We received three new ‘titles’ from Universal Magazines yesterday. I say ‘titles’ because they are actually packs of old titles bundled together to give them another go around. If we are to keep this stock we have to find space for the new product. If we do what Universal wants, we have to carry this stock for three months.
Had I been asked if I wanted my cash, retail real-estate and labour used in this way I would have said no thanks. I am satisfied with the range I have of fresh backyard, scrapbooking and quilting titles. I certainly do not need these packs which contain product which has failed to sell previously. I do not need more old bagged product acting as a barrier to a happy browsing experience.
Just how many times can a title be sent out before it is considered dead? How is this recirculation accounted in reports to advertisers? How is it handled in an audit situation?
It is an abuse of the newsagency channel that we are sent this stock without approval. While Network Services and Universal Magazines will say that they have every reason to believe these products will sell, their justification will not take into account the costs newsagents incur in carrying the stock. Their behaviour shows little belief in that. If they did believe the titles would sell then they would have requested a top only return. Instead, they require a full copy return – maybe so the titles can be sent out again.
Universal will complain that I am targeting them. They set themselves up for this complaint by bundling old product and sending it out to newsagents expecting us to fund their decision and expecting us to fund the costs of carrying the stock.
that is a good point , if they expect it to sell and have the supply model right then why request tittles to go back full .
they have THEIR version of a supply model 100% right. and they dont expect it to sell, more to the point, they dont care if it sells.
they request full returns because it means they can have the publishers bag the old titles and then they distribute them again for more $$
Mark
you and other newsagent have the right to comment on anything that affects your profiability. Universal are monitoring your blog so you have their attention. As I’ve previously made known I am a publisher. I’m a publisher along with many others who feel that the actions of just a few publishers is putting your industry and mine at risk. I’ll let you know when my legal letter arrives.Keep your thoughts coming. Many publishers are taking notice.
They’re already in a box at my place to be early returned on Tuesday along with all the other rubbish/over supplies.
Looking at cutting my pocket numbers at the moment and titles like this will be the first ones to find no home.
Trouble is, the distributors are complicit in these situations.
If the distributors actually had some ethics in relation to what makes them willing to so knowingly jeopardise newsagents’ cash flow and pocket space for publishers of their ilk that equally knowingly does same, we wouldn’t be saturated with so much of this crap. They’ll take Express et al’s money as readily as anyone else’s, and help insert the subscription guff to add insult to newsagent injury.
So, the usual suspect publishers shouldn’t be shouldering the blame for this all on their own. Yes they’re very on the nose, but our esteemed distributors are just as culpable. Their willingness to toe the saturation publishers’ line, by even doing switcherooneys on codes and titles with these impostor titles smells more than a little off.
perhaps its time to let advertisers know what they are paying for. they pay for circulation numbers. wonder how would they feel the numbers are being recycled?
i am really sick of this. hurt them where it hurts.
With all the money invested by Newsagents, Distributors and Publishers in technology, supply levels of magazines should be more accurate. The major stumbling block obviously is that volume distribution while not good for the retailer is probably sustaining the survival of many magazines. If you remove this they die. This is fine, but that then removes your point of difference in the retail landscape.I think the current situation while bad may be better than what lies ahead.
You make a good point Peter, careful what we wish for.
I think we could lose around 25% of what we get today without impacting sales at all and without taking away our magazine specialist status.
Equally you need to look at what’s sustaining the distributors.In light of the departure of NDD, what impact would the loss of that 25%
have on the distribution model.You can bet that newsagents will end up paying for it somehow
Do we really have the “magazine specialist” status anymore Mark ? Looking at how Womans Weekly has this issue done a “special giveaway” issue with Coles while we just get the “vanilla issue” (and probably lose sales) it makes me wonder.
Paul, If you mean the PINK magazine free with AWW then Connections Emerald newsagents got that. If it is some other giveaway then I’d note that newsagents get offers sometimes which supermarkets do not get.
It’s really quite simple. If the magazine doesn’t have a date on it, it shouldn’t be on your shelves. Took the time to have a flick through two Universal magazines earlier this year. One had an article talking about a building that is expected to open in February 2008. The other had a competition which was drawn eight months before. When customers take these magazines home and discover how out of date they are they feel cheated and ripped off. This reflects badly on the newsagent who sold it to them. I can’t afford to risk these publications with my customers.
I don’t have the time to look through each magazine trying to figure out how old it is. I just send them straight back.
There is no doubt that our shelves are being clogged with rubbish, whilst many of the more respectable publications don’t get a look in. Our status as magazine specialists is being compromised by the likes of Uiversal and Otter Press. The end of month dump we just received was a joke – in my opinion the worst ever.
Newsagencies should negotiate a ten cent credit for every full copy return, primarily to discourage inefficiency oversupply.
We may need to establish a mechanism by which magazines are either granted access to the channel or blocked from accessing the channel. Did somebody mention a czar?
What if everyone (or at least a large number) stop returning them back full and just top them?
The mags are always costing money as it is. And if a large enough number of people do it, probably lowers your chances of getting an old issue later on down the track.
Aaron, the problem with the magazines in the bag would be which one do you top? No, newsagents need to be careful with these packs and early return them all.
I was talking with someone at the ACCC last week and they were surprised to learn that we have to pay to ship unsold product back to the distributor.
As a customer and avid reader of magazines, not a newsagent, my view is that newsagencies are still streets ahead of supermarkets as magazine specialists. I will pick up a women’s weekly magazine and skim read it while I’m standing in the check out queue in a supermarket (but now that I mostly use the self-serve check out, I don’t even do that much anymore), but I don’t purchase any magazines from a supermarket. Supermarkets not offer the special interest/niche titles; their displays are unattractive; and a lot of the magazines end up being crumpled. There are newsagencies close to each of the supermarkets that I typically shop at, so I’m always going to leave the tatty copy in the supermarket and go to the newsagency to make a purchase.
If a normal magazine comes with a bonus mag (a legit mag, not an old copy) and it goes back topped, wouldn’t you just top the main magazine (ie; what ever it says on the label) and dump the bonus?
Some newsagents do. Distributors may not allow the credit.
bags mags i normally top the first mag and place it with the bag so there is no confusion on what i am returning (everything goes back tops except AWW cook books up here ) oh and part works
shaun s,
where is your store? how far from the distribution center?
i am trying to gather info, so that i can apply to return tops only.
peter
1 HOUR NORTH OF TOWNSVILLE 3 HOURS FROM CAIRNS
Unlike Dirk I am not prepared to disclose my identity. There are some litigious people out there.
Mark you are right to focus on this issue of never ending recirculation of product. It wastes your space and it takes attention away from fresh, dated, content.
Newsagents need to sort out the distribution. Otherwise the problem you have written about here will continue because under the current arrangements you are powerless.
Yesterday received 2 copies of classic rock. They arrived in appalling condition along with the price sticker that an english newsagency had placed on it. Why send something is such a poor state?? These companies do not get it.
Hi Mark,
Some points about our packs:
• Universal and a large number of other publishers do packs them because they sell very well. Even large publishers like ACP do packs – they work.
• Readers seem to like the value proposition – it is good therefore for newsagents to stock some cheap/bonus type items as long as they sell.
• 90% of the material in our packs is printed especially for the pack ie: we print specifically for the pack product. 10% of the material we include is recycled and that generally is non-dating product.
• If you are suspicious of this position consider the following – each pack costs about $3.05 (That’s printing the new mags, re-collections, bags, labour and freight) In other words they really do have to sell well to break even. This information is provided so you know what’s involved – we are not complaining about our costs – but as a business person I am sure you’d find the breakeven on this interesting.
• In regards to allocating packs – our packs are subject to our own allocation process (the one we told you we were building a year or so ago) which is designed to be as efficient as possible. In this case that means each of your agencies each got less than 5 packs.
• Mag packs don’t count in ABC audits, there is no “ulterior motive” other than pure sales.
• Yes we do feel unfairly targeted, because our pack business is relatively minor compared to others, and we are sure you know this.
If anyone here doesn’t like their packs just give me a call (02) 9887 0316 and we will arrange for you to not receive standard magazine packs.
As there has been discussion on this point please keep this post up as it answers some of the questions posed.
I am not a regular blog reader so if you are a newsagent and want to get in touch on this product or anything else the best way to reach me is on my phone number (02) 9887 0316, or our Circulation Manager (02) 9887 0361, or through our distributor NSC. As a publisher we focus on niche products that are in the top 200, so we can’t stop the flood of dumped imports or poorly allocated low-sellers (because we don’t do them) but we’re always happy to chat with retailers because at the end of the day we’re all about saving money and making sales.
Thanks & Regards,
Janice
Okay Janice so if ACP jumps off the roof will Universal? My Mum never accepted such an excuse.
I do not think that packs sell as you and other publishers say. I stand to be corrected – give me proof.
The value of these latest packs for newsagents is poor for the reasons I have outlined already.
You talk in your comment about what we discussed a year ago. You neglect to note that you have not delivered what I said newsagents needed.
My bottom line is this: do not spend my money without getting my permission first.
i am a retailer. i am on the floor day in day out. i know PACKS DON’T SELL WELL. thats my personal experience.
fellow retailers…i ask you this…..in your own shop…do packs sell?
Please give more packs , love them . A lot of times we sell 300% more Our mag sales are going foward now
Ed, packs generally frustrate my customers as they tend to want to browse the title rather than taking pot-luck….who can blame them?
Cheers
Al
no they do not work for me , from a personal view i read a hell of a lot of fishing magazines myself and not once in 3 years have i even botherd to look at one in plastic even though i can at anystage because i send back all tops . The way i look at it is if it is bagged there is nothing worth reading as you have to buy it to see .where the non bagged ones have to have something descent in them as soon as you open the magazine something has to catch your eyes ./ So bagged mags are for the weaker magazines as far as i am concerned .
Janice,
For transparency sake, where do you get data that indicates packs sell better? Which source is it? Because you have to seriously consider that maybe you are being lead on.
see some of the reactions above. It would be greatly appreciated if you can provide concrete proof of these numbers.
Did you do a customer survey yourself to find out that customers do like the “value” proposition? Was it a third party agency who does this? If it is a third party, FIRE THEM ASAP.
Packs sell well in my agency and I have never had a problem with it.
A few quick comments, then I must leave this thread:
Mark/Ed/Shaun S – On packs.
• When ACP jumps off a roof they tend to do so in a fairly spectacular way, so – no – we don’t intend to do the same. I was making the point that the blog selectively targets individual publishes like us, when in reality most publishers do packs.
• It would seem from the comments that there is a range of opinion on packs – some love them some hate them – and yes I am happy to show “ED” or any other retailer some sales data on these when we meet, but am not happy to throw my sales data on the blog.
• We draw conclusions about packs from our own sales data. The distributors would also have general data on the performance of these types of products.
• Also “Shaun S” – yes packs are generally a cheaper offering ie: purchased more for the price than the quality of the content, but we’re not here to judge what people want, just make available the things that seem to work. If it’s not happening your stores just give us a call.
Mark – On allocation systems.
• We have delivered exactly what we said we were going to deliver 1 year ago. Had we met I would have been happy to talk you through the results we are getting from it too.
• For any interested parties reading this I am referring to the fact we spent $50K on developing an allocation system that allows us to take a greater interest in our own efficiency. The system was tested from January to July 2010 and is now in the hands of our own personnel.
• As far as I know we are the second independent publisher in Australia who has done this (Lovatts were the first). If more publishers did this there would be greater efficiencies in magazine supply. Publishers have a very acute financial interest in efficiency but often lack the resource to create the efficiencies they want.
Mark – As there has been some discussion here I ask that this post be left up as it is important that we get to contribute to the discussion. I must leave this chain after this so over to you for the last word.
Newsagents – I am not a regular blog reader so if you are a newsagent and want to get in touch on this mag or anything else the best way to reach me is on my phone number (02) 9887 0316, or our Circulation Manager (02) 9887 0361, or through our distributor NSC. If you are a newsagent and don’t want to receive any of these products let us know on the same numbers. As a publisher we focus on niche mags that are in the top 200, so we can’t stop the flood of dumped imports or poorly allocated low-sellers (because we don’t do them) but we’re always happy to chat with retailers because at the end of the day we’re all about saving money and making sales.
Regards,
Janice
Janice, posts are left up as I have told you previously.
You will need to show the performance of your bagged product in the newsagency channel specifically for me to accept your claim that it works as you say.
You mention again “had we met” I responded to your invitation to meet indicating when I was available.
I do not selectively target individual publishers.
Your excuse about the behaviour of Universal was, in part, others do it. That is an unacceptable response. You say it again in this comment. Listen to retailers – bagged magazines are fat, inefficient in terms of space and unfriendly to browsers.
On your allocations system, we met on January 29, 2009. This is when you advised you were working on the allocations system. While I am pleased that it was live a year and a half later, I still have no visibility of the parameters on which it operates.
As I have noted previously, in a shopping centre situation, newsagents need to achieve at least 60% sell through for a title to cover its costs.
On the broader issue of efficient assortment, I would like to see a public debate on this. Every new title you release in a niche has a significant cost to retailers in terms of real estate, labour and theft. We carry an extraordinary risk without the ability reasonably to control this.
Finally, don’t leave. Newsagents are the better for every publisher contribution in this place – whether there is consensus or not.
Janice, if you’re still with us…
If I may offer my tuppence worth regarding stakeholders reading the blog, I’d like to urge as many publishers and distributors as possible to at least read it, even if declining to engage, if that is their wont. I know who does visit us in terms of our own contributions, which has been interesting to say the least 😉
It’s far from perfect. Yes, it is ‘the world according to Mark’ – one would expect that from Mark’s project – however it’s one of the few places where issues can be raised publicly, when private attempts at resolution have all too often amounted to nought.
We all make what we will of whatever we read. That doesn’t mean we should all keep our heads in the sand. Stakeholders other than newsagents continuing to not engage, or not bother to read about the breadth of possible implications of their actions, simply reinforce the notion of the contempt they have for we bottomfeeders in this whole equation.
You make some very good points Y&G and well worth taking heed of
y&g
you just described exactly how i (we?) feel. neglected, unheard and powerless.
I do commend Janice for actually joining in on the topic. Resolution to problems starts with comminication.
y&g I don’t see this blog as the world according to Mark. Sure he starts a topic off but we have free run to make our own comments. I have had fights with him and others here. I love it, its a breath of fresh air for us locked in newsagents.
Janice, I doubt you will stay away. I know of a newspaper publisher who told reps to not read this and then at the next two meetings talked about what was being discussed here.
Helen, I couldn’t agree more.
And if I had my own blog, it would certainly be ‘the world according to me’. Why would I bother, otherwise? The exercise of putting oneself in the shoes of someone with such a thing, is even more reason to be mindful that, as grownups, we need to think and read critically, in the sense that we can form our own opinions and veiwpoints, based on more than one source of information.
No disrespect intended. Indeed, as said many times before, it’s been a godsend for so many of us.
Janice
Why not put up sales figures on the blog. if we as an industry want respect from newsagents we should be prepared to back up our claims as Mark has asked. If we are being truthful about sell through rates we should publishing them where ever we can. Newsagents need facts. With facts they can support the publishers doing the right thing.
Dirk,
If you want sales figures posted on this blog then why don’t you do it for your titles? Do you audit your titles?
Randel
Now were getting somewhere, publishers challenging each other to prove the figures…….excuse me while i grab some popcorn and another beer…..this could get interesting!!!!!
dirk,
if you would be so kind to get the ball rolling?
Newsagents know the sales data, we have it in our systems. I know the sell through rates for every title in my store. This is what makes me angry sometimes about supply, even increases in supply by one or two copies.
I would trust my data over that of a publisher any day.
I have also been tracking sales of bagged magazines so either my newsagency is the odd one out, and I would accept it if it is, or bagged magazines do not work in many newsagencies.
‘I would trust my sales data over that of a publisher any day”
Really? One account versus 4,000.
Some data- some comparison.
Okay Graeme, I forgot that you would want to defend.
My software company, Tower Systems, has software in 1,700+ newsagencies. I know from compliance ratings by XchangeIT and the magazine distributors the qualioty of the data.
The Tower newsagency pool is the largest singly grouping of newsagents outside of magazine distributor clients and GNS clients.
I would trust the magazine sales data from the majority of Tower newsagents more than I would trust the sales data of a magazine publisher.
Iif lovatts and universal have their own in house distribution data, and network have theirs also how come i recived 4 copies of lovatts cluewords on wednesday, (same every issue) when i last sold one in january.
i think they both belive they have trustworthy and acurate data, but its just not the case.
when i recieve 4 copies, and pull 4 of the old one off, i dont need a computer to tell me something is wrong with the distribution model.
and when my returns credits are half of my delivered debit amount on my monthly statement, i know that something is wrong.
thank you janice for you input. please spend next wednesday morning with your local newsagent. you can still be in the office by 9am, but you will learn more than 6 months of trials and $50k trying to flog the dead horse that is the current distribution model.
peter
Peter your last paragraph says it all . Not so much pointing the finger at Janice because at least she is taking in what we have mentiond on here but let see some of the higher up from GG and NDC come in our stores on a wednesday and explain why we are returning such high figures of magazines
Mark,
You were talking specifically “sell through” hence my comment which on “sell through” still stands.The publisher has the cash flow in and out of every one of its customers. The supply and return of every one of its customers surely you are not telling me that you have the same with all your tower cusomers?
Graeme,
you said one account versus 4,000. I then explained to you that through the Tower community I could tap into a much bigger data pool. The same is true of magazine cash flow data. Indeed, I can access data which is more complete than the publishers since magazine cash flow data needs to take on board real estate and labour costs.
Mark,
Iaccepted that “my data” meant a more expansionary data that I remarked on however I answered that with Blog 47 Your atatement in blog 48 is not comparable to the data collected by the distributors in that as you say they don’t have the dat of “real estate and labour costs”.
I doubt very much that your sample of such costs are spread over enough newsagencies to give an accuraute cost per sq metre versus the sales per sq metre to propose such an adamant argument.
I believe it needs a whole lot more discussion and a few more articulated examples presented before such a claim can be accepted as an absolute or a given on behalf of the newsagency industry.
Graeme, I said I would trust my data over that of a publisher any day. I stand by that and my subsequent comments as to the extent of the data I can collect and report on.
At least our POS is a source of data, not seeing much data presented by Publishers or Distributors…………..
More bags please
I’m up for the challange. I’ll send Mark my sell through rates for each of our titles. I’ll ask Mark to post it as a new blog. My figures will be direct from G&G. They will be what I,ve been paid on so they will not be inflated. I’ll give a personal guarantee the figures are correct. If publishers start guaranteeing there figures they will start the focus on selling magazines. That’s good for our industry.
I`m up for it too Dirk, how about if Mark sets the rules for information required so that we all provide the exact same information? If we are all on the same page then it will alleviate any bias……fantastic exercise i think!!!! We could then ask publishers to do the same at their end and compare data, if such exercise was to show descrepencies in any way i think that could go a long way to helping the current situation, at the very least it would stimulate discussion.
How about it?, newsagents and publishers working towards a common goal……….
i think its a good idea. newsagents and publishers work together for the industry…..what about the devi…..umm distributors. they earn by distributing…. and so far have not heard a peep from any of them.
Allan, Dirk etc.
What more could any ask, a complete unbiased assessment of sell through rates. Expenditure is a different thing as it is a mixture of individual costs and facts. There is no different or shouldn’t be any deifferent figure of supply and returns on any one given period of time with the same distributor. Therefore same = same. Costs are a totally different exercise, they are independent in fact case by case and not universal.
I welcolme the opportunity to discuss this with publisher (except your costs are your own business efficiency or inefficiency as you like)sticking to supply and return of sell through, well it’s impossible for those figures to be different for you receive and return (credit) on respective invoices.
I am getting some crossed wires here, either deliberately thorugh purpose or unfortunately ignorant of the real process. My aim is not to be right or wrong as a point scorer but to have the truth and that can only be achieved if we are both using the same methodology.
The second part of Mark”s message is”as to the extent of the data I can collect and report on” should perhaps also add “rely upon” This is unqualified as to what the “extent” is to be relied or qualified to report on.
No offense meant here but making statements that are absolute and that can influence people who do not have the means of understanding the compilation of data presented as fact is misleading. If it is right, and I have no reason not to believe it is. then disclosure insted of wild remarks that are then re qualified to mean a more reasonable and maybe a more rational statement is not good enough.
What is the formula hthat produces such incredible statement such as “we need a new magazine model”
Let’s be real and discuss this for newsagents have a lot of goodwill and earnings at stake on an unqualified statement. Let’s have that public debate tha Mark is insisting on even though I think it should be done in private.
all this talk of data has absolutly no relevence at all as we all know that GG and NDC do not work on data they work on bank statements “oh looks like a bad month better start loading up again”.
Graeme and Shaun, we know what our stats tell us in relation to sales and returns, the publishers i imagine know the stats on distribution and actual sales. Pardon my ignorance but if those two parties worked together couldnt we maybe go a long way towards sorting out the problems associated with distribution?????
allan, you read me wrong i was simply having a go at GG and NDC because they tottally ignor all data . Gees i am all for anyone magazine company trying to work with us but at the end of the day isn’t it the distributor setting the allocation ?? and they have the data as they always have
Your completely right Shaun, i knew what you meant. I would just like to see if we could unite and maybe get it fixed…..a tough ask i know but might be worth a go nonetheless……
Allan,
Yes you’re right we could Let’s go about it!
Graeme Day this is none of your business, you sell newsagencies and carry a suitcase full of baggage as we can all see. You are constantly seeking to score points and settle what read like political scores. Your agenda here seems to be to criticise for the sake of it, like you are angry for some reason.
I was told by a major circulation supplier that Mark Fletcher has the best data in the industry. I did my own research on the numbers and he certainly has hundreds more newsagents connected to his system than anyone else.
Go back and read Mark’s comment. he said he would trust his data over a publisher’s data. I trust him and believe that this would be a true statement.
Mark has my data and I am sure from many newsagents like me. As I understand it, he is the only one in the industry collecting and analyzing this data.
I have seen what he is doing in the background for newsagents about the issue of oversupply and I support him wholeheartedly. He is getting on trying to build a fact based case unlike anything which I have ever seen before in the industry.
Stop trying to tear down good debate and effort on behalf of newsagents.
You regularly bring up goodwill. Maybe that is your agenda, with your newsagent brokers hat on.
Well said David
The issue about data is this – Janice Williams of Universal says that the company is doing its own allocations on its data.
I say that I would rely on the data a newsagent has to determine if there is fair or over supply.
Based on the good data I regularly see from hundreds of newsagencies, I see concerning evidence of oversupply across the magazine department.
Publishers and distributors often talk of averages and this is dangerous. One distributor said of a newsagency that their average sell through rate was just above 50%. The more valuable analysis is sell through by title in the newsagent’s computer system, that is where you see the financial pain being experienced by the newsagent.
hear hear David.
Keep talking here Janice and Dirk. Newsagents are reading what you write.
David,
I think you are being totally unfair in your comments. Who are you to decide if it ios my business to comment or not?
What has this got to do with being a newsagent or not? And as for baggage,if you mean luggage collected over a number of years then most informed people would call that experience.
I challenge things that do not sit well me, whereas a lot of peole just nod and agree with it for they don’t wish to interchange with people such as youself that put them down (personally) as you have just done.
Data, let’s talk about data. I am well aware of Mark’s Tower systems as I am sure all reader of this blog are. I collate them and por over then every day of the week as well as all the other computer print outs of sales and P.O.S. systems for newsagencies.
Mark’s data is excellent I am not questioning it (though some of it doesn’t add up) his information of product sales is among the best available. No question there.
However I have been trying to work our from this data whre one gets the “sell” through rate with expenses such as rent (real estate if you want to be fancy) and wages for all these Tower users and more than that how they applied to the equation, for lots of what is said here just doesn’t add up.
No David I am not angry for some reason, far from it, surely though I can question the almighty if I wish. I thought this forum wanted that, Ithought it wanted public input and publisher input as well.
I love the way some of you make those people welcome.
I too believe I am too busy to continue with this site however I am disapointed that there isn’t more challenges made not about the data but about how it is being used to get the results it has come up with for some of it is just not mathematically correct. So David enjoy your blogging and you too can have the last say if it makes you feel okay.
It’s a shame that you don’t show analysis and the results and how they were derived from the excellent data base that Tower provides.
Graeme, You have never asked to look at the sell through rates data. It is in the software for any Tower newsagent to access. In the Magazine Sell Through Rates Report. The report which takes into account the real estate and labour costs is the Magazine Cash Flow Report. I have written about both here previously.
Graeme you do come across as angry with a chip on your shoulder and as having a beef with Mark. You challenge things for what appear to be long help prejudices. Look at your last comment and your use of the term almighty. If mark was what you say he would not give you a platform for your pontifications.
Now, when someone challenges you, you say you will leave.
Graeme you to sell newsagencies, that is where you make your money. Maybe if you were a a newsagent you would see things differently.
Graeme,
you have every right to voice your opinions here.
but at the same time i think that you also have to look at it from an active newsagents point of view. there is a lot of frustration (whether it is due to ourselves or caused by other parties)
you may be like a military officer in a war room thinking and analyzing data/strategy but we “soldiers” are on the field. we feel differently to some stuff that have been discussed. such as sell thru rate and allocations.
i know you have been in the industry long ago. now you sell newsagencies. in my opinion, you will be able to sell newsagencies even if the newsagency is not making money. some of the issues we are discussing here does not affect your livelihood as much as it would affect us.
therefore, we might seem “passionate” but when our future is at stake, i think it is justifiable.
lastly, the thing we are fighting for is not even unfair or absurd. quite the contrary, we just want fairness, integrity and understanding. all of which we have not gotten at all.
speaking of bagged magazines, here is a memo i got from Network today, will type it word per word:
“as you may have noticed, we have recently stopped bagging People and the Picture magazines. We believe this to be consistent with WA’s product bagging requrements.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BOOST SALES DUE TO THE ACCESSIBILITY THAT THE READERS WILL HAVE WITH THEIR FAVOURITE MAGAZINES”
so i wonder, is it going to be accessibility? or is it going to be “value”?