Author: Mark Fletcher

Following up my complaints here about the gross and repeated oversupply of Reader’s Digest to my newsagency by distributor NDD comes an email overnight from an individual documenting poor treatment by Reader’s Digest:

I am not a newsagent myself but rather an individual who has received unsolicited subscriptions and bills for the magazine which I did not order. The latest being a letter saying that goods were returned to them being undeliverable despite me informing them I do not wish to receive any further correspondence.

Unhappy with the resolution of his complaint, my correspondent has made a formal complaint to the ACCC and a Principal Investigator has been appointed to handle the matter.

One reason systemic oversupply to newsagents remains unresolved in the lack of attention by newsagents to lodging formal complaints to bodies such as the ACCC.

Here’s an example of a magazine we don’t need. Newsagents are well served with Sudoku titles yet some bright spark thinks we need this UK title.

If I were the magazine czar controlling the titles which can access newsagencies I’d block this title. I might reconsider if newsagents are paid a handling fee to cover real-estate and labour.

Those responsible for newsagents receiving this title are abusing a system for their exclusive commercial gain.

In 2004 ACP Magazines made the first move to cut newsagents out of long term supply arrangements with key petrol outlets. Just under 1,000 newsagents lost revenue as a result. Some other publishers subsequently followed ACP. Now, almost three years on, we see magazines getting moved in major petrol outlets and while top selling titles may still be doing okay, the magazine category overall has suffered. While no one will agree it would be good to access sales data to understand the impact beyond individual publishers. The previous newsagent supply arrangement was better for the category – maybe publishers will realise this when they discover how far from the traffic in some outlets their product is being moved.

Magazine publishers and distributors show their care about the environment by sending magazines which failed to sell the first time out to newsagents again and again. These old issues are used as fodder to fill double and triple packs, to add value to a title. The trouble is that punters committed to the title probably bought the old and very old issues when they first came out. Punters know the packs are a con – this why they are often ripped open in store to uncover issues not already purchased.

I don’t mind a an occasional double pack to reignite interest in a title. However, too often the double and triple pack strategy is used cynically by publishers to keep dead stock circulating. It’s cheap marketing.

While some will say why should I worry since if they don’t sell I can return them. True. But the freight costs for returns are high – I’m paying two and three times to freight a dead issue of a magazine back to the distributor.

Double and triple packs ought to, in my view, have a premium attached to them which respects the additional real-estate they need in a newsagency. If newsagents operate on a fee for service basis we would see far fewer double and triple packs.

Good to see Pacific Magazines announce that they will launch Women’s Health in Australia by the end of this year. The health category is strong at present and launches of new titles such as Women’s Health will help drive further growth.

Good to see Burke’s Backyard back and getting star treatment now that the show is coming back to TV. While sales have been okay while it’s been off air, ther magazine will benefit from on air support. We’ve been given extra stock this month because of the sales kick expected with the product giveaway accompanying the title.

Garden and related titles are strong despite the drought and stronger interest in Burke’s Backyard ought to help the overall category.

Limelight, Life Etc, Collectors and Gardening Australia from the ABC are strong magazine titles in their respective niches and therein lies a dilemma for the retailer. We’re driven to display each title in its appropriate category yet I suspect they would equally work in an ABC themed display stand. Such a display might see multiple titles purchased if, as I suspect, the titles are purchased sometimes for their ABC connection than the pure subject matter.

Take Collectors for example – it should be located at the back of the shop in the collectibles / antiques area. However, the TV show on which it is based is interesting to a broader audience that such an isolated category – yet I cannot justify display space for the limited quantity of this one title.

We might have a crack next week at an ABC themed display grouping the some of their titles together and therefore help the newer titles like Collectors find an audience.

The news that Emap is contemplating selling Australian titles needs to be considered in the context of the turmoil for the company in the UK. Add to this the moves surrounding some of Time Inc’s Australian titles and newsagents seem set for some changes in the magazine space – but rather than reacting to these moves, business minded newsagents ought to exert more control for themselves.

Australian Horticulture is struggling. We sell, if we’re lucky, one copy a month. It’s not paying its way. The Rural Press website says the titles has 4,507 ABC audited paid circulation January to June 2004. I received three copies this month so it cannot be in that many newsagencies once you account for subscriptions.

This is the type of publication I’m talking about when I pitch here that newsagents need more equitable terms. I can’t keep losing money of Australian Horticulture. I don’t need the title to give my newsagency credibility as a magazine specialist. I’d gladly carry the title if I was being paid for real-estate and time but without such compensation, the title is not worth it.

Australian Horticulture has a lifeline in the form of newsagents providing the retail presence at no cost. As one who is paying for this subsidy I feel it is right to question the worth of the title.