The publisher of Vintage Caravan has has enough of a broken magazine distribution model which is unfair to newsagents and to small independent publishers. They have written to newsagents to offer a direct supply deal. The cover price is $8 and newsagent margin $2. This is an excellent move. Ballsy.
Newsagents can request stock of this popular special interest title by emailing the publisher editor@vintagecaravanmagazine.com.au.
If you are not sure about the title, go to their website. You will soon get a feel for this quality niche title. I urge newsagents to order stock – it reinforces your position as a magazine specialist.
While I doubt that Gordon & Gotch will worry too much about losing this title, more could follow as publishers look for more direct and better managed relationships with newsagents and newsagents look for more commercial terms and greater control over their exposure.
You forget to mention the extra workload in processing returns for individual supplies. As flawed as the distribution model is, this can only add more to our already stretched workload.
We only sell a few of this title but the customers who do buy it are always looking the latest edition.
Thanks for sharing the email address, I’ll email the editor for supply.
Hi Jill,
If you had direct control over how many issues you were supplied with, returns should be minimal.
If we can eliminate the costly early returns we have had to deal with that cost us $1 per copy to distribute and never even made it to the shelf, plus an additional 60c each to have them sent back, plus storage fees and fuel levies, we could probably afford to let returns go without any processing by the agents required at all!
This move is designed to make the process more agency-friendly as well and so we’re more than willing to work in with you to make it work and certainly don’t want anyone feeling put out by the change.
If it really doesn’t suit you to have stock supplied that won’t need to be paid for until AFTER the end of the on sale period, then by all means, don’t order it in!
The response to the mailout so far has been very positive and I’d like to thank all our valued newsagents for their support.
Lisa,
If you are prepared to supply newsagents directly, not require physical returns to be sent back to you and effectively offer the title to newsagents on consignment, you deserve absolute support from the newsagent community.
Congratulations on having the courage to step out of the current distribution quagmire. The challenge to other small publishers is to follow your lead.
How we as a channel respond to this could guide other publishers of single or even a couple titles. Plenty of people will be watching.
I am curious to ask if the same nsw distributor does Vintage Racecar, which we already handle for a specific customer (Parabolica Publishing, CA)
Mark,
Ballsy, yes…
However, my math is not the strongest, and cannot see any financial benefit for the agent by going direct…
We still only achieve a 25% return on the cover price and yet as Lisa has stated for them apart from the margin they already make, they will save a further “$1 per copy to distribute and never even made it to the shelf, plus an additional 60c each to have them sent back, plus storage fees and fuel levies”.
So, we still get 25% of the cover price (all be it with a notional time value benefit), and the publisher is lowering their distribution costs by 25% of the cover price… A better incentive would be to split the benefit 12.5% each, with Newsagents receiving a 37.5% of the cover price.
That I am sure would generate a lot more interest, and would show how a publisher, whilst benefiting, is also helping the Newsagency to benefit…
Cheers
Peter
Hi Peter,
We are not really saving on costs as such, because the cost to post them out will be around the same as the $1 distribution fee. I merely highlight the additional costs we have been charged to show how, no matter what our sales were, the combined distribution fees have always been more than our sales returns and that we have not seen any money back from the over $96,000 worth of stock we have sent out. As much as I would love to increase the margin, I still have to cover the upfront postage this first time around. The difference being that whatever sells will then come back to us, rather than the distributor who, after 6 issues, has been the only one who has made any money so far out of the supply we have given them.
The real problem has been the cost of the early returns from stock supplied to agents who never ordered them in the first place and my hope is that this new model will eliminate that.
If this works, and as we grow, I would love to increase the margin but I guess all I’m asking is that you give us a fair go at getting to that point as I can’t keep supplying thousands of magazines for zero return any more.
Cheers,
Lisa
Lisa,
I’m sure every newsagent here understands the problems publishers (especially smaller ones) face when dealing with the magazine distribution system.
Distributers have the data to more accurately allocate copies and remove supply from agents that early return. It would appear from both the newsagent and publisher perspective that this does not happen. Now it is possible that such conduct is illegal, but let’s be honest, no one has the time and resources to battle that argument out through the courts.
So we come to a crossroads. Should the publisher stay within the system and try to work within it as best they can, or should they go out on their own with a direct supply model?
The problem with direct supply, from a newsagent perspective, is that the costs of managing supply, returns and accounts increases dramatically. Imagine if just 100 individual publishers went to a direct supply model. Assuming not every newsagent gets those titles, it would still be tens of different accounts to pay, tens of publishers to send returns (or at least the paperwork) back to and tens of websites, email addresses and phone numbers to alter supply. And then there are the difficulties of getting a title when a customer request it, or ordering additional stock that you need ASAP.
While the distribution system may be financially draining on publishers, direct supply is simply too fractured and labor intensive for newsagents.
It may be better for smaller publishers to look at collectively negotiating with the magazine distributors. Make the negotiations less about the cost per copy (of distribution and return) and more about the way in which stock is allocated.
The distribution of printed media rides a delicate existence. With the alternative of the internet growing every day I think it would only take something like an “oil shock” and it’s viability would be severely tested.
I am not forcing this onto anyone.
You all have a choice and it’s pretty simple:
If you want to stock Vintage Caravan Magazine and support a very popular local and independent publication that is getting wide scale media support, and can handle one more invoice to process every 2 months (while we here are prepared to take on potentially an extra 1,000 invoices to process every 2 months) then place your order.
If it sounds like too much trouble for you to handle, then don’t order it in.
I’d personally rather be handling one extra invoice for an item I’d actually ordered in than being expected to pay, essentially in advance, for something I never even asked for in the first place.
And that is as much as I will say on the matter from now on.
Once again, thank you to all you who have responded so far and placed orders already. I will continue to welcome all orders and promise to work with you as best I can to ensure that this works in the best interest of all our fellow small business owners.
Cheers,
Lisa
Lisa
Point taken… However, your move is not being done out of a sense of loyalty to the distributors.
It’s a commercial decision aimed at attempting to improve the internal return generated on the publications. That I understand, and it’s probably your only course of action to maintain an ongoing viable publication.
However, from a commercial perspective we the distributors need to consider the WIM Factor…
Yes, we sell your publication, and we sell a lot of Caravan Magazines (given our demographic) and will probably continue to do so, but just as you need to find ways to improve your returns, so do we.
We all live and die by the commercial decisions we make, and I hope it will be a successful one, but would provide a word of caution about branching off, with no real incentive for your distributors to follow…
Cheers
Peter
Lisa,
Yes, your publication would only be one extra invoice. But if newsagents encourage direct supply, what happens when more publications decide to move to the same model?
At present (most) newsagents download electronic magazine invoices and arrive them into their POS system. Assuming they are using that system to flag potential early returns then the entire process might take 10-20min. If they had to arrive 20-30 different invoices manually (assuming direct supply publishers aren’t using XchangeIT) how long might that take?
Then when processing returns the newsagent would need to process returns for every publisher. How long would it take to complete the returns process and send off returns for all these direct suppliers? And then there is the accounting, where newsagents must manage payments and track return credits for each publisher. That process can be labour intensive enough with just two distributors, let alone hundreds.
With all due respect the costs to you in processing 1000 invoices are most likely covered by the savings made by not using a distributor to manage this for you. For newsagents the only saving is a reduction in oversupply. Our increased administration costs associated with direct supply would far outweigh any costs reduced in limiting or removing oversupply.
There is no compelling profitability case to be made for newsagents. The same might not be true for publishers, but I suspect that if many publishers too up the direct supply option they would not enjoy some of the benefits you are gaining in being one of the first. That is, newsagents are not currently burdened by excessive administration from a large number of direct supply accounts and you are gaining far more exposure than a publisher that might make the transition to direct supply later in the game.
Jarryd,
With respect you have no idea of the cost to a small publisher of using a distributor.
Newsagents can either moan about this or join in trying something new and thereby work with a publisher on an alternative model. That is the decision to be made here – do we like the current distribution model or want to be part of evoking an alternative?
I like the idea of any alternate magazine distribution model, while i accept there will be more work/time involved doing things this way, it seems like a great idea for pushing change in the current model at the very least.
I think Lisa hilights a good point, the distributors get paid to send the stock out and again to send returns back to the publisher. This is what is the problem, as long as NEt/GG is getting paid per mag sent and again returned it is in their interest to oversupply as it means they get more $$$ but the publishers need to pass this cost on to the end user. Can we now see why it is easier to offer direct subscriptions to customers. good on this publisher, we have never been allocated this title but I am asking customers if they are interested now.
As far as invoices go, if your systems cannot handle extra invoices then it may time for an upgrade, like Mark as pointed out we cannot whinge about Dist companies then whinge about an alternative.
Luke is exactly right, we can not whinge about Gotch & Network all the time ,and then when an alternative is offered we still complain. Anything that does not involve dealing with Gotch & Network has got to be worth trying.
would be good if Mark opened a distribution company integreated with Tower system. gives people extra motivation to switch over as well.
Luke while I not sell this magazine I tottaly agree with your comments .if I new it would sell,I would definantly jump on board .i am going to ask a few
Customers about interest in this magazine and if any interest I shal show some support and give it a go .
Mark,
I did not assert to have any “idea of the cost to a small publisher of using a distributor.” I am not presenting a case from a publisher’s perspective.
From a retailer’s perspective, while the current system has major flaws, a direct supply system has just as many.
I have seen direct supply attempted many times in the independent supermarket industry. Almost every time it fails.
I have no problem with an alternative model. I think one needs to be developed. But I’m not going to support just any model. If a number of small publishers want to sit down with newsagents and work on developing a thought-out, properly vetted model then I’d be the first to voice support. Ad-hoc direct supply is not that.
Luke,
As far as invoices go, the problem isn’t how many the POS system has to handle. It is how labour intensive it is to manually enter those invoices (I’m making the assumption that small publishers aren’t investing the resources needed to be part of XchangeIT).
Jarryd you suggest you have knowledge of the costs in your comment.
Change has to start somewhere and I applaud Lisa for making the move. I hope newsagents support her and that this then leads to the engagement you mention.
No wonder publishers are looking outside the newsagency channel.
Here we have a publisher taking a huge risk with a direct supply model, in an effort to connect with newsagents, only to be met with cynicism and negative comments.
Remember how we shot ourselves in the foot with EMG?
We are our own worst enemies.
We should be ecstatic this publisher has contacted us directly, rather than focus on subscriptions.
Lisa, I don’t currently stock your magazine, but will definately contact your company now.
Personally I would gladly deal with 30 different publishers if it means no GG or Network.
There is no doubt distributors deserve some criticism but if a publisher is being charged for stock distributed and returned then they know the true sell through rate and surely they would reduce print run in order to ensure the issue of over supply is negated and thereby reducing their own costs as the indication is that they are charged for returns. Unless of course they were basing there advertising on copies distributed and the advertising revenue outweighed the cost of returns.
Hi everyone,
One thing I would add is not to think of this title as purely a “caravan” magazine.it is a niche category within a niche category.I’ve seen Lisa push this title on various “counter kulture” (rockabilly, hotrod etc etc) websites and facebook pages where the people interested are going for a “look” for want of a better term.So, don’t just put it in the caravan section and forget about it, frankly, it will get lost.Co locate it with “counter kulture” titles (again, rockabilly, hot rod, tattoo,rock n roll revival, etc etc, there’s so many), and see what happens.You would genuinely be surprised at how big the “counter kulture” scene is when you start to experience it, as I was when a good friend introduced me to it a few years ago.
What would be the likely uptake of newsagents ordering their stock with a higher margin (30-40%) that is not sale or return? What if the onus is placed back on newsagents to say “I want 100 New Ideas, 100 Woman’s Day and 70 Who each week inter alia and I will trust my software/think that is what I will sell.” No more early returns, no topping or returning whole magazines, purely order then sell or dump. There seems to be a lot of whinging about flawed models (which I am sure there is some credibility to) from distributors, but here is a chance to put your money where your mouth is, and some are still unhappy about it.
Nelson there are a couple of issues with this.
1. Publishers often get sales data three months late.
2. Most publishers do not control scale out store by store.
If the opportunites arise to seriously pursue direct supply arrangements with publishers, then I am sure that the software systems can be modifies to cope with virtually of the problems Jarryd pointed to.
No physical returns to be sent back, simply scan returns, the software sorts them into companies and emails the data directly to the publisher each week/month.
Many of the required process changes should be able to be handled by redesigning the software.
Sure there will be extra work, but if I can put a large chunk of the $15+k I have each month in returns back into my bank account it then I am willing to embrace it.
Yes Mark but they do control how many are printed and if the market has demand for say 10K if the publisher prints 30k the distributor has to distribute the 30k copies. Yes the distributor controls (in some cases I am told some publishers control allocations) the allocation to store but if they have more to distribute than demand dictates the publisher is to blame. Even allowing for delays in sales data they do have a responsibility, capacity and ability to make changes
Nelson @23
1. Returns cannot be invoiced until 3-4 months after close of on sale (and not all publishers elect to have returns).
2. Publishers of monthly titles always get sales data 3 months late (i.e. sales data for October 2011 issue not received until late January–early February 2012).
3. Therefore the earliest publishers can adjust print run based on sales is the March 2012 issue, thus a time lag of 5 months.
Nelson @28
All publishers of monthly titles have the ability to set scale out store by store, however many may choose not to exercise that control due to the difficulties caused by having sales data that is 3 months late.
You seem to be focused on holding only one of the entities involved in selling magazines responsible for over supply, when it is clearly a 3 entity process (newsagent, distributor, publisher). Did you find out why publishers get sales data 3 months late before you came to that conclusion?
Istvan,
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that newsagents are responsible for oversupply ?????????
Not all Istvan I am just making the point that the publisher controls the print run. No doubt the distributors have their issues and areas that require improvement – some minor and some drastic.
Irrespective of the time for data to come back (and yes i believe that the 3 months is too long) the print runs can be reduced.
Publishers would have historical data which they could use to drop print run.
You would appear to be a publisher and answered many of my queries yet i note that you didn’t answer the query about advertising and copies distributed and the impact of dropping print runs.
Nelson,
You seem to be very quick to make assumptions about what it means to be a publisher and I feel the need to clarify one thing:
Before printing every issue I first asked Gordon & Gotch how many issues we should print. Apart from an over-enthusiastic issue 2 print run when I admittedly got excited by the response to issue 1 (and got whacked with a massive early return bill as a result) I quickly learnt my lesson and from then on I always asked G&G how many to print as I figured they had more information on sales figures and trends than I had.
I then printed EXACTLY what they told me to print for every issue since.
Dismayed at the ongoing distribution costs that always exceeded any sales income issue after issue, I suggested reducing numbers many times. And, on many occasions I threatened to reduce supply to only exactly how many they claimed to be selling as I wasn’t convinced on those figures either, but I was always told that I would not receive adequate coverage as a result and was encouraged to stick with the numbers they suggested.
Long before I made the decision to do things differently, I went and spoke to as many newsagents as I could on the subject to ask what they thought about it. Perhaps if you took the time to offer the same courtesy to small, independent publishers who don’t have a corporation full of financial backing behind them, you might have a better idea of what I’ve been up against here and be a bit more supportive.
Go Vintage Caravan Magazine!!
Nelson @31
I did not respond to “if a publisher is being charged for stock distributed and returned then they know the true sell through rate” because it was an assumption on your part, and because I had previously stated that not all publishers have returns, therefore cannot know the true sell through rate for 3 months after each issue goes offsale. I also previously indicated that publishers who elect to have returns do not get them until 3-4 months after each issue goes offsale. Whichever way you look at it, your assumption is incorrect.
“Publishers would have historical data which they could use to drop print run” is another poor assumption. You are saying for a title that sells say 100,000 copies every month for 12 months (i.e. historical data), then sales drop by 25% for the next 3 months (i.e. the sales data blind spot) the historical data would indicate the next print run should be … 100,000 copies. Oops.
I second Lisa’s comments @32 above. It’s time some newsagents stopped making assumptions about what it means to be a publisher and stick to the role they do know, i.e. being a newsagent and what that means. A more gracious interchange could be beneficial for all who visit here.
Max @30
Proceed directly to SpecSavers … do not pass Go and do not collect $200.
Istvan,
Nasty comments get you nowhere.
However I did notice that you did not answer the question.
Have a good day !
Plaudits to Lisa for her helpful response to my enquiry about her magazine. Received two copies today and have already sold one.
We are happy to give it a go.
Thanks Istvan, I guess you don’t make assumptions on how many copies will sell?
Still couldn’t answer the question about advertising dollars vs cost of returns. Istvan if you were printing say 120K copies each month and the returns were running at say an average of say 45K all i am saying is why would you continue to print 120K.
Lisa – I wish you every success, it is as Mark suggested a gutsy move. However by your own admission you controlled the print run despite the evidence you didn’t drop the print run. Shame on G&G for their part but there was obviously something ( I am making an assumption here) that motivated you not to drop the print run if the cost of returns was so high.
Probably not the best site to be airing this, as it has become a shit-fight and takes away from the quirkiness of the magazine.
Personally, credit to you guys for bucking against the system. Word of mouth is the only way to go, get your customers and Facebook ‘likers’ to pass the word around to their newsagents. It is a niche market and as such, the interest usually comes from recommendation, rather than just a browse in the newsagency. Sale or return is so bad for smaller companies. I have worked in chain stores, where I saw so many magazines being returned to suppliers, never having been put on display to start with…
Lisa, do what you feel is right for you and follow your dreams.
I have nothing to do with the mag or news agencies. I am simply a customer who subscribed because I couldn’t get it any other way. My comment as a reader may be able to put forth a non business point of view.
As a subscriber I can only say this a great magazine with high quality printing & awesome pics. The new articles are fun & I always look forward to seeing what other people have done with their vans.
It is still young so it is a long way from reaching it’s full potential. If I saw it in a news agency I would be happy to buy it. The covers are always eye catching & you never know what you will find inside. It is not a trashy, predictable piece of rubbish that has to sensationalise trivia to get sales.
The word is gradually spreading about this great publication & if it was supported instead of road blocked I think it would really prosper. This is a home grown Aussie mag that went global on it’s first printing. Imagine what it could do if it had proper backing. Shouldn’t a new business that employs people be encouraged?
The vintage culture is big & getting bigger. People are sick of cheap Chinese rubbish that falls apart before they can even use it. They know older items have stood the test of time & are far better quality than a lot of items available to-day. Most of all it’s good clean fun & appealing to famillies.
Vintage is “IN” & it’s growing rapidly so why not jump on the band wagon & enjoy the ride.
it has been said before on this blog…..
of the 3 parties involved in getting a magazine to a consumer, the newsagents and publishers make more money if more mags are sold.
the distributor makes money by moving mags and processing them in or out. they dont care if the mag sells or not.
thats why they over supply, give publishers inaccurate and late statstics, and why they have such bad customer service….
Simone @38
Thank you for the reminder that this began with Mark’s comment about Lisa’s decision to self-distribute her magazine and particularly for registering your disgust with the unnecessary, hostile comments.
Lisa is bravely taking supply of her title in a different direction and I wish her every success. She clearly has the ability to pick up the ball and run with it, and the experience of trusting her former distributor’s poor advice has strengthened her resolve. Lisa deserves only bouquets, not brickbats.
I am grateful to Mark for creating and maintaining this forum to promote and encourage discussion of newsagency-related issues involving a variety of stakeholders. Collectively those stakeholders have a wealth of knowledge, experience and wisdom that could be shared in a collegial atmosphere.
Fostering such an environment may not, however, be Mark’s objective as it is heavily newsagent-focused, interspersed only occasionally by a one or two magazine publishers. I have not seen comments by other publishers, magazine distributors or any of the other suppliers to newsagents. They may have commented but not transparently.
Istivan, there have certainly been plenty of comments here by publishers on other posts. Most times they identify themselves. My goal is that all stakeholders talk here and share their opinions and ideas.
Lisa,
Why not try distributing with IPS. After some initial teething problems they seem to be doing a good job. The newsagent can control his/her supply and you get tops as a return.
i see spear fishing down under has swapped from ips to gg i wonder why
oh and i should also mention that my supply also doubled ,maybe they needed that boost in circulation figures that GG are probally the best place for this to happen . Note i said circulation (and circle they do -fully circle)and not sales figures
Hey Shaun I’ll have something on this tomorrow.
Well this little publisher has had to admit defeat.
Despite mass emails and mail outs, response from newsagents in terms of orders has been insufficient to warrant the move to self-distribution. VERY insuffcient.
With print date looming on our bumper 1st birthday issue (#7) I needed another solution and I needed it FAST!
I did contact IPS and they were very helpful and more than willing to distribute for me and I almost switched. But with no returns, my distribution numbers would have had to have been reduced and I was worried that this would effect the shelf presence of my mag over the two month on sale period. I have also counted on website sales of my returns as back issues to keep this wheel going, so it was a very big decision to make.
In the end, I just didn’t have time to wait thinking about it anymore and had to make a decision.
So, I decided to sheepishly crawl back to Gordon & Gotch and ask if they’d take me back.
Although they are upset that I wasn’t more supportive of their efforts to tailor distribution on my behalf, they have agreed to continue distributing Vintage caravan Magazine. Phew! Crisis averted…
But I now have some apologizing to do.
Admittedly, Gotch have always tried to explain to me that it takes time to establish accurate distribution and revenue from a brand new title that has no other comparitive market, and my account manager has always been totally awesome (even when I’ve been pretty cranky!) so maybe it was a bit wrong of me to expect financial returns too early given the numbers we were dealing with (certainly NOT the 120,000 one of you suggested!)
I am a new little fish in a very big pond and I have to believe that Gotch have my best interests at heart.
I also have to admit that it was my own fault that, against their recommendations, I oversupplied on issue 2 and ended up with a distribution bill that far outweighed sales for the next couple of issues. It was a mistake I made in my over-enthusiasm and I have been paying for it ever since! Now I ask them how many they think I should distribute and listen to their recommendations which has never been unrealistic given the sales data that we’ve had, and I will continue to do so.
I still think that there could be better communication between newsagents and distributors with regards to supply numbers. But given that many agents don’t even seem willing to bother looking up who distributes my magazine let alone offer to order it in for some of my customers that tell me they have asked about it at several newsagencies only to get a “No, we don’t have it, never heard of it” as a response, and that so many made no effort to contact me to place orders when I suggested self-distribution, I’m guessing that they wouldn’t bother to contact the distributors to adjust their supply numbers either.
This of course does not apply to those newsagents who DID contact me and offer their support and place orders. As a result I have quite a few new stockists who weren’t on our distribution list before and to them I’d like to say thank you so much for your support and encouragement! I will ensure that your details are passed on to Gotch so that your orders can continue to be fulfilled as per your requests.
To the others who thought that my suggestion was too much work, well you outnumbered the ones who didn’t and so you be pleased to know that you will now continue to receive copies from Gotch as you did before with no change and I will assume you are all happy with that.
If you haven’t stocked Vintage Caravan Magazine before and would like to give it a go, contact Gotch now to place your orders. We have a great birthday issue being sent out next week that is already getting a lot of interest on our Facebook page and in the media. We’ve had write ups recently in p.3 Sydney Morning Herald, p.4 Melbourne Age, a story on chanel 7 news and will have a full colour spread in this weekend’s Sunday Mail (Brisbane) proving beyond doubt the appeal of our subject matter and increasing interest in the magazine.
I hope you as newsagents will continue to support Vintage Caravan Magazine despite our teething problems.
Thanks everyone!
Lisa,
Always remember that Gotch need you just as much as you need them. It may have felt like crawling back but I bet they were more than happy to have you back in the fold!
I for one will be giving your mag a go, not sure if it will work here, but you never know.
Kudos to you for thinking outside the box even if it didn’t work out this time.
Here’s to your next issue!