Over the decades newsagents have been forced to invest capital in meeting demands of suppliers in the name of consistent branding and with the pitch that the investment will drive sales. Usually, suppliers have not taken responsibility for the capital investment in stands, signage, display units and the like they have required newsagents to invest in in order to sell their product.
Today’s competitive marketplace ought to see newsagents extract from any supplier a guarantee on the performance of any demanded investment. Otherwise, it would be unfair for us to be forced to make an investment others selling the same product are not forced to make.
I agree. Newsagents have to fork out money and there is no guarantee or support from any suppliers. I know of 2 shops near me that have closed in our town with no support from suppliers like tatts, paper suppliers etc. newsagency business is a good business but it does need support from suppliers and landlords!
Talking about support from the publishers I have just received an email from Network
telling me that my PHYSICAL returns have not been received for the 25th July (it is now 21st Sept).
I have emailed back and told them that the driver always signs my book and did so on the 27th July and I have his signature and the date he collected the returns right here in front of me but the threat is that if they start an audit and they still have not physically received the returns then I MAY have the returns reversed (not credited)
When I rang the logistics company to report this discrepancy they told me that they have no way of knowing what has been scanned out to Network and what has not and that they are NOT responsible.
I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.
This sort of threat over thousands of dollars worth of returns is just the sort of thing that we should not have to put up with. It is simply disgraceful that I have to follow through with something that is out of my control once the goods are shipped.
Newsagents, protect yourselves by ensuring that you keep a very detailed (and signed) statement to show when your returns were collected.
This is a shameful way to treat a customer (us). We are treated like common criminals and threatened at every turn and I, for one, am entirely sick of being treated this way when I have, for 34 years, done my utmost to fulfil all requisites for this company.
I tried to stop certain magazine publications that we do not require
> from IPS yesterday morning. In a phone conversation with a CSR it was
> explained to me that newsagents MUST receive 3 issues of the magazine
> before stopping the publication. I was also told that these are the
> terms and conditions. I have no contract with IPS. I am receiving an
> annual based magazine that CANNOT be stopped for 3 issues = 3 years. I
> will not support IPS (new magazines) while newsagents have these terms
> and conditions placed upon them. We have no control over our business in
> this situation. With the current economic climate that newsagents are in
> and the uncertainty we all face at present, this a financial burden that
> newsagents can ill afford to carry. We have no control over our business
> in this situation. Newsagents MUST be able to either request an total
> allocation of a publication – whether that be zero or several – or early
> return publications. This matter has been forwarded to the QNF. This is NOT how business should
> be conducted between 2 parties.
The question that I ask is, how did IPS get a business model like this into our channel considering what has been discussed and written about newsagents being unable to control magazine supplies. With the problems we do have with Network and Gotch we do have a ‘control button’ which is early returns. IPS is affecting cash flow due to their 3 month ‘magazine trials’. IPS have also put on no late returns period. With the whole of the newsagent industry facing massive changes to the way we do business, IPS are a liability that the industry does not need.
Russell, what did the QNF say about this? Did they give you an estimated time that you would receive some feedback? Did the QNF give you any undertaking of what it may do about your problem?
We personally have had a very good dealing with IPS just recently about some late returns, not sure wether i should go into detail but they were more than understanding and co-operative of something i did wrong recently.
Al
Here in SA IPS is the most efficient of all
the companies with whom we deal.
Packaging is always excellent (unlike GG and Network which are both deplorable – wet and torn etc even though they have
a dry covered area in which to deliver) and
any problems we encounter are always
adequately addressed.
Dare I say this – I think women are running it here in SA???????? Certainly
the office and the logistics are run by two
excellent women
Sorry guys.
This post was really about other suppliers – ones who require us to make capital investments in our businesses without accepting responsibility.
Mark which suppliers actually came to mind when you thought about doing this post …….
I was thinking of landords, lottery product businesses, newspaper publishers (more in the past), banks.
mmm…. I have been pondering lottery lately as my refit becomes due in 2015. At the rate they are going at the moment it is difficult for me to commit to an expensive refit in 2015. Online may have badly damaged my lottery business by 2018!
IPS is one of our suppliers. I am talking about the business model that IPS has put forward and accepted by the newsagency channel. How was this accepted given the effect financially this has on our businesses. Why was this accepted when we have been trying to get better terms and conditions to improve cash flow from Network and Gotch?
Or pay for space.
Magazine fixturing is extremely expensive. Commission is not good enough. Publishers pay for space in supermarkets, we should get it too.
In fact suppliers pay for space or product placement in almost every other retail market, except the Newsagency channel.
June,
OOOhhhh that was below the belt!!!!
and us guys are blamed for all those sexist remarks.OOOhhhh still hurting!!!!!!
Clearly the most obvious protaganist in this regard is Tattersalls. Their expectations and support are well outside of rational commercial reality. They demand micro level control of everything you do and contribute absolutely nothing! They clip the ticket at every turn.
On the other side of the coin we also hold shares in our significant suppliers (eg Tattersalls, News and Fairfax) The return rate on the Tattersalls shareholding is about double the return on the business.
That tells the story. It’s far better to be a passive investor than an business operator.