I can’t work out why Gordon and Gotch decided to increase our supply of this imported Sudoku title from 6 to 11. Sure we sold out of 6 with the December 2010 issue and they increased us to 7 for the next issue of which we sold 6. A smart allocation would have been to hold us at 7 for several issues before increasing again. or, they they had to increase supply because of floor stock which they had to send somewhere, why not an increase to 8? This increase to 11 has no justification despite the excuses which I sure the folks at Gotch will have.
This happens often to newsagents, an increase in volume for the slimmest of reasons. I think it is due to a flawed supply mode. If I only had to pay when I sold a title, did not have to pay for returns freight and was compensated when a title did not achieve reasonable sell-through I am sure that this type of oversupply would not occur.
Magazine distributors tell publishers that newsagents have control over what we receive. This is not true.
Every single extra magazine copy sent to newsagents which is well beyond what we need has a real and intangible cost. It sucks our resources and our attention from products which could sell.
It is the work associated with magazine oversupply, even a few copies like with this Sudoku title, which diverts our attention from better selling titles. Newsagents as well as publishers of better selling are the losers from this supply model.
While I acknowledge that magazine distributors have an excuse for most situations of what I would call oversupply, the facts of continued oversupply tell a different story.
Magazine publishers of more successful and carefully supplied titles need to work more closely with newsagents on the abuse of the newsagency channel through magazine oversupply.
that part where you say SMART ALLOCATION ………yeah right
The thing is Shaun is that it is possible. If distributors really wanted to supply based on a reasonable model they could. It would leave them with stock in the warehouse and therein lies the problem.
Stock in the warehouse should not be considered a problem as it increases the opportunity for any newsagent who has a sell out, undersupply or special order to take advantage of available stock and increase sales. This would work to everybodys advantage. It’s a shame the distributors don’t operate this way.
Mark, I often wonder if the distributors have planning meetings on how to stuff us around. Two examples this week alone. Network Womans Day Royal Wedding, not one additional copy and we sold out Monday lunchtime. I went on to Net online at 7.30am Monday to order extras to find they were out of stock. Dumb! Second example is shop til you drop. For the last few months I have received my initial allocation then two more SBR top ups. This month I got a top up on 29/4, receive stock 2/5 and got another top up invoice 3/5, received Friday 6/5. The new issue is out monday and I will be returing 12 copies, which is my original allocation. So I ring Network to ask if I can be taken off SBR because frankly I have never sold a copy of any tile ever issued to me under this model. I was told I can’t be but he could reduce my initial allocation. Solution for me is from now on ever SBR invoice will be immediately put into early returns.
Bill, I suggest you escalate your Shop Til You Drop example as it could help ACP improve their SBR project. What you have outlined should not have happened.
i received 12 shop till ya drop last month early return 4 then i get a sbr of 3 and still have 3 onthe shelf . SBR should not even kick in when you have early returned something . i know what i sell and i am trying ti fine tune it and then they send more stock ./ The last one i sold was the day before the sbr turned up . so now i am left with stock on the shelf makes no sence
The computer programers for GG and Network simply did not know early returns existed, it feels like they are never taken into consideration, every early return stuffs up their allocations bigtime