The article published this week by Fairfax with the headline: Do we still need newsagencies? is inaccurate and reflects poor research. It is written with subtle support for newspaper home delivery, a part of many newsagency businesses which loses more money today than years ago.
There are quotes from newsagents which are not supported by evidence. I am surprised Fairfax editors let them through – but they do support the pro newspaper stance. For example:
but I would say that in the last 12 years magazine sales have fallen approximately 50 per cent, way more than newspapers
I don’t see this supported in the data I see in my benchmark studies.
Another newsagent is quoted as saying:
People are buying cards rather than gifts.
If this is the case the business needs to look at its card supplier and its gifts mix. I know of plenty of newsagencies where dollar for dollar gifts match cards and both are experiencing double digit year on year growth.
A real estate anger is quotes as asking:
It is a dying industry and unless they find a way to re-invent themselves, I can’t see the traditional newsagent surviving.
I agree with this 100%. However, reinventing should have started ten years ago.
Later in the article is an ignorant quote from a newsagent:
For 10 years I have been in the business and the trend now is move more into the gift business,” he says. “There are higher profits and higher margins.
No, gifts are not a trend now, they were a trend ten years ago and more. Now, the trend is beyond gifts.
The article finishes only with a supporting statement about home delivery. Newspaper home delivery is declining. Newsagents make less in real terms today than five years ago thanks to paternalistic publisher behaviour.
Newspaper publishers have a history of selfishness when it comes to newsagencies. This narrow-focussed poorly researched article reinforced that view.
Do we still need newsagencies? Yes, but not for the mixed message reasons Fairfax outlines in this sloppy article.