The ANF made its first statement about the Alpha magazine situation today and said, well, not much. Indeed, they reported the facts as we know them but proposed no action on behalf of members. Newsagents can now add disappointment with the ANF to their disappointment with News Ltd on the Alpha mess for it seems that a week after the Alpha announcement, the ANF does not have a plan.

To those inside the ANF who complain about what I have written here I’d say that this blog post recording another ANF failure to lead could have been easily avoided.  Newsagents are angry.  Your constituents are angry.  Ask what they want of you and do it.  This is what newsagents expect from an association – to have their views robustly represented.

No wonder News Ltd thinks it can get away with treating newsagents in such a poor way.

Newsagents ought to consider taking care in what they say publicly about their plans to remove Alpha magazine from their shelves or block sales in some other way.  I have heard that questions are being asked about whether newsagents are colluding to harm the sales of Alpha.  If questions are being asked, I know this will be enough to scare off some newsagents.  Newspaper publishers are good at scaring newsagents.  It is why we accept making less in real terms today than we were making ten years ago.  Many of us are like deers caught in the headlights – too scared to take care of ourselves.  Publishers know this about us.

That said, I have received more calls from newsagents who are removing Alpha.  Many of these are newsagents who supported the title through the launch, believing that News was committed to supporting newsagents.

If it were not illegal I would actively promote a boycott and encourage newsagents to practically demonstrate their anger at being treated so poorly.

A newsagent colleague sent me a before and after photo of their Alpha magazine counter unit.  Repurposing the Alpha stand is reasonable given the decision by News Ltd late last week to cut newsagent margin on Alpha and to take home delivery business and give this to Australia Post. Using the stand for another title is better than not using the stand at all.

Newsagents are telling me that they have removed Alpha magazine to the back room ready for return. They say they will continue to do this with new issues of Alpha. It is certainly a practical way to let News Ltd know the extent of your anger over their decision to cut margin and take away home delivery sales.

If many newsagents do this, refuse to display Alpha in-store, sales of the magazine will drop. This will bring the title to the attention of advertisers who would be expected to seek a reduction in advertising rates.

It will be interesting to see how many newsagents take action on this. In the past, newsagent actions have not matched by their words. I suspect that News Ltd is banking on this. They have in the past.

By reducing the income newsagents make from Alpha magazine, News Ltd places further financial stress on Australia’s family owned small business newsagencies. Newsagencies are mixed businesses – no one part of a newsagency can stand-alone. Newsagents rely on the profits from some departments to cover loss making home deliveries and to cover the falling profit, in real terms, from News Ltd newspapers.

The decision to cut margin on Alpha by 40% and to take home delivery sales of the title away from newsagents and shift this to Australia Post is being taken by newsagents as an indicator from within News Ltd of how the company views newsagents and an indicator of a closer relationship between News and Australia Post.

For all the talk in the pages of News Ltd newspapers about everyday people, News Ltd walks to a different beat.

I’d like the opportunity to debate their decision in a public forum.  They have to face up to the stress they are causing for newsagents and their families.

The importance of newsagents and the Australian newsagency channel to the launch of Alpha magazine by News Ltd three years ago is clear in a promotional document I found at the Australia Post website.

The document praises newsagents including our compliance with the demands of News Ltd: Three weeks after launch, ALPHA magazine was still positioned with the newspapers in over 88% of retailers nationally.  Yes, we did that.

Newsagents are a key reason Alpha has been such a success.  Thanks to our efforts we have made it a sought-after title among consumers and other retailers.  In hindsight, we were too generous with our commitment.

Rather than sharing the rewards of the success of Alpha, News Ltd is doing the un-Australian thing, they are doing a runner on a mate after the mate helped them.  This is appalling behaviour.

It is no surprise to me that newsagents are angry.  Check out the comments at my original post on this topic and the follow up post.  I know of newsagents who will write to NDD saying they do not want the title.  I know from my past experience that NDD will not permit newsagents that right.  I suspect that for some newsagents, this will be the issue which drives them to cloes their NDD account.

The decision by News Ltd to cut the margin paid to newsagents for the sale of its Alpha magazine by 40% demonstrates the double standards of the organisation.

In the pages of their newspapers, News Ltd paints themselves as champions of small business, yet in their boardroom they make decisions which hurt small business. There is no good news for small business newsagents in the Alpha decision by News Ltd.

Having launched and built Alpha sales to an excellent level, newsagents are to lose margin, customers and other benefits.  This is an arrogant profit focused decision by News Ltd.

While there is nothing illegal in their decision about Alpha, it is my view that News Ltd has acted unethically towards newsagents, their so-called partners.

There will be more decisions like this in the coming months and years as News Ltd re-jigs their business to today’s economic and news distribution requirements.

John Hartigan, Chairman and CEO of News Ltd  is on the Federal Government’s Business Advisory Group and has been regularly called on by government to serve on boards and in other capacities.  I wonder how his colleagues on these boards would view him if they knew that he presided over a company which treated small business owners unfairly and, as I content, unethically.