There has been considerable comment about my post on Friday about isubscribe. A technical gremlin, yet to be identified, seems to be blocking further comment. So, I am publishing this post to facilitate further comment from interested parties about my comments.
I had no problems commenting on the other thread last night; but will ask my question again here.
I think we would like to all know which published M Stephens works for???
Mark,
I’m a UK Magazine promoter and use isubscribes affiliate program. Have you considered signing up as an affiliate and marketing both online and offline?
Mally
At 11:14pm on April 20, 2007 “anonymous” wrote:
Just a quick note about the second last paragragh of the last post by M Stevens, 2 weeks ago we sent a fax to a magazine distributor to stop them sending about 20-30 Titles that we have no market for and even less space to display them in. The distributor had the nerve to send a reply back telling us that we had to keep getting about half of them, even with no demographic for the title, no customer interest in the titles and no space to give to these titles.
You didn’t state whether the problem titles were among the top 100 titles, so we’ll assume they aren’t.
In this instance, it is not the distributor’s fault – that lies squarely with the publishers of those 20-30 titles. For the distributor to tell you half the titles must be retained, they are also telling you that the publishers of those titless are not checking the draft Allocations (scale out) Schedule that all 3 main distributors send to publishers of titles before the next issue is sent out to newsagents.
The facts are: the publisher contracts the distributor, therefore it is up to the publisher to make sure their title/s obtain maximum sell-through. This is achieved by the publisher closely monitoring the Sales History By Newsagent Report and by making the necessary “publisher’s changes” to the draft Allocations Schedule prior to each issue being distributed. If publishers do their job properly, no newsagent would:
a) receive unwanted title/s; or
b) be over-supplied.
Now you know that the publisher has the ability to change scale out to each individual newsagent, if you are receiving titles you don’t want or are being over-supplied, you should contact the publishers of these titles,
explain your demographics, lack of customer interest etc. and ask them to either delete your newsagency or reduce supply to your newsagency, on the next draft Allocations Schedule.
The bottom line is, no sensible publisher wants a large percentage of their print run being pulped and no newsagent wants unwanted titles or over-supply, so it is in both newsagents’ and publishers’ interests for the two to communicate with each other.
At 11:08am on April 21, 2007 Melita wrote: There are a few flaws in Michelle’s [she meant M Stephens] argument. The 2 not previously discussed:-
1. I quote: “As an example, buying 12 issues of a monthly title at $5 per issue totals $60 per year, whereas subscribing direct for 12 months costs $35.00. The saving is therefore $25 or 15%.”
I don’t know when a saving of $25 (from $60) results in a savings of 15%!!!
2. No, newsagents don’t give pen suppliers a hard time. Why??? Because we order what we want. They don’t give us awful product that won’t sell and they don’t oversupply us either. AND we also make a LOT more money on PENS than we do magazines. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t want us to get rid of magazines, however we need to manage them well to ensure we aren’t oversupplied. It is very time consuming to handle magazines, and since newsagents are supposed to be the magazine specialists (holding thousands of titles – rather than 50 at supermarkets) we should be treated with more respect. We sell more magazines for publishers than any other avenue, however you wouldn’t think so by the way we are treated.
Re: point 1 – You’re quite right, my maths were out, my apology.
Re: point 2: You’ve worked out why it’s not necessary to give pen suppliers a hard time, so why isn’t the same logic applied to magazines? Yes, some distributors give you awful product that won’t sell and some oversupply us but both these issues are within your power to change/correct/fix.
How? By communicating with the “manufacturer”, i.e. the publisher, and asking them to remove your newsagency – or reducing the number of copies – on the draft Alocations Schedule (scale out) the distributors give to publishers prior to delivering copies of magazines to newsagents. This surely falls within the realm of I don’t want us to get rid of magazines, however we need to manage them well…. I am suggesting how newsagents, in general, can strengthen their management.
In a perfect world newsagents wouldn’t have to contact a publisher because all publishers would be effectively managing their title/s by closely monitoring both Accumulated Sales History By Newsagent and each month’s draft Allocations (scale out) Achedule, and newsagents would not have the problems of unwanted title/s or oversupply. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and obviously some publishers need to beef up their management, too.
The reality is – selling magazines is a 3-part process:
1. publisher
2. distributor
3. newsagent.
It is foolish – in any arena – to place the blame on one party when several parties are involved, before all the legitimate and practical possible solutions have been tried. So far, I haven’t read anything on this blog to suggest this has been done.
Newsagents are not the only magazine specialists – publishers AND distributors are (or should be) too! As for newsagents rightfully being treated with more respect beware the risk of allowing frustration to cloud the facts and put you at a standstill. Far better to use that energy to resolve the cause of the frustration.
At 11:08am on April 21, 2007 Mick Baker wrote: how else would people learn about the magazines and the subscription offers if they didnt get it at a newsagency.
marks figures available to show how publishers USE newsagencies to push their subscriptions drive when launching a new magazine make very interesting reading
People learn about magazines by many means, such as reading a copy at their local library or coffee shop or hairdresser or seeing it when visiting a friend, seeing a paid advertisement for it in another publication, seeing it on the internet or hearing about it from someone at work, and word of mouth, to name just some.
I have seen Mark’s figures and his reasoning appears convincing, except that much of it is flawed because he’s made assumptions instead of making sure he had all the facts.
The problem is caused by the market being oversupplied by titles, not by the 25% commission being too low. The solution involves stocking only titles that sell and I am trying my darndest to show how this can be achieved. Yes, it means doing something different, but it’s legitimate and, hey, you’ll never never know if you never never go.
At 11:51am on April 21, 2007 Luke wrote: I was in favour of Isusbscribe until this stephens joker carried on. If you are saying that we would get a greater profit by only offering subscription and not having to actually sell individual copies then sign me up. I wouldn’t have to do waste space displaying unwanted magazine, don’t bother with returns and have the publisher pay me more, thats great.
My comment was that the distribution companies take a line ball of the profits and newsagents do all the selling but if m stephens think this is not the case then let the publishers get out of bed at 4am and sell their own stock.
You seem to be thinking that a subscription is some kind of extended putaway – wrong.
A subscription is where a person pays the publisher in advance for, usually, an annual subscription and the publisher posts a copy of each of the next 12 issues direct to their subscriber.
Therefore, publisher’s channel, not newsagents (see below).
You are also wrong in thinking that distribution companies take a line ball of the profits – the fact is distributors charge their publisher clients a fee per copy (sold or unsold).
You are also wrong in thinking that newsagents do all the selling – fact is, title content plays a big part in the customer’s decision to buy.
As for newsagents having the luxury of getting out of bed at 4am it might interest you to know that many publishers’ key staff don’t get to bed at all for days on end in the lead-up to titles being printed.
M:
You say my research on the cash flow implications of magazines is flawed because it is not based on facts. Maybe you would care to support your allegation with evidence.
mark
At 09:54am on April 21, 2007 mark fletcher wrote [shortened]: Your analogy is flawed. Newsagents sell magazines. Isubscribe sells magazines. Newsagents are on 25% commission. Isubscribe is on between 35% and 75% commissions.
You are wrong about what newsagents sell. Newsagents do not only sell current issues. For decades they have sold back issues.
I know form the putaway business in my newsagency that I can sell subscriptions.
My analogy is flawless, it’s your knowledge that is flawed. The fact is newsagents sell current issues of magazines. The second fact is Isubscribe sells subscriptions to magazines. They are 2 different animals. I assumed you knew what a subscription is, but obviously not.
A subscription is where a person pays the publisher in advance for, usually, an annual subscription and the publisher posts a copy of each of the next 12 issues to their subscriber.
Therefore, publisher’s channel, not newsagents.
When a publisher appoints Isubscribe, its role is to record the subscriber’s name, postal address and collect the payment, all of which they give to the publisher (less their commission). The publisher then posts a copy of each of the next 12 issues to their subscriber and, in due course, also sends the subscriber a renewal notice.
Again, publisher’s channel, not newsagents.
The fact is, many magazines don’t avail themselves of Isubscribe’s service because it’s unnecessary. Many magazines these days have their own website with e-commerce facilities which allow people to subscribe direct.
Mark wrote: You are wrong about what newsagents sell. Newsagents do not only sell current issues. For decades they have sold back issues.
Oh, really? And where do newsagents store all the back issues they sell? And how do they obtain them, since they have to return all unsold issues of titles within a specified timeframe?
Mark wrote: I know form the putaway business in my newsagency that I can sell subscriptions.
I think you’ve looked at your putaway numbers and jumped to the wrong conclusion which makes it seriously flawed:
1. I have explained in this post why a subscription is not an extended putaway.
2. If your putaway customers can afford a subscription, why are they putting away?
I keep explaining that newsagent customers are NOT the people who subscribe, but few seem to be paying attention. People who subscribe to magazines find out about them in a variety of other ways, such as reading a copy at their local library or coffee shop or hairdresser or when visiting a friend, seeing a paid advertisement for it in another publication, seeing it on the internet or hearing about it from someone, to name just a few.
Putaways are – and always will be – closely connected with disposable income. The putaway customer wants to get every issue of a particular title but can’t afford or doesn’t want to pay a year’s subscription in one hit. Putaway customers don’t cancel with the newsagent because they have decided to stop buying over the counter because they want to take out a subscription. Putaways cancel because they are moving out of the district or decide that X years of buying a title are enough. Some putaways stop one title and start another. And there are probably other reasons. It might be worthwhile for newsagents to “survey” their putaway customers to find out more about what makes them tick. It’s a service only newsagents provide, unlike supermarkets and petrol outlets etc, so could be worthwhile promoting.
M: This is a waste of time. Your response suggests you think I am lying.
As a newsagent I can and do sell current and past issues of magazines – easily.
Newsagents also sell subscriptions to several titles – around 15 or 20 currently I think. Major titles in some cases. Haven’t you kept up with this?
I want to sell more subscriptions – as putaways. My customers tell me they want this.
When was the last time you worked in a newsagency and managed putaways? If it is never then you ought to get to a newsagency and put in some hours. My comments here relate to my personal experience.
Now you can write all you like and tell us that we are wrong – here is a bunch of newsagents wanting to grow sales of magazines and you’re running a o0ne person defence (I assume on behalf of publishers) telling us why being entrepreneurial is wrong.
Mark
M
You are carrying on ad nauseam re it being within the newsagent’s power to reduce titles or manage over-supply.
Have you ever been on the receiving end when trying to do this?
Every attempt we have made to reduce supply on certain titles has been met with the response “We manage the numbers, not you” or words to that effect despite returns being up to 40% e.g. 60 returns on an issue of 140 on a weekly basis.
In fairness, that particular one did get rectified eventually but it was a long slow process over which we had to absolutely no control or say.
Conversely, it seems that any request to increase supply is met very quickly!
At 10:53AM on April 21, 2007 mark fletcher wrote:
Yep, smart response. Your previous post declares that 25% is generous. You indicate knowledge of what newsagents make from other products. What do you think newsagents make? Come on, show how smart your are. It’s a valid question since you have been proven wrong about what magazines newsagents sell and you;re wrong about us selling subscriptions.
Mark Fletcher
PS. Let us know which publisher you work for.
What I wrote was 25% commission on a copy of a magazine is generous. The sensible comparison is how it compares with the commission on other products you stock in your newsagency. The point being that’s something every newsagent knows or should know. There was no implication that I knew or had any interest in knowing. Your spin is so good, I’m wondering whether you’ve had lessons from Master Howard [grin].
How was I proven wrong?
I stated that newsagents sell current issues of a variety of titles and publishers sell back issues of their own individual titles. If that is incorrect, please advise:
a) where newsagents store all those back issues; and
b) how they obtained them, given that they are obliged to return all unsold copies of an issue to the distributor within a given timeframe.
I am absolutely 100% correct about what newsagents sell, but I did assume you knew what a subscription is, however your words suggest you don’t. For everyone’s benefit the definition is:
A subscription is where a person pays the publisher in advance for, usually, an annual subscription and the publisher posts a copy of each of the next 12 issues directly to their subscriber. Subscriptions are the publisher’s channel, not the newsagent’s. Those are not fighting words, they are fact.
And before anyone jumps to another conclusion: The vast majority of people who subscribe to a magazine are NOT newsagent customers. They find out about magazines in many other ways, such as by reading a copy at their local library or coffee shop or hairdresser or seeing it when visiting a friend, seeing a paid advertisement for it in another publication, seeing it on the internet or hearing about it from someone at work, etc etc etc.
M Stephens
PS What makes you think I work for a publisher? Why not a newsagent or a distributor? All 3 businesses are inter-connected so it makes sense for all 3 to learn as much as possible about the other 2. It’s obvious I know quite a bit about all 3, whereas Mark knows a lot about the newsagency business, less about the distribution business, hardly anything about the publishing business and – worst of all – appears unaware of the vital ways in which the 3 intersect with each other. Success is much more than just marketing, profit margins, models etc. I don’t mean to sound harsh, I respect Mark and congratulate him for creating this blog. I think it’s the ideal vehicle to help solve many of the problems currently surrounding the publisher-distributor-newsagent nexus and hope others agree.
At 1:53pm on April 23, 2007 Jim wrote: M – You are carrying on ad nauseam re it being within the newsagent’s power to reduce titles or manage over-supply.
Have you ever been on the receiving end when trying to do this?
Every attempt we have made to reduce supply on certain titles has been met with the response “We manage the numbers, not you” or words to that effect despite returns being up to 40% e.g. 60 returns on an issue of 140 on a weekly basis.
In fairness, that particular one did get rectified eventually but it was a long slow process over which we had to absolutely no control or say.
Conversely, it seems that any request to increase supply is met very quickly!
Jim
Apologies if I appear to be carrying on ad nauseum there was a technical glitch with the blog on Saturday and I was one of those who couldn’t respond to other people’s posts. I did try to stagger posting them today.
As stated earlier, trying to alter supply of top-selling titles presents a whole host of difficulties. Much better to organise realistic supply of other titles first before tackling the top-sellers.
If it wasn’t among the top-sellers, did you speak with the distributor or the publisher? If the publisher, they are obviously not micro-managing their business. If the distributor, what do you expect? They believe they can drive numbers up, that it has nothing to do with the number of potential customers who walk into a newsagent. God forbid. Every title finds its own level in every single newsagent, so needs to be managed effectively for the benefit of both newsagent and publisher.
At 01:11pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: M: This is a waste of time. Your response suggests you think I am lying.
As a newsagent I can and do sell current and past issues of magazines – easily.
Newsagents also sell subscriptions to several titles – around 15 or 20 currently I think. Major titles in some cases. Haven’t you kept up with this?
I want to sell more subscriptions – as putaways. My customers tell me they want this.
When was the last time you worked in a newsagency and managed putaways? If it is never then you ought to get to a newsagency and put in some hours. My comments here relate to my personal experience.
Now you can write all you like and tell us that we are wrong – here is a bunch of newsagents wanting to grow sales of magazines and you’re running a o0ne person defence (I assume on behalf of publishers) telling us why being entrepreneurial is wrong.
Mark
Mark
I don’t think you’re lying and none of my responses indicate that. I did ask you how you obtained the back issues of titles you say you sell, but you haven’t answered. I’m asking again, so please answer.
M Stephens,
As you relish in your own “wisdom” – It’s obvious I know quite a bit about all 3 – it appears it is you who knows little about the newsagency industry.
You keep proclaiming that subscriptions and put-aways are different … and they are. One is generally up front payment and the other an issue-by-issue payment. What you are missing is the fact that newsagents want to sell subscriptions the same way i-subscibe does. Why cant newsagents perform, in addition to selling single copies of magazine, the role of a subscription agent?
M:
1. Out yourself.
2. You do think I am lying about the cash flow implications of magazines in newsagencies. read your responses here.
3. You are wrong in saying that newsagents only sell current magaiznes.
4. You are wrong is saying that newsagents do not sell subscriptions.
5. You are wrong in what you say about putaway customers.
In answer to the above questions, if I want a backorder I order it through a distributor, another newsagent or a publisher. Works all the time.
mark
M:
1. Out yourself.
2. You do think I am lying about the cash flow implications of magazines in newsagencies. read your responses here.
3. You are wrong in saying that newsagents only sell current magazines.
4. You are wrong is saying that newsagents do not sell subscriptions.
5. You are wrong in what you say about putaway customers.
In answer to the above questions, if I want a backorder I order it through a distributor, another newsagent or a publisher. Works all the time.
mark
The big difference between Isubscribe and newsagents is that Isubscribe accepts it does not “own” the customer. Isubscribe receives a one off commission for collecting the subscriber’s names, contact details and fees, which are all passed on to the publisher (less the commission). Are newsagents prepared to do this?
Your words sound like you want the commission and you want to continue “owning” the customer as well. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Besides, with more and more magazines developing websites with e-commerce facilities, many publishers will come to realise what many already know, and that is why waste 30%+ commission when it’s not necessary.
Why are you getting so worked up about something that could easily prove to have a short future?
M:
We are getting worked up because you have made assumptions which have proven to be wrong.
Make an offer on subscriptions.
Mark Fletcher
At 04:17pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: M: 1. Out yourself.
2. You do think I am lying about the cash flow implications of magazines in newsagencies. read your responses here.
3. You are wrong in saying that newsagents only sell current magaiznes.
4. You are wrong is saying that newsagents do not sell subscriptions.
5. You are wrong in what you say about putaway customers.
In answer to the above questions, if I want a backorder I order it through a distributor, another newsagent or a publisher. Works all the time.
mark
Mark
How rude and unnecessary of you. I have made a conscious effort to make relevant comments without attacking people personally. I guess that also shows my better breeding. It also shows my deep appreciation of this blog and my desire to “keep it clean”.
Re backorders. How far back are you talking, say for a monthly title? One month, 6 months, a year? Distributors only distribute current issues and newsagents only sell current issues, so how would you supply a customer with, say, a 6-month old issue. For that is what back issues are – literally: issues that came before.
At 04:27pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: M: We are getting worked up because you have made assumptions which have proven to be wrong.
Make an offer on subscriptions.
Mark Fletcher
Mark
I’d have to work for a publisher to do that, wouldn’t I? [grin]. No publisher reading this would make you an offer until you have indicated whether you’re prepared to accept the same terms as Isubscribe. Are you?
M:
You have attacked. You have also been critical when your questions have not been answered. Yet you have not answered some of the questions put to you. This latest post attacks – read your comment about breeding again.
I have been able to get stock which is six months old as have other newsagents. We do amazing things for customers sometimes. In another place today newsagents have been helping each other with back orders going back four months. It happens all the time.
We are not just current issue businesses. It’s why many of us have yesterday’s news stands – displaying newspapers from the last seven days.
A frustration for newsagents about publishers is that they do not understand the newsagent business.
Mark
M:
So, which publisher do you work for?
Let me know the isubscribe terms so I can make an informed decision. If they are what I suspectb they are then I would agree – speaking for myself.
Mark
At 4:49pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: M: So, which publisher do you work for?
Let me know the isubscribe terms so I can make an informed decision. If they are what I suspectb they are then I would agree – speaking for myself.
Mark
Mark
I’ve already described isubscribe’s terms, you have all the information necessary to make an informed decision.
M:
I don’t know what isubscribe makes oper subscription. I am likely to agree, for myself, if my assumptions are right but as with any business proposition, facts are crucial. I think other newsagents would be the same – let us compete with ourselves.
Mark
At 4:44pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: M: You have attacked. You have also been critical when your questions have not been answered. Yet you have not answered some of the questions put to you. This latest post attacks – read your comment about breeding again.
I have been able to get stock which is six months old as have other newsagents. We do amazing things for customers sometimes. In another place today newsagents have been helping each other with back orders going back four months. It happens all the time.
We are not just current issue businesses. It’s why many of us have yesterday’s news stands – displaying newspapers from the last seven days.
A frustration for newsagents about publishers is that they do not understand the newsagent business.
Mark
Mark
I have never attacked, nor have I been critical. I have consistently made helpful comments and suggestions, asked sensible questions plus have answered every question, not that there have been many. Re-read my posts. You deserved my comment re breeding because you implied I was homos*xual – Out yourself indeed. That’s not the way to inspire decent behaviour by other participants on your blog.
Moving on to back issues of magazines – which one of your comments is correct? That you obtain them from distributors (impossible) or that you obtain them from other newsagents (unlikely due to financial investment and storage space required)? I don’t believe it’s either of those. It’s easy to get some titles directly from some publishers because many keep a supply to service their customers who order them via their websites. Many of those publishers will invoice and supply back issues to newsagents so they can service their customers.
Re: your leap from back issues of magazines to displaying newspapers from the last seven days, your spin doesn’t faze me, I know we are comparing apples with apples.
As for my occupation: I could be someone who has worked for a publisher and a distributor and a newsagent and now works for one of the many Subscription Agents (there are others besides isubscribe – have you kept up with that?). Or I could be a lawyer who is currently a bank manager with several several newsagent clients.
M:
Your sexuality was not on my mind when I suggested you out yourself. Read the post – it was in the context of he company for which you work. Again, out yourself. I am out – I own a newsagency and a software company – their details are on the right on this blog. It is important for newsagents reading your posts to know who you work for.
Since you think I am lying about how newsagents manage back issues, when they can, I’ll leave that topic for now. There is no point.
Newspapers and magazines are the same. I get back issues of newspapers as well. I wish I could sell newspaper subscriptions.
Mark Fletcher
At 5:06pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: M: I don’t know what isubscribe makes oper subscription. I am likely to agree, for myself, if my assumptions are right but as with any business proposition, facts are crucial. I think other newsagents would be the same – let us compete with ourselves.
Mark
Mark
Hang on a minute, YOU told us what isubscribe makes per operation in your post on April 21, 2007 quote isubscribe is on between 35% and 75% commissions.unquote
It’s closer to 35% but the money comes with obligations. The main one being that isubscribe is merely a Subscription Agent, i.e. it does not “own” the customer. It provides a facility for people connected to the internet to subscribe to certain titles. It then passes on all the information it collects to the publisher (less the commission). From then on the publisher supplies the customers with each issue of their subscription.
I also mentioned that the jury’s out about whether it’s worthwhile for publishers with websites and e-commerce facilities to waste that 35% commission as people connected to the internet can just as easily subscribe direct to a lot of titles. More and more magazines are setting up websites with e-commerce, which makes me wonder how far away isubscribe is from being surplus to requirement. As more and more people connect to the internet, I believe that day will come.
So, there really are only 2 questions:
1. Are newsagents prepared to relinquish “ownership” of their customers who subscribe?
Probably not, so competing with isubscribe is a no go.
2. As newsagents receive supplies of titles via a distributor, how could the different supply rates be charged? Copies of titles, for display and putaways, are all supplied less 25% commission, but copies for “putaway subscriptions” would have to be charged at a lower rate for newsagents to obtain the commission. Would the 35% commission be deducted as a whole or incrementally on each supply for the duration of the subscription?
I think that one’s in the too hard basket.
Therefore, for all the above reasons, instead of looking for extra revenue from magazines, my considered opinion is that sorting out non-performing titles is the better way to go. It would result in something similar to additional revenue because there’d be less financial outlay upfront and then less freight to pay for returns. The latter is certainly something that needs sorting out. Anyone interested in moving on to discuss that?
M:
I’m going to stop responding to you after this for two reasons – you refuse to identify yourself and you twist what people write here out of context. I have no idea what isubscribe makes – I have guessed but I do not know and have never claimed to know.
You have shown yourself to be quick to jump at shadows here and slow to respond to queries.
Some newsagents want to be able to sell subscriptions. The offer is there for publishers prepared to engage in that business opportunity.
mark
I don’t understand why I have to identify myself when it’s OK for others to call themself “anonymous”.
Since when is quoting someone’s exact words “twisting”? If you’re only guessing, you should make that clear, otherwise you will be taken as claiming to know.
Are you seriously accusing me of being slow to respond to queries? There was a technical glitch, remember, and only one person managed to get a post up for most of the weekend. I caught up yesterday.
You want to sell subscriptions. My sister wants a mink coat, but she’s not likely to get it.
I’ve made enquiries with a couple of publisher friends. Your offer of doing business (selling subscriptions) would involve publishers paying the distribution fee and a bigger commission, which you say can come out of the 75% profit you think they make on a title. Was that factual knowledge or another guess? Did you factor in all the production costs, printing cost, business overheads, salaries, etc.?
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for publishers to rush me with offers if I were you.
M:
Oh, okay, the defence of a child.
You have not quoted my words back at me. I have never said I know what isubscribe gets. I have been transparent in my assumptions.
Mark
At 09:54am on April 21, 2007 – under “Isubscribe is bad for business” – mark fletcher wrote: M. Stephens. I’d appreciate you outing yourself so people reading can get a perspective of your comments.
Your analogy is flawed. Newsagents sell magazines. isubscribe sells magazines. Newsagents are on 25% commission. isubscribe is on between 35% and 75% commissions.
You must be able to see your words there in the second paragraph, because everyone else can.
That’s an implication that you KNOW what commission isubscribe receives. You didn’t say “I guess ibsubscribe is on such and such” – you made a bald statement quoting actual figures.
Somwewhat ironically, we had a customer thismorning looking to purchase an in-store subscription for 12 months for her daughter’s birthday. She didn’t want it delivered because the delivery did not include the ‘freebies’ that are attached to the magazines in-store.
Jarryd
Your post raises several points:
Maybe that publisher doesn’t encourage subscriptions, especially ‘in-store’ as you call them.
Some publishers do give each new subscriber a thank you gift when they subscribe.
In any case, the publisher of the title your customer was interested in is doing newsagents a big favour by only including ‘freebies’ with retail copies.
At 4:44pm on April 23, 2007 mark fletcher wrote: A frustration for newsagents about publishers is that they do not understand the newsagent business.
If you think about that statement for a moment, it doesn’t add up. Fact is, publishers have a greater understanding of the newsagency business than newsagents have about the publishing business, because as well as supplying newsagents and dealing with distributors etc, publishers are also newsagency customers in their private life.
The same can’t be said for newsagents. How many newsagents are also publishers?
My point has always been about encouraging newsagents to venture out and actually approach publishers when there is a supply problem.
M,
My point has always been about encouraging newsagents to venture out and actually approach publishers when there is a supply problem.
Are you kidding? You actually want newsagents to spend more time managing magazines. As if magazines didnt already encompas a large enough labour component from newsagents.
Processes need to be more effectivly streamlined.
And so what if publishers are newsagency customers? That does not give them insight into how newsagencies operate internally. When a customer shops at woolworths do you honestly think they learn how woolworths operates internally just because they are a customer?
Mark could not be more right. Publishers do not understand the newsagent business. And id also say that distributors do understand it, and take advantage of that, or they dont understand it, which doesn’t say much for them considering it is their core business.
Maybe that publisher doesn’t encourage subscriptions
The publisher does encourage subscriptions, it was a major title.
And i dont think the publisher was interested in is doing newsagents a big favour by only including ‘freebies’ with retail copies. First of all it reduces costs and secondly it saves additional postage issues.
Why would Marks offer involve publishers paying the distribution fee and a bigger commission?
Jarryd, thanks for another interesting post. Your comments are thoughtful.
You actually want newsagents to spend more time managing magazines. As if magazines didnt already encompas a large enough labour component from newsagents.
I want newsagents to have a red hot go at solving the problems of unwanted titles and over-supply. I want newsagents to have greater control of their financial outlay. I want newsagents to shake off the old and try something new. My suggestion isn’t radical. A phone call or an email to the publisher instead of the distributor.
Many newsagents know distributors are rarely amenable. So, time to try working with instead of against? Obviously not the majors, those problems don’t often crop up, but the others who collectively publish the majority of titles.
Have you worked out how much labour component unwanted titles and over-supply consume and at what cost? Solving the problems will take some labour component, but when you come to the end of the list of problem titles, no more labour component which is a financial plus. They can be tackled, say 2 per week. There’s no hurry, every week will be an improvement on the current situation. It might take a couple of months to get to the end of the list handling 2 every week, or it might be quicker. Everyone wants to have a stress-free business, but it takes effort to achieve.
Processes need to be more effectivly streamlined.
Agreed 100%. But selling magazines is not a “snap your fingers” kind of situation. It’s complex. It involves 3 separate players – not 2 like selling most other products – there’s the publisher-distributor-newsagent. It is essential to have good knowledge of how all 3 function, where the boundaries of each are, and where they intersect with each other. Then, and only then, can efficiency be maximised, by working with the system, not against it. Yes, the existing system can be improved, but that’s not likely to happen overnight. On Friday those newsagents who really want to sort out their unwanted and over-supplied titles can start fixing the problems. They have the power, if they don’t use it they will be holding themselves up.
Mark could not be more right. Publishers do not understand the newsagent business.
Sorry, I disagree. Referring only to magazines, what’s so hard for publishers to understand that newsagents want, need and should only be supplied with titles they can sell and the appropriate number of copies of those titles? They are exactly the same things publishers want. Every print run costs publishers many thousands of dollars. No publisher worth their salt wants a large amount of that money to go down the drain. They want ROI just like every other businessperson.
By the way, I notice you didn’t mention how many newsagents are also publishers [grin].
And id also say that distributors do understand it, and take advantage of that, or they dont understand it, which doesn’t say much for them considering it is their core business.
Could the word you’re searching for be disinterest? They get their money regardless of sales, all they have to do is supply. Distribution might be their core business, but without publishers there’d be no titles to distribute. Remember, they have two distinct client streams to service.
The publisher does encourage subscriptions, it was a major title.
OK, that tells you the ‘freebie’ was designed to increase retail sales.
Why would Marks offer “involve publishers paying the distribution fee and a bigger commission?”
Because Mark wants newsagents to handle subscriptions as “extended putaways” (i.e. titles are supplied by the distributors for which the publishers pay distribution fees) plus Mark wants newsagents to get more than the current 25% commission – closer to the 35% he thinks isubscribe gets.
Well, that’s the last of your questions answered. I’ve enjoyed it. It’s always good to think. Please let me know if anything’s not clear.
M
Nelson I think you have missed the point. I agree with you – publishers can do what they choose. Newsagents are asking for a similar opportunity because they, too, want to sell more magazines. mark
Michelle,
You are ignorant about the operational aspects of the current newsagent / magazine distributor relationship.
If you really think your proposal of a newsagent / publisher relationship is the way to go why not propose it to industry associations and have it published in industry journals for comment.
My view is that I have a better chance in using established channels for achieving more equitable supply. These channels have a better opportunity of fixing the businesses I have the commercial relationship with.
You have confused this discussion considerably. On the matter of subscriptions, I want to be able to sell subscriptions on terms equal to what isubscribe offers – whether that happens or not depends on whether publishers want me and others to pursue this opportunity.
You need to stop putting words in my mouth.
Mark Fletcher
Mark, I’ve read some good info here. Youre just ignorant and pig-headed.
I like a lot of what M Stephens says, makes good sense.
I also read about you wanting a magazine czar, are you saying people should send their good ideas to industry journals, to give you more time to get the czar up and running?
M,
Why do you assume that “extended putaway” subscriptions would be supplied through distributors?
Many newsagents act as the deliverer of magazines that people have subscribed to. The process would most likely mimic this, simply excluding the last step. If anything, this would be cheaper with no home delivery costs involved.
And no i didn’t mention how many newsagents were publishers … why would i? You did not say that many publishers were newsagents. Your observation is nonsensical.
They can be tackled, say 2 per week
You really dont seem to understand how difficult fixing the problem at the newsagent’s end is. 2 per week? At 2 per week newsagents would not even begin 2 make a dent in the problem.
those newsagents who really want to sort out their unwanted and over-supplied titles can start fixing the problems. They have the power, if they don’t use it they will be holding themselves up.
Newsagents are already attempting to sort out their unwanted and over-supplied titles. If newsagents could easily dictate what titles they received dont you think they would already be doing so?
Solving the problems will take some labour component, but when you come to the end of the list of problem titles, no more labour component which is a financial plus
The problem is continual and ongoing. If the current arangements continue there will always be a significant labour component.
And if distributors are disinterested then that is only more proof that the current arangements are flawed.
Lee,
Thanks for the labels. Well done.
Michell Stephens is ignorant about newsagent contracts and the obligations they have to their commercial partners – the magazine distributors. She also refuses to accept that newsagents already sell subscriptions and that some of us want to sell more.
Newsagents’ most important asset is our national network. That we do not manage this as a national asset works against us. There is nothing sinister in my pitch for a magazine czar. What I want is control over titles so that we can category manage. 15 hair titles is too many for an average newsagency. 6 Lunix magazines is too many for an average newsagency. etc. A magazine czar could manage what is currently unmanaged.
Within a couple of days of me posting here last year my thoughts about a magazine czar, a respected magazine industry observer in the US proposed a similar position for US magazine retailers. I am not suggesting he copied my idea or I his. The problems are the same – retailers need to balance categories. At present we are over supplied and this denies good titles the opportunity of reaching their sales peak.
Mark Fletcher
Jarryd
Why do you assume that “extended putaway” subscriptions would be supplied through distributors?
I don’t assume that, nor did I imply it. I stated that titles are supplied by the distributors. Technically, I should have stated “Titles are supplied to newsagents by publishers via distributors” but it was 7.30pm and I was hungry.
You really dont seem to understand how difficult fixing the problem at the newsagent’s end is.
And you’ve read what Vaughan Lawrence in Beechworth is doing and are dismissive of him too, even though he’s newsagent of the year. I just learned about it via Lee’s ‘recent comment’.
If newsagents could easily dictate what titles they received
They can. By going to the source – the title owners.
The problem is continual and ongoing.
Not if you solve it at the source.
If the current arangements continue there will always be a significant labour component.
If you continue solely communicating with distributors, that’s guaranteed.
if distributors are disinterested…
If? After seeing Lee’s comment, I read the Supplier Arogance section of this blog. It will give you a good idea.
…that is only more proof that the current arangements are flawed
Are you saying there’s a competition to see who can collect the most proof?
Or you know there are new arrangements in the pipeline? Nothing to do with appointing a czar I hope.
Michelle,
You continue to twist what newsagents say here. Vaughan has written excellent letters to publishers. Most are not listening. I have written letters too. Most do not listen. Distributors control scale out.
If I wrote to all publishers of interest in my newsagency I would have to write more than 500 letters.
The magazine distributors are our suppliers. They are the businesses we have the commercial relationship with. Distributors override publisher requests often.
Until you out yourself newsagents here will have little context with which to consider your views.
Mark Fletcher
Michelle,
You did imply that subscriptions would be supplied through distributors. – Mark wants newsagents to handle subscriptions as “extended putaways” (i.e. titles are supplied by the distributors for which the publishers pay distribution fees)
I too read Vaughan’s comments. The problem with what Vaughan is doing is that it is not time/labour efficiant. Vaughan shoud not have to keep spending onerous amounts of time managing magazines because of a flawed system of supply.
When is said “If newsagents could easily dictate what titles they received dont you think they would already be doing so?” the key word in my statement was EASILY. It is not easy. It is onerous and time consuming.
And the problem IS continual and ongoing. There are always new magazines and changes in the sales of existing magazines. As long as magazines keep changing there will always be a problem, unless of course the problem is fixed. And that problem lies with the system of distribution.
And do not twist the context in which i write. I said if because i was using your word, “disinterested”.
Are you saying there’s a competition to see who can collect the most proof?
I said nothing of a competition. I simply implied that if what you said about distributors is true, then your own comments provide proof, additional to what Mark has already provided, that the current arrangements are flawed.
And i see no problem with a czar, but i believe it would need to be closely coupled with a powerful software solution.