Sometime between Wednesday morning and Friday morning last week, a visual merchandiser entered my newsXpress Forest Hill store and created a half waterfall display for Mindfood magazine above our weeklies. This is despite our placement of a half waterfall display in the usual location for Mindfood – which they left in place.
To create this display they took down the titles I had personally and tactically placed in this premium location. They did this without seeking permission and without offering compensation for the use of the space.
Mindfood is loss making for us. Network Services does not supply based on sales data. If they did, we would have received far less than what was sent for the latest issue.
I can hear a possible explanation – that we were supplied extra stock because the Mindfood publisher was spending money on in-store promotion. If this is true and if the extra promotion was a co-location strategy along the lines of what they did in my store then they should have negotiated a fee with me to access the premium space.
I took the display down Friday morning. I am returning half the Mindfood stock on Monday – we still won’t sell out.
Am I angry? Yes! This action violates my business. I am sick of it. I am sick of magazine distributors pushing product without offering fair and reasonable control and then demanding that I carry the financial risk of their supply decision.
Which other retailer would let a supplier come in and take control of their business in this way for a product for which you make only 25% margin?
I intend to use Mindfood as one of the examples in a complaint to the ACCC on the magazine supply model.