Check out how a retailer at Sydney airport yesterday was treating the collateral supplied by Pacific Magazines for the refreshed New Idea. What is the point of displaying promotional material in a light box if you cover it with a spinner offering unrelated product? New Idea was inside the store, away from the poster.
On the other side of the column is a light box with a poster for a novel. It was not obstructed. Novels were on a stand in front of the poster, not obstructing the view.
When we accept premium collateral we have an obligation to use it well and to ensure that shoppers can easily purchase the product being promoted.
Spinners are a pain in the neck in that they can be placed anywhere by people opening the business, they can be moved by customers, they can be knocked over and they can disrupt traffic flow. But we like them because they make selecting a range easy and they are flexible in terms of where we can place them.
My own policy is that I’ll accept a small number of spinners with a view to removing them at the earliest opportunity. Further, there are strict rules on where they are to be located.
What I saw at Sydney airport yesterday is not what I have seen from this retailer in the past. Looking at the rest of the store, they appear to be cramming in more product. Mthe spinner placement was part of a product density project.
Ok, 2 things here.
Firstly, I hope you had permission to post the photo from the store owner. It’s easy enough to identify them, even if there are half a dozen of their ilk at that location.
I don’t know that I’d be too thrilled – particularly if I had access to this site – to have my business judged so publicly by a peer. I can only assume you would have had a word with them beforehand?
I know that if you took photos of our shop, then shared your opinions of it here before talking to us, we’d be questioning your reasons. Yes, it’s fine to use examples, but quite another to make an example of a peer.
Second, to be receiving such collateral from publishers means they must be doing something right in terms of sales. And they are lucky to have that hardware to play with – we have to buy ours if we want it! What one does with it is between the business and the publisher. Not you.
Sometimes the judgement factor here makes me cringe a bit. I wouldn’t like to be dobbed on in such a public way.
With all due respect.
Y&G,
If retailers don’t want to be judged publically, I’d suggest they are in the wrong business.
You say that what a store does with collateral is between the business and the publisher. However when there are many newsagents in the industry that misuse the collateral they have requested, it begins to reflect badly on the channel rrom a pubisher’s perspective.
Y&G, I didn’t seek permission as I didn’t see it as necessary. Whether we like it or not we are all judged publicly – often wwithout knowing. In this case, they are a retailer and not a newsagent as such.
I’d not dobbed the retailer in since there are at least four similar outlets at Sydney airport and I cropped the photo to remove identifying details. Also, they’re big enough tp take care of themselves as am I.
This blog really is becoming elitist, Mark.
There is a world that exists outside your thinking.
Mark,
Recently in France I took some photos of “Relay” a Railway Bookstall not unlike “Newslink” and the Mange came out and told me it was illegal. I apologised for not asking her and told her I was a tourist in a similar industry from Australia. She calmed down however stated it was their intelectuall property.
Every other place I went to I asked first explanation being the same some refued, ever so politely however and still discussed the industry with me but NO photo.
Upon returning in Sydney I was confronted by security of the shopping centre telling me I can’t take pictures without gaining their permission. This is not unusual I have encountered it numerous times even though I had permission from the store owner.
I know courtesly show respect and request permission first. It does no harm and I believe it is an intrusin. If somebody came into my store and took pictures I would be upset.
Respect is the key not I want therefore I will do and show everybody how wrong they are.
Max, you’re entitled to your view. I disagree with you. The diversity of comments alone, even from people using multiple names, shows that it’s an open place.
Graeme, I agree with you if the photo I published demonstrated any intellectual property or cleasrly identified the store.
My blog post is not about me. It is about the use of supplier collateral and the damage spinners can have on a business. A discussion about these topics would be far more interesting.
I found the information on this website – http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#grights – helpful. It’s written by a qualified lawyer. My interpretation is that Mark didn’t do anything illegal, and indeed, could have displayed identifying information without breaking the law.
I think the issues about retailing, displays, use of collateral were interesting and warrant discussion. It’s hard to initiate such a discussion without photographs.
“…It is about the use of supplier collateral and the damage spinners can have on a business. A discussion about these topics would be far more interesting.”
Mark, that is all well and good. But if you were just passing by my store, saw a flaw, took photos, then posted it to this blog – well, anywhere, for that matter – to show those who need some learnin’ how not to do things with card stands, then you should expect some resistance. As I would expect a certain amount of resistance in the process of showing one where else a spinner probably wouldn’t fit.
Intellectual property or not, it’s just plain rude and disrespectful. And gutless. Megan’s point about taking photos is valid to a certain extent. Your credibility would have been far better served if you’d simply taken a photo of an example, staged in your own shop for ‘teaching’ purposes. You could even have said that you’ve seen such things in other shops, which inspired you to stage an example, if it was that important to you, without naming the location, even. Thus, there is no believable defence you can offer me of how you did go about this. Sorry, but this is so very not just about spinners. It should be, but it isn’t.
Mark, for all your talk about how we newsagents should be uniting and talking to each other for the good of the channel, it’s taken merely one unnecessary act of narcissism to undo it all.
Jarryd, to be judged publicly by the public is one thing, but to be held up as an example like that by an informal industry resource such as this one, whose methods are, at best, questionable, at worst indefensible, then defended according to the ideals of a small few of you is a bit reminiscent of other, far less palatable ideologies. Yes, we put ourselves out there by dint of our work choice. But why as an industry must we subscribe to such nasty practices, just because the Darwinist ideology appeals to you? This is really scary stuff, frankly, and not much different from the multinational publishers we drone on so much about here. It tells me that, if you come across a store that deviates ever so slightly from your ideal, it will be ok to hold it up as an example with impunity. No thanks.
As Mark has said, it’s an open and diverse forum. However he may be missing Max’s point, because it’s clear that while there is open access from anyone, there is a definite preference for certain attitudes, which permitted such shoddy treatment of the store in question.
This kind of behaviour and thinking is what really hurts the industry. It promotes disunity and weakens our response to any major publisher/distributors’ poor treatment of newsagencies. I’m loath to even use the term ‘channel’ these days, because the connotations it throws out there at present are a bit off.
Megan,
I understand yours and Mark’s point of view. I have been taking pictures of Retail and Architecture, sunsets and rainbows and othe photographic interests for years. It was only when I was wuestioned (many times now) at retail level that I saw a point, not a legal one but a private one, and that point was respect, “come in and ask, we may refuse, but please ask first.” I now respect that not that yours and Mark’s point about collatoral misuse is not valid but collecting it from a point where permission is granted to do so.
I saw some poor retail displays in France and some good ones. I took photo’s of both where I could get the permission (after all I was in a foriegn country and didn’t want and argument with local Gendarmes etc about being “the spy of the Century”) One department store had brilliant Christmas display decorations and theme superb without tinsel and red and green it was magnificent and whilst I was taking photos the store manger asked me what I was doing. After I told him that his display was unlike anything I had ever seen before he accepted me and told me its origin and what they achieve (spirit of Christmas) from it.
So from them on it was doplomacy first with some incredible cooperation. even from the guards at Monaco Palace. by asking teim if I didn’t mind taking their photo outside of the Palace. They told me of places to go to to take some photos virtually not seen by the every day tourist. I have learnt a lesson and it is about humans not the law or who has a right, just respect is what I learnt.
Y&G, I am surprised at your labelling me narcissistic. There is no vanity in this post. I think you miss the point to make this post about me. It is about poor use of supplier collateral and the damge spinners can do.
I did not name the specific location.
As for talking with owners, I do it all the time. I visit pently of newsagencies – some are requested visits and others are when passing.
This situation was different but I’m not going to rake over the details as I have covered them already.
The point hasn’t been missed, Mark. It is the way it has been done.
Sydney Airport is a general location? I suppose on a world wide map it is.
Max (Y&G), strip all this commentary about the post back to the original item.
They received a brilliant poster and then covered it up with a spinner. If I were the publisher I would be frustrated.
I’d be disappointed if this were my store. Thankfully, it is not. More thankfully, it is not a newsagency as we would identify it.
I think the publisher wouldn’t be impressed as they would most likely have paid for the spot.
Mary, If the publisher has paid for the spot then the publisher has an issue with the store management however it is highly unlikely that the publisher did as they don’t give away much, anyway all things aside it is really not about collatoral damage in my opinion it’s about stupidity in the use of spinners and blocking display which is all too common in newsagencies. It’s dumb and actually lses sales.
Y&G,
The retail sector is very much built on a model that refelcts Darwinism. If I came accross practices that I didn’t agree with then I would have no problem holding them up as an example. Im yet to hear a convincing logical argument as to why taking/posting such a photo is wrong?
As for the concept of industry ‘unity’ – its ridiculous. That our industry is relatively weak in terms of supplier negotiation is a reflection of its lack of retail/business acumen.
Graeme,
Too right about stupidity in the use of spinners in blocking displays – far too common. The number of newsagencies that have these eye-sores lined up outside the front of their store is incredible! Come to think of it the ‘front-of-store-crowded-with-spinner look actually reflects the image of cheaper, discount style stores. I’m supprised so many centre management allow it.
FTR, I’m not in disagreeance about the spinner thing.
Mark, I concede the ‘narcissistic’ thing was a bit much, even if it was the act that was described as such, rather than the person. Maybe I should have said ‘arrogantly righteous’ instead. I don’t for a minute think you’re a bad person, but I stand by my opinion that that whole thing could have been done at nobody’s expense at all.
As for identification, thanks for narrowing that down a bit more for us as to which shop it might not be.
Forgive my Pollyanna viewpoint, but last I heard, good business practices didn’t include total disregard for, and ridiculing of, one’s peers as necessary features.
Not even fluff and flowers – just good old-fashioned respect for others and their decisions, as you would expect for yourself. You might need these same poor operators one day, when numbers are needed for a worthy political cause for ‘the channel’.
But if ‘the channel’ wants to be seen as ruthlessly championing geckoism and scapegoating, then count me out. I don’t ever want to be associated with such a culture. I suspect that the entity you want to cultivate will be so exclusive and hardcore that it won’t have more than a handful of members. Too few would qualify. That kind of attitude would have us shut down in the blink of an eye in our community. Acumen is a necessary factor in any good business ethos. But so is respect.
One last thing. Mark, please don’t assume that different viewpoints/people/locations/computers can’t share the one IP. That was a very cheap shot regarding ‘multiple names’, BTW. Disappointing, actually. You have been welcome to ring us up when you’ve wanted us to clarify something for you in the past. So to then try to suggest there is one person here with multiple tags is a bit rich. You could have rung us up to clarify that, too, but it’s easier to just be smart and take a shot publicly. Hmmm de ja vu. For the record, more than one person owns this business. But then you know that. And surprise, surprise, we don’t always agree on everything. So forgive us that we have our own tags, views and opinions.
Y&G, The use of two names from your IP address happened only with this post and in support of your well aerticulated view.
The original blog post is what we should be discussing rather than your name calling.
As a supplier who pays for premium space in high traffic locations, this issue is of interest to me. What is not of interest to me is most of the comments which have been written.
No wonder we are looking for outlets outside the newsagency channel. Such petty mindedness.
Loius , what magazine do you publish ?
Well Graeme, looks like what I said was right.Publishers DO pay for promotional spce in this location along with other locations.They may not “give much away “but they do pay for such places 🙂
Mary,
Read my post. again.
I said what you just said. Put a cork in it it is getting stale.