With four quilting related titles on the shelves from Universal Magazines at the same time and other titles also demanding space, something had to give. Our decision was to early return one of the Universal titles. Retail real estate is expensive, especially in shopping centre newsagencies. Titles with a shelf life of more than 30 days, regardless of the billing arrangements, need to come under focus as do titles from publishers who can flood a category and suck oxygen from other titles.
Giving our space for free to publishers, funding their cash flow requirements and paying to return stock which fails to sell is a very generous magazine distribution system. Our generosity ought to be met with some obligations.
Newsagents need to be able to control the titles they receive and the volume and to know that their decisions will be honoured for the long term.
As a small independent publisher of a 6 weekly title of 7 years I have to agree that yes, newsagents need to be able to control the titles they receive and particularly the volume however the publisher should not be punished for the ancient distribution systems in this country.
Wastage and early returns are a constant battle for us and sap what small profits are available through publishing niche titles and it all comes down to over supply. We have consistent problems of early returns and on the other hand stores selling out not getting enough! Our cashflow is horrific thanks to the slow system – payment up to three months after off sale. There is certainly no margin to pay for shelf space. We are considering introducing rewards program to limit early returns – i.e more commission if the full on sale period is met. This could eventually help limit oversupply and help newsagents and publisher cashflow.
However, a scan in scan out system that gives accurate sales data would sort all supply problems. This is what we need.
So the publishers don’t like the model and the agents don’t like the model. In short two thirds of the stakeholders don’t like the model! ANF? QNF? Publishers? Lets change the model!
+ Advertisers! One told me the other day he spends $60K per year and was up set it hadn’t reached five Newsagents in our area. I explained the Newsagents get overloaded with universal stock and are turned off having it on their shelves for ages.
He agreed.
Jeff youse have to wait up untill 3 months after off sale ,we have to pay basically straight away , so the magazine mafia are the only ones that hold all the money
Mark – I appreciate the point that you’re making. However, you should only have three of those titles on the shelf. The one front and centre has been replaced by the subsequent issue, which is immediately behind it in your pic. That reduces the problem by 25%.
Megan check the return weeks.
It’s a tough system – the problem from a publisher point of view – at least for me – is that we have to print to expect up to 40% wastage. So many newsagents seem to get say 10 copies, sell 2, get 10 the next issue, sell 2, on it goes – never adjusted properly by the distributors. Newsagents should be able to pre order the number of copies they want – then I could print accordingly. Everyone would benefit – even the distributor if they agreed to be paid ‘per copy sold’ rather than the most common – ‘per copy distributed’. At the moment the more copies you are supplied with the more money the distributor makes from us publishers…
Jeff, yes! We should be able to order the quantity we want and have a system whereby only we change that number.
The distributors often blame everyone but themselves yet they make money regardless.
You know, they have sales data up to date at the end of every day.
Mark – if the July issue (pictured centre front) has a return date that is still in the future, then I think you’d not only be doing yourself a service by removing it from the shelves now (and storing it in the back room), you’d also be helping customers. If they see that the July issue of the magazine is still on sale, they may not keep looking to find the August issue.
Homespun is a monthly magazine. The July issue each year is a Christmas special that many crafters seek out when they do not otherwise buy the magazine. But it’s well known as ‘the Christmas in July’ issue, so I don’t imagine that many crafters would enter a shop in mid August expecting to find it.
Megan
Megan we understood that the return date is the date the publisher wants it off the shelves and that they understand there is a cross over. We do get people buying special issues when the new regular issue is on sale.
The model is flawed and obviously skewed in favour of just one party – I note also that no representative of that party has commented. The truly sad part is that the publishers have collectively sighed, shrugged their shoulders and accepted this horrific waste AND SO HAVE WE!
Good magazines (potentially) get returned on their first day by bitter agents who are sick of having their bank accounts abused. Good magazines (potentially) are never printed because the publisher does not have the pocket depth to survive the system.
Every day, EVERY DAY, we provide our sales data, the data has existed for years, analysis of that data should provide the basis for not only supply quantity but also supply genre.
I would like to see a hybrid model where the high volume weeklies remain on a push system based on sales histories. It is working quite well now and seems to be rarely abused. Niche or lower volume titles could and should be on a pull system where they are ordered by the agent. A weekly email from the distributors with titles available could provide a pick list for the agents, (you only need to pick the new titles) taking a 1/2 hour of their week to complete.
The current system is killing itself and all of us in the processs. It is time to change.
what alternatives are there now other than G&G or Network? As a publisher I’ve tried G&G, Network, NDD – all the same no difference at all except we lost about 1000 outlets with G&G and that hurt so we left and now are back in 4000 odd and that has helped lift sales again…
What seems unfair are the payment terms. As a publisher, we supply the magazines and get a payment that is an estimate of sales at the end of the first month of onsale – which is ALWAYS a low estimate. Then we get the balance three months later. We pay full distribution costs within two weeks of on sale. So the distributor gets my money, the newsagents money for all supplied magazines??? And then sits on that money for how long? Kills cashflow and promotes wastage. We are printing 8 tonnes of paper per month and pulping 3 tonnes… and losing any profits….
There needs to be an alternative… but the expense would be astounding and the logistics…
Jeff some newsagents and publishers are getting together soon to discuss these issues. I’ll let you know the details privately.
Jeff,
be rest assured I never early return Rapid – great mag
Maybe we need a motorcycle rally LOL
We’d be there 😀
I’d be in the Motorcycle rally. A lot of these issues could be fixed if all agreed to a code of conduct that included a sell through rate agreed to by newsagents publishers and distributors. After all we all should want to sell magazines. I’m a publisher who feels one great magazine is better than 6 average magazines
Mark,
If publishers aren’t getting the sales data they want maybe there is an opportunity for the development of a small piece of software that takes the same exported sales data as xchangeit and sends it to a publisher portal website were publishers can access the data on a daily basis? Better yet, newsagents could also access the data and see consolidated benchmarking info such as what magazines are tracking good growth for the current issue, what categories are performing well over the past week, month, year … All data that could help publishers see how their magazine is tracking in almost-real time and assist newsagents to see trends and make better decisions immediately.
I’m sure many publishers and newsagents wouldn’t mind paying a small fee to access such timely data.
Good idea Jarryd, but can’t the distributors forward daily sales from xchangit?
a newsagents motor cycle gang! I like that
jarryd
i get sales data from G & G on a regular basis. Also get final sell through rates for all our magazines. We use this data to make sure we aim at a 65% sell through rate. the problem is when publishers aim for market share not sales
We could call the gang “Agents”
Heee I can run up some patches… Agents with a Cause..
Dunno how that’d look with my red road bike, tho LOL
Seriously tho, I’m at a loss as to how the distributors can ignore the daily figures (or our weekly ones!) as to sell-through.
They know how shonky they’re being, but they’re on too good a wicket to make any changes. It’s clearly up to the stakeholders on either side of them to do something – whatever that is.