The distribution for the third time of the one shot title, Wellbeing Beauty, on Friday to many newsagents has caused a stir. Many who contacted me did not realise it was the third go around for this under-performing title until they read my blog post.
As I have said to those who have called me, what are you going to do about it? Complaining may provide some satisfaction, it does not move you forward on fixing the problem.
Newsagency associations are somewhat neutered on this issue as they want and need funding from publishers and distributors for awards, conferences and the like.
This matter of reissue of a poorly performing title and requesting, again, full copy return ought to receive urgent attention from associations in addition to individual newsagents. It is a test case.
One newsagent said they would pose the question I posed in another blog post about whether newsagents are obligated to return full copies of titles to their solicitor. I think this does need legal investigation. My understanding is that there is no contractual obligation. But I am not a lawyer and am not in a position to provide legal advice.
With returns costing between 1% and 2% of magazine sales we need to take action. It is too easy for publishers like Universal to send out a twice failed title with little risk – instead, expecting newsagents to carry the risk of theft, retail space, labour and return freight for them.
Newsagents not acting in the past is what enables Universal and others to continue their behaviour.
So, what are you going to do about this?
Wellbeing beauty went back topped the second time we received it. Thankfully we didn’t receive it for a third time. We did however receive more copies of Wellbeing Astrology to go with the copies we already had on the shelf from the last distribution of this title in November. We have not sold any so they will also go back topped.
Mark, am a little surprised about the associations stand on this type of issue. We know they need publishers and distributors on side but surely when these people take advantage of newsagents the associations should kick some tail, if not then why are they there for us? I like the question “What are you going to do about this?” but i would also like to know “why wont the associations do anything about this?” Sometimes their silence is deafening.
In order to get true independence for our associations they need to levy higher fees. Would newsagents be prepared to pay higher fees if it meant that the ANF was then truly independant and can act without fear of losing sponsorship? I am not talking about whats has happened in the past as the track record is clear, i am just curious as to whether or not we would be willing to pay more for that independance as we try to reshape our future.
Our current situation sees us sleeping with the enemy.
what i did? i wrote on the cover stating it is rubbish and recycled. if all copies went back like that how they gonna sell it again?
f I received this title I would have sent it back topped. As I noted in the original post my stores were not allocated stock – I suspect because Universal did not want to read about this title here.
Shayne & ed, did you receive credits for the topped/marked returns? Of course, I don’t want to get what doesn’t sell, but I do want the credits due to me, or I am only drowning myself.
Hi Mark,
I take it that you raised some issues about WellBeing Beauty while I was away.
WellBeing Beauty is a bookazine ie: non-dating information sold at $19.95 with 25% to newsagent. It functions similarly to AWW cookbooks or any of the many other bookazine product on the newsstand. Back in the 1990’s when we started doing publications like this the newsagents encouraged us to do more, as high cover priced items were favoured at the time. Due to newsagent feedback and consistently good copy sales we have continued them.
Now, on to the economics of supply – we (that is newsagents and independent publishers like Universal) operate within the existing system of sale-or-return supply. As a supplier to that system we have two choices:
1) Print 20,000 copies and put out with a super long on sale period
Or
2) Print 20,000 copies, warehouse them, cover the cash flow, and then put out in smaller bursts with shorter on sale periods with delayed billing. This makes the product cash-flow positive for newsagents.
Clearly, by doing option (2) Universal is behaving responsibly in the only system available to distribute its product.
WellBeing Beauty is in its 2nd edition ie: we have done it before and we know it sells well. Why would we as a publisher pay for a print run, storage, and distribution costs if it wasn’t going to sell?
This is not a rehash of old product – in most case these copies are mint ie: a re-investment in a new edition of something that sold well.
We wonder why The Newsagency Blog would target a publisher that is doing the right thing?
If Publishers who do the right thing for the newsagent are criticized on the blog, then other publishers will become apathetic in their engagement with the system – newsagents can’t afford that! Publishers who are reading this Blog will conclude that the dialogue is too inconsistent, and that it is better to supply irresponsibly and just stay-below-the-radar by avoiding NewsXpress or the Blog. In my opinion –this doesn’t help anyone.
There are other obvious critical issues affecting the bottom line of independent newsagencies RIGHT NOW. My wish for 2011 is that The Newsagency Blog, or someone, stems the flow of dumped $15 UK and US titles that suck up newsagency cash-flow for less than 10% sell-through. (By this I mean the dumped titles like “Midlands Farm Machinery Monthly” not good overseas titles like “Time”). Really – just this one thing would put cash back in to the pockets of Australian newsagents. Why isn’t anyone doing anything about this?
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. BTW – we checked your supply and the reason you did not get WellBeing Beauty in your outlets is because sales did not justify re-supply. The current distribution of WellBeing Beauty is very small, so could only extend to the top selling outlets.
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, no need to ask that your comment stays up – they always do.
Am I reading your comment right – this issue of Wellbeing Beauty is not a reissue. Or is it? If so, is this the third time it has been sent to some newsagents? Your comment appears unclear on this point to me.
Further, you say it has sold well, what is the actual sell through – the average, the high and the low?
The economics of operating a newsagency today are considerably different to the 1990s.
in the 90s yes we sold alot of wellbeing mags at least 30-50 copies every issue, but hardly any now BUT my supply still like the 90s. PLEASE explain !!!!! happy new year and hope acp and GG will overly abundantly oversupply me i love being flooded by shit mags
Janice, it is an excellent thing that you have answered Mark’s query about the wellbeing beauty mag. As a newsagent I feel that we have given it a chance and if it didn’t sell, I agree with Mark that it is pretty rude to re-distibute it. However, your email explains how you do things in your company and that is a great way to have dialogue and there would be many agents out there who would be grateful that someone even bothered to answer a question on notice as a distributor or publisher because we very seldom hear from them and that lack of communication can cause agents to think that no-one really cares about our huge oversupply issues and cashflow problems.
Thanks for the input
Janice As a newsagent of some 35 years the trouble is getting enough cash to pay the bill from the networks and co,so every thing goes back so i will not be stopped .I need my weeklies there in is the trouble .IN nov we were getting loads of stock and panic set in about meeting my account ,even sent R L Week back how wrong i was, i then waited untill dec to order more stock how silly is this if the acount on time is fixed most of the mess will go away even if the big boys get more time to pay and do not send back returns
Janice this is the third time I have received this specific issue. First time sell through 20%, second time less than 20%. My experience is contrary to your spin. Don’t tell me how much you care about newsagents, show me through fairer allocation.
“BTW – we checked your supply and the reason you did not get WellBeing Beauty in your outlets is because sales did not justify re-supply. The current distribution of WellBeing Beauty is very small, so could only extend to the top selling outlets.”
is this true? because if it only extends to top selling outlets….how come outlets with almost 0 sales still get them?
maybe you are not aware of what your distributor does?
also a question: how do you charge for advertisements? for example 20k print run…. the next time it get sent out does it add up?
ed, Universal Magazines controls their own scale out so they are the only part responsible for what newsagents receive.
I doubt what Janice has written about my stores. The behavior of her company gives me reason to suspect that they would try and avoid my stores.
Janice
Thankyou for your informative post.
You raised a great point. Something in the near future is going to give way and I agree that we need to look at our overseas titles to ease the burden of our cash flow problems.
I am not sure if you are aware that Network online have made it difficult to adjust our magazine supplies, if we were allowed to adjust our preferred supply a lot of these problems can be avoided. For example their color coded system they allocate to magazines determines whether we can adjust supply. For example the colour RED indicates Title cannot be changed due to its frequency. Using your Companies magazines Wellbeing Astrology, Wellbeing Health Redistribution and Wellbeing Yoga have all been allocated the red color, therefore we have no say on our prefered allocation.
I do not suffer oversupply from your magazines however someone is not playing fair using the RED code which really means we get a particular magazine and also we get how many copys someone wants us to have.
Other RED coded titles (Title that cannot be changed due to its frequency)are
The Ultimate Guide windows 7
American Mustang
APC Buyers guide
Arnold Schwarsenegger collections guide
Aussie Pools
Australian Backyard Value Pack
Brilliant Litchen & Bathrooms
Illawarra Brides Diary
Celeb Showbag
Designs for Family Living
Landscaping with Color
and on and on.
Hope you can see my point of view..Red is bad
This update may not be related to POS sydtem users however for people who frequent the Netonline website it certainly is releveant.
In the above post I was critical of the RED coded titles (Titles that cannot be changed due to its frequency).
This at the time of writing has been changed for at least a number of weeks. It now allows the user (Me) to adjust my Base allocation without restrictions
For smaller type business’s such as myself this was good news, I am not sure if it was due to this blog that Universal / network picked up on it.
Thanks to who ever looked into this, it has help me manage a lot better on what titles I can have or in another way change/delete.
Thanks Derek