Last week, newsagents received this Pools and Outdoors Pack from Network Services. Universal Magazines is the publisher. Poolside Showcase is the title at the front of the packs I saw. While being sold as a pack, this is effectively a reissue. You can see old price labels from other newsagencies on the front magazine inside the pack. Some copies of the front title I saw are damaged to the extent of not being of merchantable quality.I question whether this pack should have been sent to newsagents at all. It is clearly old stock.
It is not as if we need another pool or outdoors title – there are plenty on newsagent shelves already.
Universal Magazines has decided on a long on-sale for this pack, it is not due for return until week 26. That is a ton of newsagent cash at risk, bankrolling the sending of this title to newsagents. Yes, newsagents are funding the shipment of this old and questionable stock.
I would like to know the sell through for titles like Poolside Showcase from the the first time it was sent to newsagents. If it did not achieve a 60% sell through it should not have been reissued through this pack.
I would like Universal Magazines to advise newsagents of the sell through of all of the titles in the pack – to justify their grab of newsagent cash through the reissue of this stock to us. They owe it to us since they are expecting us to pay for this stock which did not sell the first time it was sent out.
If Universal has such faith in this pack, why not let newsagents order it? They will say that newsagents would not order the title and that such an approach is against the magazine distribution model. I agree on both accounts. Newsagents are smart. They would take stock based on the financial return they will achieve.
I suspect that newsagents leaving this pack on their shelves for the full on sale will lose money once they account for their retail real estate, labour and shrinkage. So, no, newsagents would not order this title if they were give the opportunity.
That this pack has been sent looks to me like an abuse of small business newsagents. If I am wrong and sales data justifies the decision then I will unreservedly apologise.
The folks at Universal Magazines will think that I am picking on them with this blog post. I will let readers here be the judge of that. Someone in Universal decided to send out stock of dubious value and of questionable merchantable quality. On those two counts alone Universal deserves to face some tough question from newsagents.
This is an ideal title for early returning, before the cutoff for the end of the month.