I was talking with a newsagent who had handed back their newspaper home delivery runs to the publisher as few months ago. They were telling me about customer experiences. They handed back the run because it was not financially viable and because representations to the publishers for fair compensation were unsuccessful.
Now, months after handing there run back, their old home delivery customers tell them that in the event any paper is missed, it is never replaced. The publisher provides a credit to the account as the only solution to them missed paper complaint.
What this experience demonstrates that the demand by publishers on newsagents that they take out a paper in the event of a reported miss is not a standard to which they hold themselves when they take over a run.
The publisher is demonstrating double standards. For decades they unleashed relentless pressure on newsagents in terms of home delivery service levels, demanding a c retain standard, a standard they themselves fall short of when they take over a home delivery service.
This failure by the publisher shows that the decades of demand were a big business bullying a small business because they could, not because it was right for the customer. I think this is poor social responsibility boy the publisher.
I have found the most important pat of reliable paper delivery service is the ability to redeliver an item that is missed irrespective of the cause, (blame etc).
Spot on Peter.
Obviously not from a large regional territory Peter.
The point of my post is that when publishers take over, a redelivery is not an option … yet they expected newsagents to do this.
How large. We did 1, 000 SMH’ 80 Aust and 250 Teles 25 FR’s al over the fence M to F. 3,000 Sunday 2,300 Sat. and redelivered evry reported miss without argument from our side. ah! a very different era it was in the 70’s smaller area max volume, plus the customers were ours and they paid fortnightly in the shop.
this is one of the reasons that the publisher have to look at economies of scale and so did newsagents which result in handing back and the eventual takeover.
And in publishers then, finally, realising that re-delivery is not economically viable in many situations.
Correct
We are a small newsagent in Melbourne and heard from Herald Sun yesterday that this change is coming in the next few months too. Totally devastated with the news and a big blow to us financially too.
Wow Graham that’s a massive amount of papers!
We had Eastwood/Denisone from March 87, area must have been carved up between you and us doing deliveries.
No carve up just time -1969 January I started and sold to the owners you took over from in January 1980. First thing they did was cut out afternoon delivery of newsapaers upsetting many. as well as “trim” the everyday by limiting daily stop starts to weekly. Mcleans weren’t the best P.R. people as you may have found out.
Even with care our delivery was falling as was the afternon sale of newspaper The 12c Evening Sun comes to mind versus the 10c Daily Mirror-the single coin purchase reall had an affect on sales.
We kept the shop retail only in Eastwood Centre so we got the complaints first hand.
Hi Jenny, forgot to mention most importantly in 1970 papers cover price went up 100% from 5c to 10c Sundays alone our delivery halved overnight from 3,000 to 1,500 We also did not have any Home Units only shops and houses. 5k 1 h.15 mins was best time on road if we could start at 5.45. fully loaded Papers arrived 2.45-3. a.m. every weekday and 2.30. am Sat 2 a.m. or earlier Sundays. Sure were different times.
Can anyone else recall this I think Fowler was Fairfax Circulation Manger at the time the Tele was owned by Packer. delivery fee was 1c per day and and called a Booking Fee.