Industry spin on Universal Magazines
The latest issue of Mediaweek, self labelled “media industry bible”, reports on page 6 about my blog post about the performance of Universal Magazines titles. The story calls what I wrote “gripes”. It calls the comment posted by a representative of Universal a “response”. Language is everything here. Mediaweek, through its choice of words, belittles my legitimate and documented complaints and sides with the publisher. Mediaweek would have known from other comments posted here that plenty of newsagents agree with my assessment. Had they called, I could have shared cash-flow, sell through and other data which refutes the claims made by Universal Magazines. I could have challenged the claim that 78% of Universal titles are either monthly or bi-monthly and explained that a title with n on sale greater than 30 days is a cash killer for newsagencies.
What really gets to me is the bold face repeat in Mediaweek of the Universal claim that they are the most proactive publisher in pursuing efficiency. This is nonsense – unless you call recycling stock which does not sell through newsagencies on a repeat cycle until it is sold, lost or stolen efficient. Universal expects newsagents to pay for the freight to ship this dead stock which does not sell around and around. Sure, this is the magazine supply model I signed on for. Times have changed. Publishers have an obligation to be better citizens. I have an obligation to be efficient and profitable. I can be neither with Universal titles in my shop.
It is not easy to cancel the Universal titles from my shop. I have made the request but it is now being put to the publisher. My letter should lead to immediate cancellation.

