VANA, the association of some Victorian newsagents has announced a name change and a national focus. They have created National Lottery and Newsagents Association, NLNA. Talk about original. ALNA, the Australian Lottery and Newsagents Association already exists, with an almost identical name, and has a track record of good representation.
This is a stupid move by VANA in my opinion, a move taken to further splinter the already challenged representation of the newsagency channel. A selfish move, maybe ego driven.
The name represents the stupidity. Rather than being creative, they decided to copy. Talk about dumb.
VANA should have folded into ALNA. One national body is enough for the shrinking channel. Now, suppliers are left wondering where to support. My view is that VANA deserves no support. They are not an association. Instead, they are a marketing group trading off the back of a single state association. Good luck to them. However, they need to stop obsessing about agency business to have a future.
VANA parades as an association but I bet they take a percentage from every supplier organisation they support in one way or another. They can do that for sure, but call it what it is – a marketing group.
In my view, associations should be purely that, associations – representing members in collective bargaining and to government on policy matters. That’s not VANA.
I have no arrangement with ALNA whatsoever. I think they are doing a good job. This move by VANA against them is dumb. It splinters and already splintered channel.
Footnote: I am a director of newsXpress, a newsagency marketing group, a competition of VANA in some areas. The difference is that newsXpress is transparent as to what it is.
Mark, Your comments are very interesting and I hope all current and existing members voice concern at what is happening. The direction of an industry association is to work with suppliers and not profit from ideas. I realise times have changed but the survival and future saleability of your business should be a primary concern.
On one hand I agree.
NLNA appears to be a cash grab by a group of ex-employees from “partner suppliers” whom have probably in previous roles screwed the Newsagency Industry. Do they have the industries best interest at heart, or are they simply another CEO / Director looking for overpaid employment before moving onto another overpaid exec role? Their appears to be very little Newsagency representation and they have looked at the remuneration packages of ALNA employees and thought “it’s only a rort if your not part of it”.
NLNA appear to offer nothing but services and are hanging their hat on Amazon Hubbed which looks destined to be the next Bill Express.
But I guess they appear to be starting out with nothing more, but nothing less than what is being offered by ALNA. The challenge will be what they can achieve in financial negotiations with “partner suppliers” that will ultimately decide their value.
On the other hand ALNA are terrible.
Mark for year’s you bagged ALNA, and in the past two years this has changed. ALNA have not improved during this time, in fact I would argue they have become weaker and represent less Newsagency outlets than ever before. The merger with LRA was a step backwards.
Newsagents are fed up with the lack of achievement from ALNA, an opposing association may force some change and achieve results???
Personally I still am unable to understand how OTR and Tobacco chains such as CTC are achieving better financial outcomes in our industry than Newsagent associations or buying groups.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Typical vana.
Amanda, there is no evidence of the commercial terms achieved by OTR or CTC other than the OTR counter rules relaxation for lotteries. They have achieved that by owning every retail outlet.
In terms of ALNA, what was delivered versus what was proposed is far better. They got Tabcorp to move significantly. They did this without 100% of newsagents supporting them. Imagine what they might have achieved had they had that support?!
Until newsagents agree to be bound by strict rules they will not get competitive offers. The independence of newsagents is their weakness commercially.
Outside of lotteries, I know newsXpress has some extraordinary and exclusive deals. The company has never paid a dividend of profit distribution or had many removed from the group in any other way to benefit the owners.
Selfish fools still run vana I see.
Having been in the industry for 20 plus years. It still amazes me that we cannot unify under one banner. It’s clear we should and is disappointing that VANA refuses to accept this concept.
Absolutely agree with Shane. We need one unified body with representation of our best minds across the country. Disunity simply weakens our voice with government and other industry players. No wonder we are constantly bullied by the major commercial players. VANA, NANA, ALNA & now NLNA. How confusing!
Egos, ……. in the newsagency channel, who would have thought!
Would some one kindly explain what this new found uniformity of newsagents Australia wide has a bargaining power or an influence on whom or what?
Govt.? there is lobby perception here but what can we lobby for -we had it all and they the Govt. deregulated the industry. Industry Players? Newspapers -we had exclusive contracts and now they have discontinued them as an industry and where applicable to them or us with eirther 3 months or 6 months notice. Card Companies?-Commercial contracts are not based at industry level. They are case by case. Landlords? individual contracts apply. Stationary? help me GNS does a deal with Amazon- this says it all.
the Lott is the last and only one -It is a franchise and you can appeal to the Franchise Council of Australia and all the current Associations have communication with the currently and it seems no one here by mentioning the OTR etc obviously are not too happy with the outcomes. You can appeal howvere their Franchise Agreement clearly states their “exclusivity” arrangements=equals -none.
First look at what you want from an Association and then join it and what you want even more join the Board and make it available to all other members.
The Howard government deregulated the channel, taking away exclusivity and without compensation. Some say newsagent leadership at the time stuffed it up. Others say the Howard led government stuffed it up. The reality is that the asset was stripped from the channel without fair and reasonable compensation. But that is in the past.
Right now newsagents could benefit from a single national association working on matters it is able to gain traction, limited as there are by factors outside the control of any association.
For me, backing ALNA by newsagents, especially those with lotteries, makes sense. ALNA has the authorisation. In challenging circumstances they have made progress.
This move by the Victorians is stupid, selfish and unlikely to work.
Shane and Steve, If Tower Systems allow phone numbers to be shown I will put mine. I am a former Director of VANA and Newspower and my family had a long association with the industry. I am prepared to help.
Mark,
your comments are totally incorrect. The Howard Govt was not resposible for the deregulation. That’s a personal bias It was the Labor Party instigated from the frustration of the press been given the right from the Fraser Govt in 1980 to establish a Newsagency Council which was granted on a State By State basis starting with Victoria Victoria in my opinion, and I was there -stuffed it up-sold out by agreeig with a position that was negotiable Putting that aside we survived
only because the publishers had the clout they wanted regulation at that stage.
Howard inhereited the mess of deregulation which was instigated by the Hawke Keating Govt with giving us the newspares preferred salvage that was an exclusive distribution area but not a retail exclusive one. We were left with a stupid result that was Howard and the Govt.
Howard didn’t deregulate us that was labor Howard botched the remidy because he played the publisher game. Look at the result. Abismal.
Compensation was up to Hawke Keating they go no compensation for what was previously given from the Fraser Govt. In fact they hated Murdoch for his saying that I put Gough in and I put him out of Govt.
Some still carry this angst.
Graeme, don’t label bias that is not there.
The Howard government oversaw and had a key handed in deregulation. They could have stepped in at any time. They could have offered compensation,. They could have supported small business. They did none of these things. These are the facts.
BTW, I met with Howard in my newsagency in the lead up to the GST election. He was there to talk small business, do a press conference and for photos. It is the most he did in small business for years.
MARK,
I didn’t praise Howard in my post I stated they botched the outcome.
i saw your interview and also what you wrote at the time was full of praise for what Howard was doing for small business.
This isn’t the point-there was no compensation we were authorised by the Liberal Fraser in 1980 and re investigated by the re elected Hawke Government in starting in 1987 with Victoria being the first state. The the Government (changed in 1996 with the defeat of Keating after labors 13 years of Gov)continued the process until it’s final delivery in late 2000 only to postpone the final decision to February 2001.
The respective newsagents Association fought for sustaining status quo and as well fought for compensation.
As the provision(the Authorisation) in the first was granted with sunset clauses of review by the Governement which started as I have stated with Hawke who was adamant re freeing and deregulating the economy and the anti competition re newsagents was part of the programm.
No I’m not biased it’s all fact -anyway why go over
Yesterday-it’s dead and gone tomorrow’s out of sight and today is the most important day of anybusiness’s life.
Graeme, I didn’t say you praised Howard. My only praise for Howard at the time was for the GST. I supported then and support now a GST.
But that is in the past.
Right now newsagents could benefit from a single national association working on matters it is able to gain traction, limited as there are by factors outside the control of any association.
For me, backing ALNA by newsagents, especially those with lotteries, makes sense. ALNA has the authorisation. In challenging circumstances they have made progress.
This move by the Victorians is stupid, selfish and unlikely to work.
Thanks Mark,
I can see your point. Whether it be unfortunate or not Omni Channels are something of the growth sector in retail and on-line The growth is here to stay until it has reached its natural demand resting point. I know you are well aware of this.
Newsagents need to change and embrace this They in short do need on line presence.
Gone are the days of Associations and supplier alliance. we need contructive attitude change by offering help and facilitaing this with direction.
Unless the Association does this then what’s the point if we have one or many The power of numbers is not relevant if the subject of the newsagents plight is not addressed. Lotteries are omni channel here to stay. we need to “fight” for the same customer who will some times but off us and then sometimes when thay can’t buy on line or at the petrol outlet.
This is retail 2020 Can the Associations help them do this. _(Not their role you say and I’m not disputing whether it is or isn’t) if not though there is only Lotteries left that they can negotiate with providing the behaviour is outside of the Franchise Code or Agreement. If there is no misconduct or unfair play it is limited.
I would rather move onto the getting a more solid market share with my customers by competing with the online or satisfying my customers with other products on line so thay can order the gifts and pick them up form the store. JB HI FI do this and offer their on line customers a diffreent price than is store however you do have to pick it up at the closest or the nominated store.
Newsgents do need to look at this Omni Channel perspective and I know you do it for NewsXpress but you are talking about the rest here when you talk joining Associations.
And it was Howard that introduced GST and I remember your interview either way you can have that one but it was Hawke that did the de regulation and the no Compensation was included.
I will compromise on 1point each.
Every newsagent in Australia should have an online store, ask your association if not why not John Rees
I don’t see associations playing any role in facilitating e-commerce for newsagents. And if they did, I urge newsagent to not be part of it. Shoppers shop by outcome. Online businesses need to be outcome driven. No association can do that.
In terms of newsXpress, we are five years in on the e-commerce strategy and well into gen 3.0.
I agree Mark so this leaves “the Lott” for Associations to concentrate on. Surely not, there must be more?
Any suggestions from members or those that want stronger representation as to what they need most.
There should only be one association, ALNA. Their focus is on policy, government interface and lotteries.