magazine distribution

The current of AWW has a think Priceline catalogue stuck on the back – meaning we fit fewer into a pocket. In the fixture photographed we can fit five copies while for BHG we can fit ten.

Considering the cost of space, the time spent managing thicker titles and the sales of BHG and AWW, the Priceline catalogue has a cost for newsagents which makes this issue of BHG far more appealing in my view.

I’d vote for a fee for magazines that are thicker than what we might agree. Bauer are making extra money from the Priceline catalogue and we should participate in that because of the extra costs it imposes on us. We need to look at what we do with and for magazines as a fee for service. Every issue of every title needs to be profitable.

This photo shows part of the cover of a magazine received in a newsagency yesterday, sent by Network Services. Click on the image and look at the detail. That gunk on the cover is from stickers placed on these titles when they were on sale in other newsagencies.

As the angry newsagent who tole me about this wrote in their email: How dare they send unsaleable magazines.

Shame on Network for sending out such poor looking product. Where is their quality control? Non existent clearly.

This title is now on its third time around from Network Services. What appalling behaviour.

Shame on you Network Services and shame on the publisher involved in pushing this title on newsagents.

That this has happened speaks to the weak situations newsagents find themselves in. Our major competitors are not treated this way. That this is done to us disadvantages us, it makes us less competitive.

The usual supply of Psychology Today magazine for our newsagency was doubled for the Happiness? issue which went on sale yesterday. This 100% increase in supply is despite us rarely selling all the story we are usually supplied.

The irony is extraordinary. How can I be happy about such an unwarranted oversupply. It wasted our time, paper, fuel. What a waste! A very unhappy situation.

I look at this situation with this issue of Psychology Today magazine and shake my head. There is no sense to it. the distributor could say we have to send out what we are sent. From their business point of view I understand it. But it is ridiculous. It is shameful that the distributor, intros case Gordon and Gotch, can double supply without any justification in our accurate sales data.

Franchising is another magazine I wish I could cut. If I’m lucky I sell one copy but that is rare. This infrequent sale has not been enough to get Network Services to reduce my supply to one or even to cut it altogether in favour of a more successful title. The performance of Franchising reinforces why we need control over they titles we are sent.

Have your say on this topic if you want control over the magazines you receive.

I have been talking with a senior magazine distribution executive on behalf of newsagents on a possible change to their model and write today to open the topic for discussion by newsagents. But first, here is one question for you:

If you were given the control you want over magazines you receive, would you use it, would you be more engaged in the category?

Frustration with the current magazine distribution model has been intensifying as more and more newsagents are realising the control the can have and the additional gross profit they can make from other retail categories.

Publishers are frustrated with a model where they see early returns increasing, newsagents becoming less engaged and poor service from the old model.

Newsagents want to make more money from magazines. I’ve written about it here before, noting that 40% GP would be reasonable. This post today is not about GP, it is about control of range and volume.

While some will say we need to fight for everything we want, I think our interests are served by a step by step approach. hence the question I have for you today.

A magazine distributor, it does’t matter which one, is contemplating establishing new magazine supply rules. In a recent meeting we canvassed a range of options.

After reviewing the options, the package of ideas under consideration are:

1. That following allocation of new titles on the distributor computer system, you would have the opportunity to log in to cut those titles or adjust proposed supply volumes. You’d have three or four days to do this.
2. Once you take a new title you’d need to display it for the on-sale of the first issue. What happens after that would be up to you.
3. That you could cancel the title at any time in the future – and a cancellation would be a cancellation.
4. That you could adjust supply at any time in the future.
5. You could order new titles to try for as little as one issue.
6. Tops only returns for all titles. Note: it is possible the result will be no returns at all.
7. You could opt out of point 1 (new titles being allocated) and only get what you ask for.

The concern is that not enough newsagents will engage with these changes, that the distributor will lose titles and and those titles would be taken over by others who would not give newsagents this level of control. I share this concern.

While newsagents say they want more control over magazines, I worry that not enough will exercise it. That is what I want to know about today. Would you like these proposed changes to be implemented? Yes or no.

I see it that simply: yes or no. For me it is a resounding yes. The control being contemplated is something I’d embrace.

If the response is yes and the channel engages, we prove a point to all publishers and distributors and through this improve our leverage on everyone adopting this approach and opening consideration of margin.

The MPA, Bauer, Pacific, Gotch and Network are working on a code of conduct as I have written about before. I do not think the draft code of conduct is a good solution.  It has been developed with little consultation.

Of the 2,600 newsagents on XchangeIT, around 900 currently consistently pass compliance tests. This is a factor that will play into whether the package of changes I outline proceeds – particularly the question of no returns at all.

Any time there is an audit of physical returns versus what is claimed, around 25% of returns claims are not matched by reality. This makes distributors and publishers nervous. In one case I heard about recently a newsagent repaid tens of thousands of dollars for over-claimed returns.

the other factor that will play into any change to processes is rules for changes. For example, should a newsagent be allowed to cut supply of a title to below the quantity they are selling? I’d suggest they should not be able to do this – for their own good … unless they are selling only one copy an they are doing an overall space adjustment.

Back to my question – modified with more detail given the seven points in the package of ideas:

If you were given control over magazine titles you receive and the volume of each issue, would you use this control, would you be more engaged in the magazine category, would you seek out new titles and adjust supply seeking more stock to increase sales?

The distributor will watch the answers here. Please get your colleagues to engage and share their opinion. This is an opportunity to be heard.

We early returned  Eating Well from Bauer Media as we have access to equally appealing cookbooks at 50% margin and more. The supply of the unwanted low-margin title is a good example of the waste in our channel. I suspect we are not alone in early returning the title. The cover price would have newsagents not wanting to hang onto it for long. A courteous question could have saved time and money.

I broke with tradition and did an additional sweep for early magazine returns yesterday, Thursday, because of space pressures as a result of unwarranted additional magazine supply and Christmas space pressures.

Outside of our usual magazine returns and a reasonable first pass at early returns, this  photo shows the additional early returns I pulled out of a desire to exert more control over my business yesterday.

The planned MPA magazine publisher  distributor code of conduct will not adequately address the oversupply situation nor will it address the uncompetitive nature of how magazines are supplied to newsagents versus our competitors. Until this is fixed, early returns are the only tool newsagents can use.