Here is another example of what can make newsagents grumpy – more titles which we are to have on the shelves for five months. This on sale period is ridiculous in a newsasgency where shelf space is short and where we often pay for titles, not always but most, a few weeks after receiving the stock. I would prefer either two drops of such a long shelf life title or billing on the basis of sales data. The current arrangement is unfair to newsagents and is another reason newsagents get grumpy. It’s our money being shelled our to support the long shelf life titles. As with my previous post, a magazine czar who controls access to our real-estate would stop this.
It’s interesting to hear that two of our titles used as examples of long shelf life quote a five-month onsale date. What makes it interesting is that both of these titles are quarterlies. When I was at school, the calendar year was 12 months, not 20.
Publishers don’t get paid in full until several months AFTER the magazine goes off-sale. Our circulation director, Terry Thelwell would be more than happy to speak to you about this. We do not hold newsagent’s money and were the only publishers to introduce delayed billing in an effort to defer these payments even further.
Sadly, the industry found the billing system too confusing and we had to abandon it after lengthy consultations with industry bodies.
James, as for on-sale, I am going off what newsagents have been advised.
My post is not bout when publishers get paid. It is about newsagents paying in advance for product with a long shelf life.
Delayed billing – until after sale – or billing based on scanned sales makes sense for such a long shelf life item.
Mark
Clearly the distributors hold onto the money that newsagents pay upfront until the publishers receive payment, which for quarterly titles can be up to five months later.