Author: Mark

Canberra newsagents have been hit with missing parcels and late deliveries of magazines and newspapers today as a consequence of Gotch and Network ditching local freight company Murrell’s in favour of Toll.

While the magazine distributors save money on distribution costs, newsagents lose sales.  Time is now being wasted chasing missing parcels.  This is false economy on the part of the magazine distributors.

Newsagents located in NSW, outside the jurisdiction of the ACT, could take this matter to the CTTT.  It could be reasonably straightforward to get a case up against the distributors for taking unilateral action which is detrimental to your business and your customers.

Despite promises that they would address the supply of comics, magazine distributor Gordon and Gotch continues to fail newsagents by supplying to a level where most newsagents lose money carrying the Simpson comics. Take the latest Bart Simpson comic, we should have received 40% less stock than the magazine distribution experts at Gordon and Gotch sent us.

Gordon and Gotch holds us accountable for paying them yet they continue to refuse to be accountable for fair, ethical and responsible supply. The time spent on this, while not massive on only title, adds up and detracts from investing in more successful magazine titles.

Publishers who treat newsagents fairly by supplying to a 60% or more sell through should demand that Gotch stop supplying where their own sales data proves that they are oversupplying.

For the record I note that I consider supplying to anything less than a 60% sell through target is over supply.

Gotch should stop using our newsagencies as warehouses. Supply fewer copies and use sales based replenishment techniques to replenish based on demand. Making the retailer pay the price of an inefficient system is unfair.

Footnote: it’s not only the Simpson’s comics.  Gotch’s own sale and return data has evidence of plenty of oversupply like this.

My estimate is that Reader’s Digest magazine has a sell through rate of around 25%. This is my experience in at least one of my newsagencies. It is a poor performing title yet the magazine distribution experts at Network Services decided I should get an increase in supply. While they will have their excuses, I see no justification in my sales data for them sending more copies of Reader’s Digest. All their action achieves is taking up valuable time dealing with the unjustified supply quantity, taking time from more productive magazine management work.

Looking carefully at the sale and return data, it seems to me that Network will increase supply if you have one good month but they will wait for three or four bad months before decreasing supply.  This suggests double standards.  It is not, in my view, fair or responsible. They are spending my money, giving me little control and expecting me to pay their accounts on time without being fair or ethical about it.

Publishers who supply more fairly, to achieve a sell through of 60% or more, are being hampered by whatever it is which sees newsagents supplied titles like Reader’s Digest with such a more sell through rate. The good publishers should be demanding of their magazine distributors. There is proof in distributor data of gross oversupply – if only you could get your hands on it.