Newsagents have told me about a crackdown by magazine distributor Gordon and Gotch on magazine returns claims. They are cross-checking supply and sales data against returns claims and going back to newsagents where the data does not add up.
While Gotch has spot checked returns for years, they now appear more attentive. Newsagents over claiming returns are more likely to be caught.
While there is plenty wrong with the magazine distribution model, consistent over-claiming of returns is not justified and could result in criminal proceedings if Gotch decided to take it that far.
My advice to newsagents is to have a structured transparent process for scanning returns as well as for arriving and selling stock. Fudging figures to get a bigger credit that is not justified in supply and sales data will result in you being caught.
Problem with these audits is who is doing the counting . How do we prove that we are correct and they are wrong , simple we cannot . I havn’t had any dramas for years but Network once would always send me emails saying I had it wrong and I could not prove any different .
Shaun I suspect there are couple of passes. The first is a check of the data and this is where I suspect plenty get into trouble as they have not realised that Gotch has their sales data.
On the physical check, take photos.
We return in excess of $5,000.00 cost to EACH company every month without fail. The figure in $$ they send us rarely changes despite this. It is an interesting thought that they would have someone sit there sorting out the tops let alone the fulls of my returns as it would take them all day for mine alone.
Note, Theres no way i could or would take photos of each of my returns, its insane to think we have such little control. I do not scam them for extra returns despite being tempted with their lack of care about my business model.
Michael – I meant take photos of the bundles, not each copy.
I didn’t think it was possible to overclaim credits. All sales go through edi so if we get say 10 copies, sell 5 and try to return 6. The overclaim rejection message comes up and we get no credits at all.
So if they monitor sales and can use that to calculate expected returns, how come they can’t calculate and recognise oversupply?
If it is so accurate why are we sending in returns at all ?
shauns – SPOT ON!!!
I know our local Coles supermarket just scan their returns and then throw them in the bin. I assume all Coles would be the same. Why do us newsagents have to scan and then pay to send our returns back ?
To me that is the bigger issue, plus over supply/under supply
Maybe its time as a group we actually did something about these kinds of issues. The associations that are supposed to represent us haven’t had much luck, but as a collective if we actually said enough is enough and agreed that as a group we would for example stop sending back our physical returns, perhaps then they might actually start paying attention. At the moment all that seems to be happening is lots of complaining. Perhaps its time to take some real action together, because as a group we are bigger than the supermarkets. Maybe its time for us to become the solution to the problem.
Dominic I think the Gotch crackdown is fair. What is unfair is the continued oversupply of titles and title volume. It remains the single most important issue facing newsagents.
gets messy when you run 2 stores and swap stock around when 1 sells out. I’m getting edi early warnings all the time.
What GG is doing is fair, pity they don’t focus on their allocations with such diligence.
The increase in allocations in titles with average sales under 3 is through the roof.
At he other end my partworks are down over 50% because I’ve been cut from 50-60 of part 1 to 4-5. WTF I’d swear GG has poached someone from NDC to run their allocations
Organise – an American magazine selling for $22.95 and featuring tips and tricks for the US education system, how is this at all relevant to my customers? An instant return. G&G this is crazy.
Can anyone please give me the address for GG warehouse in victoria for returns in victoria .?
The craft magazine category and certainly some segments of it like papercraft, have consistently increased sales value over recent years due to the investment by publishers in covermount gifts and the associated increases in cover prices.
Many of our titles like Australian Simply Cards and our premium imports like Die-Cutting Essentials, from our UK sister company retail between $14.99-$19.99 and above so there is a decent margin in there. The gifts often have a higher perceived value than the magazine price.
Practical Publishing, like many of our competitors, have consistently improved the offering to consumers who we find do respond positively to the increase in perceived value.
Our problem is that we are receiving more and more reports of newsagents stripping the covermounts off the magazines, once they are off sale and selling the gift separately in store, whilst claiming their returns refund. This may give the newsagents a little bit of extra pocket money cash but it is devaluing the products we are all stakeholders in.
We do not really know how widespread this is and how much of a problem it may also be for partworks, where gift values can be high, but we would ask for industry support in this matter.
We have taken legal action against one of the factories we use in China for manufacturing these gifts as overs were going out the “back door” and began turning up on various overseas websites. We may have to take the same action, albeit very reluctantly, here. All our covermounts have a warning sign saying they are not to be sold separately.
I am a newsagent and I have seen this in other newsagencies but not very often. I think this practice is very bad for the credibility of the shop and is not happening in a modern forward looking newsagency.