I can’t work out why Gordon and Gotch decided to increase our supply of this imported Sudoku title from 6 to 11.  Sure we sold out of 6 with the December 2010 issue and they increased us to 7 for the next issue of which we sold 6.  A smart allocation would have been to hold us at 7 for several issues before increasing again.  or, they they had to increase supply because of floor stock which they had to send somewhere, why not an increase to 8? This increase to 11 has no justification despite the excuses which I sure the folks at Gotch will have.

This happens often to newsagents, an increase in volume for the slimmest of reasons. I think it is due to a flawed supply mode.  If I only had to pay when I sold a title, did not have to pay for returns freight and was compensated when a title did not achieve reasonable sell-through I am sure that this type of oversupply would not occur.

Magazine distributors tell publishers that newsagents have control over what we receive.  This is not true.

Every single extra magazine copy sent to newsagents which is well beyond what we need has a real and intangible cost.  It sucks our resources and our attention from products which could sell.

It is the work associated with magazine oversupply, even a few copies like with this Sudoku title, which diverts our attention from better selling titles.  Newsagents as well as publishers of better selling are the losers from this supply model.

While I acknowledge that magazine distributors have an excuse for most situations of what I would call oversupply, the facts of continued oversupply tell a different story.

Magazine publishers of more successful and carefully supplied titles need to work more closely with newsagents on the abuse of the newsagency channel through magazine oversupply.

Newsagents are frustrated that they have been unable to access sufficient Woman’s Day stock this week to meet demand while nearby supermarkets have had plenty of stock of this popular issue.

Newsagents I know received an increase of between 15% to 16% in supply of Woman’s Day.  One major supermarket representative I spoke with said they received an increase of 45%, claiming this was across the board.

If these numbers accurately reflect allocations for the Woman’s Day Royal Wedding issue, newsagents have every right to be frustrated.

I understand that the Royal Wedding presented unique and considerable challenges to ACP and other publishers.  It also presented tremendous opportunities for all of us in the magazine supply chain to do good business and attract some new customers with a hope that some of these would stick.

I would like disclosure of the allocations increase for supermarkets and newsagents for Woman’s Day.  I would like to know if supermarkets received an allocations increase more than twice the size of that provided to newsagents.

I visited a Woolworths supermarket early yesterday morning and took this photo of their display.  While they had sold out of Woman’s Day, this stand was full for almost two days as were plenty of other pockets in-store.  They did a bumper trade.  The nearby newsagent was out of stock from early Tuesday.

The photo is important for a few reasons – the amount of stock on display, the difference between this display and the display unit provided to newsagents and the terms under which this display was provided to supermarkets.

My supermarket contact told me that this display unit was placed at a cost to ACP, that the supermarket groups which took the display were paid a fee for the price location placement.  If true, this demonstrates a significant difference to the financial terms under which supermarkets trade for magazines compared to newsagents.  However, that it not my core concern.  No, my core concern is about stock.  We can’t sell what we don’t have.

Newsagents are told by magazine publishers that our channel is vitally important.   The allocations increase by ACP of Woman’s Day this week appears, if my numbers are accurate, to fly in the face of such claims.

We sell more magazines in our channel than any other single retail channel in Australia.  This should have seen us provided a bigger increase than a smaller channel, supermarkets.

The only way any newsagent supplier should demonstrate the value of our channel to their business is in their business decisions.  This is how newsagents should judge suppliers, by their actions.

ACP will say that it is easier to deal with supermarkets in that you can negotiate with a couple of national offices and cover off around 2,000 stores whereas with newsagents you have to deal with 4,000 owners for 4,000 stores.  While I can appreciate that, I ask at what cost?  What do supermarkets do for the suppliers – nothing unless they are paid.  What do newsagents do – plenty without being paid.  We do more to promote and engage with brands and magazines than supermarkets every day.

I am sure, too, that there are other factors at play here, factors which I will not see from my small business perspective.  ACP needs to do what it needs to do for its business.   Newsagents need to do what is right for our business.  If I am right on the allocations increase percentages for this week’s Woman’s Day then I don’t feel as strategic to ACP as I did a week ago.

If I was ACP, I would have backed newsagents ahead of supermarkets, with a 40% increase in supply.  I would have given supermarkets a 20% bump.  My justification would be that newsagents are more important to my future – they are more flexible, more engaged with my products, more important to the overall health of the magazine channel and cost me less to deal with.

I don’t know if the supermarkets asked for the 40% (or more) increase or if its was just offered.  The net result is that in this week of a huge spike in shopper engagement with magazines, newsagents were left looking like the poor cousins of supermarkets.  That is not a healthy situation for our businesses or for the magazine marketplace as a whole.