All it takes is a couple of extra copies of a magazine to each newsagent and a publisher significantly increases the size of their scale out and, depending on the return cycle and their distributor agreement, significantly improves cash-flow. Magazine distributors are happy since they get paid per item then shift.
I saw several example of small supply increases on Wednesday this week which are not supported by net sales.
Hot Rod is the first title – we sell a couple of copies. Our sales and return data does not support any increase yet the magazine distributor’s system thinks we can carry extra stock. I am sure there will be some reason. A reasonable response will be that it’s only one or two extra copies. Well, if they are not going to sell, why send them?
Mindfood is another example of an unjustified supply increase. In this case, I suspect that the increase is publisher driven – that’s just a hunch though. Beyond getting a couple of extra copies we will not sell, we have more stock than a single pocket can hold. This takes extra space and increases our costs.
Foreign Affairs is the third title for which we have received what we consider to be an unjustified increase in supply. I have gone back through our supply and return data and cannot see any reason for this move by the distributor. More cash being drained.
These are just three examples. Indeed, there were plenty on Wednesday this week – sucking cash out of newsagencies. Every extra copy sent must be justified. This is not done, leaving us poorer in cash-flow terms.
Magazine distributors need to understand the damage these small creeps in supply is doing to the newsagency channel. I am seeing magazine bills increase while sales are flat or falling. This is unsustainable.
One way newsagents respond is early returning – and not necessarily of the new title. This is all about managing cash. Smart newsagents look for other titles from distributors causing the problem which can be returned to balance cash flow and space. The problem is that since we have to pay to return stock we still have a cost which hits us.
To distributors reading this:
Look at your systems and consider carefully the impact on newsagencies of every extra stock item you send. Look at this as if it was your money and your business. Would you put up with this?
Would you accept a supplier sending you something which all sales data indicates you will not sell and then expect you to pay for this on time and under the threat of not receiving other stock, very popular stock, if you do not pay the account on time? What is the size of your magazine bills to newsagents today as a ratio of overall magazine sales? Are your bills declining in line with sales?
Newsagents are keen for dialogue on this. Not the one way statements of the past. Genuine dialogue. Every copy of a magazine which you send and which is not supported by sales data as likely to sell has a considerable cost to the retail network on which you rely to stay in business.