It feels like there has been a rush among magazine publishers to send more titles to newsagents with delayed billing. It feels like someone has opened the floodgates.
I am concerned about the number of delayed billing titles I am seeing in my own newsagencies – from multiple publishers! Do other newsagents feel the same?
Delayed billing of itself is sort of fine, it’s the long shelf life attached to the delayed billing that offends and as long as there is not an increase in the range of titles supplied.
Four months is too long for us to hold a title – unless it is selling well and is profitable for us after allowing for shelf space, labour and opportunity cost.
Delaying billing does not make a long shelf life okay and magazine publishers need to understand that.
delayed billing does not justify a publisher using our space and labour to showcase their stock. Space and time cost money!
I know some publishers think newsagents are less likely to early return a title that is not billed until the end of the on-sale. While their assumption is probably right for some, it is not the case for all. Retail space in shopping centres is expensive and this is what I consider when early-returning … am I getting the return I need to deliver a profit? If not, the title goes back regardless of whether billing is delayed. The only way I will keep an underperforming magazine title on the shelf longer is if the retail space it takes is being paid for by the supplier through a subsidy.
If you are a magazine publisher considering delayed billing as a way of keeping your title on newsagent shelves longer, be aware that delayed billing of itself is not the way to achieve this.