The quantity we receive of Golf Magazine usually fits nicely into a pocket, usually. This month, thanks to the publisher sending the current issue with a “bonus” magazine, the one pocket allocated to the title is insufficient. If we leave it as shown in the photo, product will be damaged and the publisher would be rightly annoyed at the poor representation. The alternative is to give this title an extra pocket but that means double the real-estate for the same sales.
While I could store excess stock in the back room and bring it out when space in the pocket frees, this would mean another title-specific process and with around 1,300 titles on the shelves who has the time for this?
So, what is the answer? If it were my call I would ensure that the product itself has the best possible value rather than relying on old stock (in a sealed bag!) to achieve this. But I am not the publisher. I wish publishers would think through the implications of their actions: some newsagents will leave spare stock in their back rooms and it will never make it to the shelves, others will shove more into one pocket and others will give the title more space at their own cost.
The ideal would be a more considered retailer-friendly approach to pursuing incremental sales.
The “bonus” magazine packs are put down the bottom in my store – I won’t give them prime space when they don’t look neat as you’ve explained.
CD’s on front covers of music and computer mags don’t sit well when browers put them back, although some are smart and place the cd in the back of the mag so presentation is still good.
I like the PC Format model, the CD is inside the magazine, neater, stops scrunching – well done that company!
Publishers don’t understand how this lazy marketing fails them. Nuts.