Ugh!

Last week, newsagents received this Pools and Outdoors Pack from Network Services.  Universal Magazines is the publisher.  Poolside Showcase is the title at the front of the packs I saw.  While being sold as a pack, this is effectively a reissue.  You can see old price labels from other newsagencies on the front magazine inside the pack.  Some copies of the front title I saw are damaged to the extent of not being of merchantable quality.I question whether this pack should have been sent to newsagents at all.  It is clearly old stock.

It is not as if we need another pool or outdoors title – there are plenty on newsagent shelves already.

Universal Magazines has decided on a long on-sale for this pack, it is not due for return until week 26.  That is a ton of newsagent cash at risk, bankrolling the sending of this title to newsagents.  Yes, newsagents are funding the shipment of this old and questionable stock.

I would like to know the sell through for titles like Poolside Showcase from the the first time it was sent to newsagents.  If it did not achieve a 60% sell through it should not have been reissued through this pack.

I would like Universal Magazines to advise newsagents of the sell through of all of the titles in the pack – to justify their grab of newsagent cash through the reissue of this stock to us. They owe it to us since they are expecting us to pay for this stock which did not sell the first time it was sent out.

If Universal has such faith in this pack, why not let newsagents order it?  They will say that newsagents would not order the title and that such an approach is against the magazine distribution model.  I agree on both accounts.  Newsagents are smart.  They would take stock based on the financial return they will achieve.

I suspect that newsagents leaving this pack on their shelves for the full on sale will lose money once they account for their retail real estate, labour and shrinkage. So, no, newsagents would not order this title if they were give the opportunity.

That this pack has been sent looks to me like an abuse of small business newsagents.  If I am wrong and sales data justifies the decision then I will unreservedly apologise.

The folks at Universal Magazines will think that I am picking on them with this blog post.  I will let readers here be the judge of that. Someone in Universal decided to send out stock of dubious value and of questionable merchantable quality.  On those two counts alone Universal deserves to face some tough question from newsagents.

This is an ideal title for early returning, before the cutoff for the end of the month.

A colleague newsagent has experienced a quadrupling of his supply of Inked magazine this week.  That’s right, supply from Network Services jumped from 4 to 15.  We cannot see any apparent reason for such an increase.  So, I am interested to know if any other newsagent experienced such an increase.  Click on the image for a screen shot from the Tower Systems software for the newsagency – you can see the supply and return data for the last six issues of Inked magazine for this newsagency.  There is no apparent reason for such an increase.

I know this happens often with both magazine distributors.  They say there is a reason – a promotion, a glitch or a mistake.  Yes, always a reason, always an excuse. Magazine distributor representatives need to understand that it is not their retail real estate, labour or cash put at risk by such ‘mistakes’.

If you received an increase in supply of Inked, please let me know.

We have sold one copy of Football+.  When we first received this issue we early returned a couple of copies as we had no room and would never sell them based on our sales data.  Network Services or ACP, one of those two certainly, decided to send us more stock of this title yesterday.  There is no justification in our sales or returns data for this move.  We are early returning this additional stock.

We, like most newsagents, have invested good money in technology and processes to ensure that Network and ACP are fully informed of our sales and returns data, so that they can make informed and fair magazine distribution decisions.  The supply of additional stock to us of Football+ yesterday was not an informed or fair move.

Just as the accounts people at Network Services take a zero tolerance approach when it comes to payment of the account, newsagents are right to take a zero tolerance approach to unjustified supply.  The problem is that we are the weak party in the transaction.  Network can stop supply to force us to act.  Newsagents do not have any punitive action option.  Early returning is not punitive – we even pay for the privilege.

Newsagents are receiving Wellbeing Beauty this morning, many for the third time.

This $19.95 title failed to achieve a reasonable sell through (40% or more) when first distributed in August last year.  Newsagents were required to return unsold stock.  The exact same issue was distributed again in March this year and again it failed to achieve reasonable sales.  And, yes, we were requested to return unsold stock.

This morning, many newsagents discover that Universal Magazines has convinced Network Services to send the title out for a third time!  While the publisher will think they are helping newsagents by offering the title with delayed billing, newsagents know better.

But wait, there could be more.  Universal has requested a full copy return.  They may have plans for a fourth go around.  Weighing half a kilo, the freight costs for newsagents in full copy returns is significant.

What a rip off of newsagents this title has been.  Shame on NDD and Network Services for their participation in ripping off newsagents.  Of course, magazine distributors want to keep their trucks full, that is a key plank of their business model.  I bet they carry no risk with this title. No, the risk is left with newsagents.

The behaviour of Network in distributing this title for a third time is proof that newsagents are right to be sceptical every time a Network employee says they have the interests of newsagents at heart.  If they did, this title would not have been delivered by them to newsagents today.

This is an excellent example of a sick magazine distribution model which preys on the weak.

Think about this for a moment … how much time and money have we invested in this title already putting it on our shelves, taking it off, returning it and going through all that again?

And the folks at Universal Magazines say that I pick on them.  No, they abuse newsagents. What they are doing with this title is a perfect example.

I would not be surprised if newsagents sent back the cover only of Wellbeing Beauty this time around.

Shame on Network Services for allowing newsagents to be abused in this way. Shame on Universal Magazines for wasting newsagent time and money on what is clearly a dud title.

My view is that what Universal and Network are doing with Wellbeing Beauty is unconscionable.  However, the toothless ACCC will most likely take a different view.

In 2007 I called for a magazine czar.  The associations did nothing. Newsagents did nothing. Unless we take control of our channel this type of behaviour will continue and we will suffer economically. Serves us right.  We need to stop Universal and Network and others from this behaviour.

Footnote: I did not receive Wellbeing Beauty in my stores.  I suspect this is because Universal did not want me writing about their appalling treatment of newsagents.

We received Performance Car Heroes yesterday for the first time.  The only way to fit this title in our trimmed down magazine department is to take another title off.  I decided against that and early returned Performance Car Heroes.  Had I been asked if I wanted this title I would have declined in our current location.  What happened here with this title is a perfect example of anti competitive behaviour.  Newsagents are the only magazine channel treated in this way.  The lack of flexibility we have makes us less competitive.