early returns” policy.
I also know about the many problems newsagents have had with the other 3 big distributors (now, sadly, reduced to 1).
At different times over the past 20 years, my magazine has been distributed by them all – Network, Gotch, NDD, Network (again) and IPS. In my experience, the 90s/early 2000s version of Network and NDD were the most professional to deal with, closely followed by IPS. Gotch was reprehensible.
Serious questions:
Is either your or my experience with distributors of any relevance to our mutual customers?
Aren’t we in business to sell what customers want?
Aren’t we striving to provide excellent customer service (and thus earn loyalty)?
How many newsagents who squander Aussie genealogy magazine customers will it take to damage the reputation of all newsagencies?
I have had a meeting with the anf and ips in my store at the same time.
Many suggestions were made by us. Including the 1st issue of a magazine being a “trial basis” – meaning they send us a new magazine and we display it in store. If it doesn’t sell (or no real interest from customers) we get to send it back and never have it again.
The ANF agreed with our suggestion.
Their response was that they email information to us to give us the option to opt-out. IF this email is missed, too bad, we get it and have to keep it cause we can’t early return it.
I have to have IPS because I need a number of their products. I do not appreciate the fact that I cannot early return (or easily cancel) magazines that don’t sell. Especially the (sometimes expensive) ones that we have to pay for this month and carry for the next 2-3 months at OUR COST knowing that they won’t sell.
At least if GG stuff up the allocations and send us 20 instead of 6, we can send back what we don’t need within the same month at almost no cost to us…
AFTC you have to realise that in a newsagency carrying hundreds of magazine one title such as yours doesn’t make much difference to us, where as your title not being in every newsagency makes a big difference to you. When I carried AFTC I’d sell 1 maybe 2 of every issue, call it 15 copies a year, thats less than $30 gross profit A YEAR! I still have 2 copies of AFTC from last year that missed IPS’ infuriatingly 2 week returns period because your onsale for AFTC is out of step with IPS’ returns, so take $12 of my massive $30 leaves me $18 gross profit for a year. IPS has a couple of other titles that sell so maybe $100 a year wouldn’t be much more. For the amount of frustration in dealing with IPS and the cost of holding other titles which are unsalable dogs but usually 3 months onsale with no early returns newsagents are better off without them.
As to the no early returns policy and contractual obligation to display all titles supplied by IPS which is obviously good for publishers well I can tell you now most if not every newsagent who deals with IPS would be holding titles which while they cant return them they sure as hell aren’t wasting space displaying them. Thats were your 2 titles from last year are, in the box in the office I use to store IPS’ crap in till I could return it.
Did you ask IPS how many active newsagent accounts they have? And if so what was their answer?
That puts it in very simplistic terms AFTC. Unfortunately it is not that simple. If we choose to stock AFTC (like I do) then we have to allow for the myriad of titles that are worth $20-50 that IPS send out that do not sell but we have to carry on our shelves for months. Luckily I sell enough IPS to justify their existence in my store. I still toss up every week about flicking them as they are very difficult to deal with.
I provide excellent service in my store so I should also expect the same from my suppliers (does not happen). If I lose 4-5 genealogy customers in the process, that is a small price to pay for freeing up time and reducing my stress levels which in turn makes my store a better retail experience. Unfortunately not enough customers want AFTC to drive demand for lots of newsagents to take up the rest of the IPS offer.
On a financial point – if I sell 5 AFTC at $7.95 and make $10 a month, is that enough to justify receiving another $1000 of titles from IPS each month that will not sell but that I have to pay for and then carry for 3 months before I get my money back?
Years in business has also shown me that you can forget about loyalty. The day you start relying on loyalty is the day your business starts declining.
To answer your questions AFTC:
Yes, when the distributor makes it impossible to carry an item profitably due to conditions placed upon me as a newsagent.
Ideally yes, but your missing a critical word there and that is “profitably”
Yes.
None. I simply tell customers the truth and explain the distributor you use makes it unviable for me to keep that particular magazine and when I explain exactly why pretty well all understand and sympathise.
TBH the way you have couched your questions makes it sound like your trying to put the blame on newsagents. What you are forgetting (or perhaps not) is that YOU will make money from a sale so don’t care about the cost to the retailer at the other end and whether or not it’s worth it to them to carry your product. Unfortunately IPS conditions make it loss making for me to carry the few titles of theirs that I would potentially carry therefore I and many others simply won’t carry any of their distributed product.
AFTC, I’m sorry I made a mistake in my calculation’s in post#8. Once I’ve done my returns I of course have to mail them back to IPS, not all in 1 lot at the end of the month but as I do them, IPS very magnanimously changed there conditions last year to give newsagents an extra week to post them back after the 2 weeks returns period closes, apparently before that we had to do the returns AND have them mailed back within 14 days. Anyway a stamp cost $1 and I’d probably have to mail returns twice a month, $100 GP/year minus $24 postage surely your starting to work this out?
Your not going to win this argument, if IPS is your distributor the newsagencies your in are going to be limited for very good reasons.
AFTC if you refuse to deal with Gordon & Gotch because as a publisher you find their terms & conditions unacceptable you can hardly complain about newsagents who refuse to deal with IPS because as newsagents we find their terms & conditions unacceptable.
Subaru @ #7
I haven’t heard of a distributor offering new titles on a “trial basis” before.
Does Gotch do this?
Steve @ #8
Don’t all distributors contractually demand all titles be displayed?
Chris @ #9
Could you elaborate on IPS “are very difficult to deal with”?
And, just for the record, I wrote “earn loyalty” not rely on it.
Paul @ #10
I asked serious questions, none of which apportioned blame to anyone.
You are way off the mark if you believe I don’t care about the cost to the retailer.
Steve @ #11
Do you have to pay for returns to Gotch?
Steve @ #12
I did not state that I would not deal with Gotch because of their terms and conditions.
I wrote “Gotch was reprehensible” – based on the experience of having had them distribute my magazine in the past.
By the way, I was not “complaining” about newsagents who refuse to deal with IPS – I was questioning their decision. Big difference.
General remarks
It’s a very sad thing. Every time I engage with this blog, I try very hard to phrase my posts to “the magazine specialists”. Unfortunately the responses almost always have a tinge of “fraternising with the enemy” about them.
I truly do not understand why.
The reality is that both newsagents and publishers are “magazine specialists”. IMHO the only party that is not a magazine specialist is the distributor.
AFTC, I never quoted you so I don’t understand your point there?
Your comments #6 were always going to draw critisism, I expect you knew this would be the case. Any issue you have with this is self created.
IPS are difficult to deal with due to A) lack of early return capacity or the ability to stop titles that they supply yet know we will not sell from previous track record. B) strict return guidelines C) Oversupply D) always dealing with anon via IPS email (no response ever has a name)
Your comments in #6 really made me think long and hard about whether I really want to support your title. Your lack of understanding about how IPS and newsagents interact made me think that if I take 3 putaway customers off my list of over 1000 would not be such a painful thing to do.
The benefit of being a business owner is the ability to be personal in your decision making, whether it be good for the business or good for the soul. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant as it is my business to run.
AFTC
I know of nothing contractually about having to display all titles supplied by G&G, but if there is it’s worthless due to early returns. If I don’t want it I’m able to return it.
My Newsagency is in a small rural town so yes I have to courier my returns back to G&G in Perth. I send back about $7000 worth once a month, cost $34. One great thing about Network closing is before I had to send 2 consignments to the same address so I’ve halved the cost. I also sell about $7000 worth so $1500 to $2000 GP and $34 cost to physically return, a lot better than putting a $1 stamp on 2 AFTC covers.
The reason I have bitten back at you some times isnt about you as a publisher or your magazine, AFTC was one of the main reasons I delayed booting IPS but in the end it wasn’t worth it. The reason was because you seem to be of the opinion newsagents should be stocking your magazine even though its being distributed through IPS a company some of us refuse to deal with. My opinion is if you want more newsagents stocking your magazine your going to have to go through G&G, Newsagents collectively are more important to you than 1 good niche market magazine is to any of us individually.
I also had a go at you several months ago, that was when you complained about early returns when dont actually have any with IPS.
It’s not about you it’s about IPS.
Hi Chris @ #14
Thanks for taking the time to describe some of the difficulties you have had dealing with IPS. These are now on public record, so perhaps some good will come of it.
Re my comment in #13 “And, just for the record, I wrote “earn loyalty” not rely on it” and your response “I never quoted you so I don’t understand your point there?” – please re-read the last paragraph of your post #9
Hi Steve @ #15
Thank you also for taking the time to respond.
I agree 100% with you about the impost on retailers of having to pay to return unsold mags.
We direct supply genealogy organisations and provide an SAE for return of unsold covers (and cheque, if that’s how they wish to pay).
Re your statement “Newsagents collectively are more important to you than…” – sorry, I cannot agree because:
1) it’s not singularly about EITHER a newsagent OR a publisher; it is about our MUTUAL customers
2) when they can’t buy our magazine from newsagent, they subscribe – which is not what we want/need them to do (please re-read my post #2)
And to the 1 person (or was it 2 different people?) who Liked my posts #2 and #13, thank you too!
Last, but not least, none of you know me, so could I ask in future that assumptions are not made about me? I know I’m “the enemy” (hey look out, publisher approaching!) but you don’t know my business background, qualifications or experience. I know nothing about you individually either, and in such situations I’ve always found that respect and good manners go an awfully long way!
Final question:
With all the difficulties surrounding magazine distribution, is it time one of the organisations representing newsagencies created a distribution arm and DID IT RIGHT?
AFTC
My comment re “newsagents collectively are more important to you than 1 good niche market magazine is to us individually” is just a statement of fact proven by the fact your complaining that not enough newsagents stock you magazine. I as an individual meanwhile made the decision that carrying AFTC wasn’t worth the pain of dealing with IPS, a decision I’ve never regretted and which has only made my life better.
You coming on here and complaining that newsagents don’t stock AFTC is never going to make me change my mind. This issue is obviously more important to you than to me so if you want things to change you are going to have to be the one who makes the changes because it not important enough for me to change.
Steve @ #17
You think I was complaining. And trying to change your mind.
Choosing to misunderstand my words is sad, but it is your prerogative.
Shame you overlooked the fact that more solutions are available than just the one you favour.
With put downs like yours, it’s no wonder more publishers aren’t “coming on here” to take part in discussions about magazine supply in Australia.
I don’t ever want to read another newsagent’s complaint here about publishers using newsagents to get subscribers.
Facts
1) I advised newsagents I was concerned that customers could not buy our magazine because that pushed them to subscribe which I did not want/need. Fair enough
2) Newsagents response was I’d have to change distributors. Fair enough
3) I advised that was not possible and mentioned two alternatives. Fair enough
4) Newsagents said I was complaining and that I was the one who would have to make the changes. Shut down, complete lock out
No ATFC, GG don’t allow us magazines on a trial basis.
They do , however allow us to return magazines when we feel that they have lived their shelf life, or if we KNOW they won’t sell in OUR stores.
I do stock your magazine, and I do have a couple of putaways for it, so these customer’s don’t miss out.
This does also mean that I carry magazines that won’t sell – within the month of receipt or at all – that I can’t early return.
Do IPS guarantee you will sell a number of copies? Or only that they will distribute a certain number of copies? These are 2 totally different things. Things that people who advertise in your magazine would be very interested to know…
AFTC
I’m sorry your taking this personally, as I said in post #15 this isn’t about you its about IPS.
I’m not telling you to move to G&G, which distributor you use is entirely your decision to make just as which suppliers I choose to deal with is entirely up to me and I’ll make those decisions in my best interests.
I have to say if you reread posts #2 and #6 you definitely came on here to have a whinge about newsagents not stocking AFTC. My comment about moving to G&G was only pointing out that if you want more newsagents to stock AFTC then G&G supplies more newsagents than IPS does.
What you chose to do is entirely up to you. I just don’t appreciated being told I should stock your magazine even if I don’t want to do business with your supplier.
SUBARU @ #20
Thank you for your post and thank you for providing a Putaway Service for our mutual customers. Your efforts (and other newsagents) are greatly appreciated.
I was under the impression that IPS:
1) Changed the old, outdated pre-computer era payment system from 5 months to 1 month, which required sales details and returns to be finalised within 14 days of magazines going offsale (changed from allowing newsagents up to 6 weeks to do this under the old manual system)
2) Allows newsagents to choose which titles they receive. Has that changed?
3) Distribution is sales based, which is why IPS removed the “early returns” facility. Has supply ceased being sales based?
4) Does make adjustments due to late returns (these are shown on our payment advices).
5) Increased newsagent commission from 25% to 27%.
I closed my IPS account some time ago , just could not deal with a company who refuse to adapt to the market.
AFTC sorry you feel like you’re being persecuted here I think there is a disconnect between what you would like to see happen and what will happen or rather what will happen in the majority of newsagencies.
Simply put dealing with IPS doesn’t make commercial sense to what I suspect is the majority or newsagents. Unfortunately while they may be the better option for you to distribute through they aren’t the better or even a plainly acceptable option for many newsagents to deal with.
So as part of your options solution are you saying you are willing to supply newsagents directly and supply then with a reply paid envelope to make their returns ?
BTW the mention in your last reply of 25 or 27% commission is in my view completely irrelevant commission should be closer to 40% for all magazines to make them a continuingly viable product . (Part of the reason I have shaved around half of magazine pockets for other more profitable lines in the last few years) but that’s a discussion for another day ! 😉
AFTC please don’t feel that there is a level of hostility in the newsagency industry towards niche Australian publishers. I am sure that those who truly understand the publisher/distributor/newsagent relationship know where the problems lie, which is at distributor level.
I agree with all the comments re IPS. They are too restrictive to be able to deal with effectively. I try to manage my allocations online and frequently get knocked back because what I want to do does not meet their business rules, despite the fact that I meet all criteria for an allocation change. Despite my efforts in managing supply, my sell through rate with IPS sits at around 21%. For IPS to start to be a valuable supplier to my business, I need a sell through rate of at least 60%. This I can never achieve under their current rules. If distribution was sales based, my sell through rate would not be 21%.
It is in my best interests financially to close my IPS accounts, however for the handful of titles I sell through, yours included, at this stage I am keeping it open for my customers sake – but that is under constant review.
The 27% commission you refer to was offered to those that signed the IPS contract. I never did, nor will I, so I remain on 25%. However 40% is closer to what is needed so the added 2% on what I sell is negligible and not worth chasing given what I have to sign to achieve it.
IPS should align their processes and time frames with those of GG. If they did I am certain most of the issues would resolve themselves and we newsagents don’t have to worry about managing 2 very different sets of rules for the same product from different suppliers.
Sending back physical returns is a practice that should have been stopped years ago. All the data required to manage the process is transferred daily between our POS systems and the distributor, so those of us who have made the significant investment in these systems should be freed of the burden and cost of sending back physical top/cover returns.
These are just some of the many reasons magazine space allocation in newsagencies across the country is declining to make way for new lines with decent margins over which we have complete control. If the magazine industry as we know it in Australia is to survive, then both publishers and newsagents need to work together to drive change in all levels of the supply and retail chain so ensure it remains (becomes) viable.
Your input here is valued and helps us all to understand each side of the equation and where we need to direct our energies to facilitate much needed change.
ATFC
1) Changed the old, outdated pre-computer era payment system from 5 months to 1 month, which required sales details and returns to be finalised within 14 days of magazines going offsale (changed from allowing newsagents up to 6 weeks to do this under the old manual system)
This is true from my understanding, They get the sales details of the issues. Why should I have to send back any physical stock anyway. Supply – sales = returns
2) Allows newsagents to choose which titles they receive. Has that changed?
Newsagents are allowed to stop supply before it starts – if they see the email from IPS about the launch.
Because physically seeing it is better, this is why we have asked about the 1st edition as a “trial” – give it a go, if it doesn’t sell, then decide from there.
I’ll give Australian publishers a fair go to support the local industry over an international one, but if it doesn’t work, I need to be able to easily cancel it with no argument from the disty.
3) Distribution is sales based, which is why IPS removed the “early returns” facility. Has supply ceased being sales based?
If the distribution is “sales based” why do I sell 2 of something and have it increased to 6 the following issue with no justification? IPS and Gotch are still guilty of this.
They know what we got, they know what we sold )because of Xchangeit. There is no excuse for oversupply
4) Does make adjustments due to late returns (these are shown on our payment advices).
You have to contact them to get a late return approved. If I found something on the shelf that was a week late, it is a hassle to return it
5) Increased newsagent commission from 25% to 27%.
Officially only to those “who signed a contract”
Not sure in reality though, as we (and many others) didn’t sign one.
In addition, when changing from GG to IPS or vice versa, why is it so hard for the incoming disty to get the supply right from the first issue.
The supply and sales data should be transferred as part of the magazine itself.
I have had magazines that i was getting from NDC, and never see them from GG. I’m sure the same thing has happened with IPS as well.
When I have a customer ask me what happened to X magazine, I look like the idiot because I don’t know.
I then have to react, and search for it and start it again – which takes at least 2 weeks to activate by GG. meanwhile the customer has missed the following issue.
If I was getting 3 and selling 2, the data transfer of history should tell the new disty that, and I (and my customer) shouldn’t feel any pain because a publisher has looked for a better deal.
Hi Paul @ #24
Thanks for your response. I think I have most likely covered the points you raised in my replies to Glenn and Subaru below.
Hi Glenn @ #25
Thanks for a great post. I could not agree more that 21% sell through is pathetic and that 60% is a minimum. I also have other thoughts about the points you made:
IPS should align their processes and time frames with those of GG. If they did I am certain most of the issues would resolve themselves and we newsagents don’t have to worry about managing 2 very different sets of rules for the same product from different suppliers.
[Playing devil’s advocate here, definitely NOT trying to get anyone to change their minds, OK!!]
Should IPS align its processes and time frames with those of GG or should GG make the changes?
Sending back physical returns is a practice that should have been stopped years ago. All the data required to manage the process is transferred daily between our POS systems and the distributor, so those of us who have made the significant investment in these systems should be freed of the burden and cost of sending back physical top/cover returns.
The reason for returns is PROOF of data, which I believe at the end of the day is in everyone’s best interests. However, it should be tops only, done by post and the cost borne by the distributor. IMO this would have the added advantage of discouraging over-supply.
Hi Subaru @ #26
Thanks for a great post. I can answer some of your questions:
If the distribution is “sales based” why do I sell 2 of something and have it increased to 6 the following issue with no justification? IPS and Gotch are still guilty of this.
This happens because distributors “calculate” allocations for the following issue BEFORE the current issue is finalised. It’s important to remember that magazines are printed weeks ahead of the cover date and that is when distributors “calculate” allocations.
They know what we got, they know what we sold ) because of Xchangeit. There is no excuse for oversupply
The killer diller here is the current need for physical return (either full copy or cover) to PROVE the sales numbers. My opinion is that it’s in both newsagents’ and distributors’ best interests to be able to prove sales numbers. Question here might be: can technology provide a faster way of proving them?
In addition, when changing from GG to IPS or vice versa, why is it so hard for the incoming disty to get the supply right from the first issue.
This happens for the same reason that allocations aren’t sales based but guesstimated (see answer above)
5) Increased newsagent commission from 25% to 27%.
Officially only to those “who signed a contract”
Oh, thank you, that’s very interesting as I seem to be charged 27% commission across the board. That’s not a problem, so long as the extra 2% is actually reaching newsagents.
When I have a customer ask me what happened to X magazine, I look like the idiot because I don’t know.
I then have to react, and search for it and start it again – which takes at least 2 weeks to activate by GG. meanwhile the customer has missed the following issue.
Agree, neither you nor your customer should be inconvenienced. In this situation (and I know it means a little bit more work) I recommend contacting the publisher to obtain the missed issue. We supply newsagents on same commission basis, no postage cost and same day service.