Comparing newsagencies by crossword titles
I have been working in six different newsagencies in the last few days on magazine layouts and related matters and have been surprised at the differences I am seeing. I expected four of the six newsagencies to have a demographic similar to that of my newsagency based on the ratio of sales of several niche categories to women’s weeklies. That anticipated similarity is not reflected in magazine range. In these four of the six they each had no more than six crossword titles on the shelves. Here’s our crossword category as photographed yesterday:
Okay, we made a decision some time ago to use the crossword category to declare a point of difference. We did this because crossword customers are loyal to a retailer with a good range, they are regular and they buy other products. In fact, crossword titles are among the most efficient magazines – that is, sales with crossword titles have more items and are worth more based on the data I see.
So back to these other four newsagencies. With only a few titles on the shelf the crossword is not a section. You can barely find it. So, these newsagencies need to either get more stock or get out of the category. The challenge is that if they ask for more stock, what other supply situations are they likely to unlock for their businesses? There is huge mistrust among newsagents about the magazine supply model and no wonder based on common behaviour.
It’s easier and probably safer for the four to leave things as they are and concentrate of more successful categories – they are the low-hanging fruit magazine growth opportunities. Taking a tiny category in pursuit of growth takes capital, space and time – three things newsagents scrounge for.
The question I have is: how did this happen? In my mind every newsagency ought to have a strong crossword category because no other retailer will. It’s a significant point of difference we can embrace. So, how did the category fade and in how many stores?

