There is a newsagent who is selling on eBay selected magazine titles for which they have claimed credits. I am told they have been doing this for well over a year.
I hope they lose their direct supply account as a result. This behaviour does not deserve a second chance.
Every newsagency business owes an obligation to all newsagency businesses to act ethically, to honour their supplier contracts.
If it’s the ebay seller I was just looking at they’ve sold over 1000 mags in the last 15 months. And who else but a newsagent is going to have over 1000 unused but out of date magazines?
I just can’t see how they can get away with it unless Gotch and the Publishers don’t care. Something very wrong going on.
Was just having a look and there’s one on Ebay in Melbourne selling alot of mags but that is apparently set up for “hair and beauty” products which they also seem to be selling alot of.
Brings up two questions. IF they aren’t a newsagency then who is getting supplied with all of these mags and secondly if they are legitimate why am I bothering to return any of my mags when I could just sell them online for the full retail value plus a little bit potential several months down the track ?
I’m wondering how we can be sure it’s a newsagent. What happens to unsold mags from supermarkets, Caltex, and anyone else directly supplied. There are also carriers and others who handle mags once they have left the retailer and there are also opportunities for theft at the depots before delivery and after returns.
I am certain Henry. I have deliberately not included all I know i the blog post.
Mark, have YOU reported this to Gordon and Gotch?
Are they a big fish or something that G&G don’t want shutdown. If they are in Victoria there is at least 4 fraud related criminal offences committed by selling magazines you’ve kept and claimed credit for from the supplier and then on-sold. Maximum penalty is 10 years in prison.
Obtaining property by deception
Obtaining financial advantage by deception
False accounting
Falsification of documents
Then you have the criminal penalties for handling of stolen goods and civil suits by G&G and publishers. The magazine publishers themselves should do something, after all they are the ones being defrauded, this business is not only stealing from them but also taking possible back issue sales.
The authorities need to be informed if you are sure they are committing a crime or at least inform the distributor and associated publishers of the magazines. Yes it will bring bad publicity for the channel if charges are brought and successful but it will hopefully bring others into line and eventually the channel can benefit.
As soon as I heard about this, from someone I trust, I passed on to Gotch what I had been told.
For the resort, I think any newsagent being found acting in this way should be dealt with to the full extent of the law, and quickly.
In case anyone from GG read this comment and form the opinion that I am sympathetic with false claims and therefore a suspect myself, I urge you to take a physical audit of my returns at any time. The name above is my real name.
Mark, you are right to condemn the newsagent, but he should not be the appropriate target of your heavy artillery. The body responsible for the integrity of the returns system is Gordon and Gotch. Here is its undertaking to potential suppliers:
Magazines not sold are returned by retailers to state warehouses where the parcels are scanned and the returns processed. Our Returns Processing Team is also responsible for managing the returns audit process. A physical audit is conducted in our state warehouses to ensure claimed returns are accurate.
If this undertaking were honoured, the miscreant would have been detected at the first offence. In fact, the offender would have deterred from the offence in the first place.
This does not exonerate the offender, but such a person is a bit player and nothing will change if he is blasted out of the channel. However, the supply and audit processes are crucial and this should be the focus of our concern
GG has decided over the years to do fewer and fewer physically checks, thereby, diminishing the deterrent efficiency of the audit. In reaping the saving in cost, it must accept responsibility when offences or mistakes occur. It could well be the cost of fraud falls within in the limits that would have been set, and the system is working well; a recent signal suggests it does. None-the-less, GG has opted for an audit method that accommodates theft.
Who is the victim of false claims. Since they go undetected, it is the publishers. If it is any of the big publishers, there need be no concern because they would have been party to the construction of the audit; my concern is for the small publishers who may not have any knowledge of the arrangements.
A point that should be made is that the best solution to returns problems is not to oversupply.
Henry no heavy artillery here. The newsagent(s) deliberately engaged in fraud in handling returns are the sole target of this blog post for it is their actions that bring our channel into disrepute.
If the channel has trusted GG to honour their pledge to physically audit returns in order prevent fraud and then they don’t do it, then GG played an important role in bringing the channel into disrepute.
Who would dispute that given the opportunity, a percentage of any population is sure to be dishonest.
If a gallery was having its pictures stolen, you would be looking for the thief, but you would also want to have a word with the person in charge of security.