Network Services sent us 20 copies of Cook Fast, a cookbook published under the Weight Watchers brand (not connected with the Australin Weight Watchers magazine). I questioned the supply at the time as we did not have any space for this unexpected arrival.
Last week, we took all 20 copies off the shelf having actively promoted the title at the counter and with newspapers as well as in with food titles. Not one copy sold.
In addition to having to pay to process the returns, we had to find the retail real estate, the labour creating displays and the cash given the model of paying for all stock supplied and then claiming a credit for returns.
We need a model which offers fair compensation for titles which do not achieve a minimum sell-through rate. I’d suggest a 50% sell-through is fair. Titles which achieve less than this should be paying their way. I would have some exceptions such as selected Australian small publisher titles we want to support for diversity of range.
Cook Fast looks like a cheap magazine, made up of material repurposed from elsewhere. While this may not be the case, it is what it looks like to me and I am a food magazine consumer. It does not have the quality of the AWW cookbooks which sell for $3.00 less.
If I had been given the courtesy of being asked whether I wanted the title I would have said yes to three or four copies, enough to fill a pocket. Since I was not given this courtesy and the title failed abysmally, someone needs to be financially accountable. Since my relationship is with network Services, I blame them.
To send twenty copies at a time when newsagents are being loaded with new and reissued food titles is poor behaviour by Network Services. While I am sure they will have an excuse, I won’t buy it. They have an obligation to treat newsagents fairly, with respect. The supply model for Cook Fast, based on my own experience, did not respect newsagents at all.
As I have written here many times previously, newsagents need a magazine czar, someone who controls what titles get access to our national retail network. Magazine distributors get it wrong too often and newsagents end up paying the price.
So I have written my piece and I feel a little better. Nothing will change. Newsagents will blame distributors. Distributors will blame newsagents and publishers. No one accepts responsibility for the failure of a title. Well, actually, that’s not true. Newsagents accept responsibility because they are contractually bound to do so. This is the unfairness of the current Australian magazine distribution model.
There, now I feel better.
I don’t think there’ll be too many newsagents disagreeing with the sentiments expressed here, but the reverse is true as well. Not only do I get sent “new” magazines that don’t fit the demographics of the people who shop here, but I often miss out on stuff that is worth trying. I don’t see why the distributors can’t supply regular emails with details of all new magazines they will be distributing, not just the major ones, and ask us whether we are interested. This would benefit the independent publishers as well as us by better targeting the magazines. Last year I asked one distributor for some recommended magazines in a category I thought I was light on, and they said they couldn’t offer any more info than what was on their website.
Great point Chris,
all the mag distributors have our email addresses, so it would not be difficult to send out an opt in/out email for new releases. Maybe it is just too simple for them to get their heads around (actually asking us what we want).
Mark & Chris, I agree entirely. In my view it is a waste of time worrying or thinking about how we as retailers can seek improvement in the existing arrangements with the 3 main distributors. They make money by ‘distributing’ – they don’t care what or how they distribute because they will always have us poor sucker retailers to force product onto (or withhold, as is often the case). It is up the major publishers to force change onto the distributors and to allow us retailer to become entrepreneurs again. Or get rid of them entirely – why not pay distribution focused newsagents to do part of the distribution function? I can’t for the life of me understand how the publishers have over the years allowed the distributors to get between themselves and the retailer. Magazines as a category will never reach its full potential and will continue to decline so long as retailers are continually disenfranchised as a result of the poor service of the distributors. A disenfranchised retailer will always focus their energy on other parts of their business where they feel they can have greater control and not surprising it is these parts of the business that are showing the best growth.
I was one of those against your idea for a magazine czar a yesr ago Mark. Now I see that it makes sense.
I too didn’t have success with this cookbook from network service.