|
RE: Actually Fixing the Newsstand - Part 1
Great post and great start. Will be interesting to see who takes Luke up on his offer and what he finds!
(Submitted by an Industry Consultant)
RE: Actually Fixing the Newsstand - Part 1
The very last comment by the author is absolutely correct.
If we didn't continue to insist on an infrastructure designed in the dark ages where it takes 21 days for the product to move from the printing plant to the consumer, we might have half a chance. Every conversation starts with what all the intermediaries need to do differently. Truth is, most of those intermediary tasks should not exist in this era, and sadly that could also have been said 10 years ago and maybe 20.
Sending magazines to a destination to be unloaded, hand counted and mingled together? Yes, hand sorted and hand counted. Every printer can do this very function 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, flawlessly, at very high rates of speed on highly automated equipment. Sending 100 copies and finding 65 didn't sell a month later? Every printer could pinpoint ship on a daily or weekly basis, and for that matter make to order, eliminating much of the overproduction, which is actually RECLAIMED one copy at a time. And it doesn't take 21 days to move a bundle from a printer to a consumer. The truly sad part is that these opportunities to eliminate waste and make our products more timely and relevant (which might just help sales) have been available for dozens of years and we are still wringing our hands putting band aids on a system that needed triage in 1995.
Ask a supply chain expert from outside our industry to look at what we do. When you get them to stop laughing hysterically, they will tell you that no other industry in the world would expect to perform or even survive doing what we insist we must.
(Submitted by a Printer)
RE: Actually Fixing the Newsstand - Part 1
... I am glad someone agrees with me. The dependency on computer generated distributions, that were created when my hair was brown, is ridiculous.
There is a problem in creating or correcting the current distributions. They no longer make any sense as they exist today. They have been altered so many times, with base changes, allotment adjustments all without supervision from experienced personnel
There is no problem with the original formulas that were used for so many years, they work. What is wrong is they have been allowed to deteriorate over the years since consolidation, to the point where they are irrelevant.
The answer is simple, in one sense, Redo ALL of them. Put in place, or redo, adjusted formulas, freezes etc, Start anew with the large titles first.
Here is a thought, I bet XXX XXXX has a list of retired roadmen who might like to pick up a few bucks. Hire them as consultants to sit down, with a pencil, and redo the distributions. Have agency people review the results with publishing and National Dist. people to be sure everyone agrees. See that they are balanced and appropriate formulas are entered.
There is more to this than this basic program it is only an idea that needs to be fleshed out. But I bet it will work. As to hiring of retired roadmen, I believe the payment should be split three ways, Publishers, National Dist. and Wholesalers
(Submitted by an Unknown)
RE: Actually Fixing the Newsstand - Part 1
Publishing X Men? Please remember there are also very fine women in publishing who would love to share their insight and ideas. Come hear what they have to say at the Exceptional Women in Publishing Woman's Leadership Conference in San Francisco on March 5, 2014.
Submitted by M�ire P. Walsh
President, Exceptional Women in Publishing www.ewip.org
BoSacks Response: Good catch and I meant no sexism.... But almost half the x men are indeed woman. In fact the most powerful x-person was a woman
Re: Is the Newsstand Endangered? And If It Is, What to Do?
Thanks very much for sending John Harrington's typically excellent article, "Is the Newsstand Endangered?". Coincidentally, I was traveling cross-country yesterday and bought an Atlantic magazine to pass the time between flights. Call me naive, but I did a double-take when I was charged $7.50 (tax included) for a 100-page magazine. I rarely agree with Samir Husni, but I think the professor hits the nail on the head when he says that pricing is the primary factor in newsstand sales decline. Of course, every publisher should set cover prices where they are most profitable... but the cumulative effect of widespread aggressive pricing on the single copy channel seems obvious and predictable. Customers will buy less of anything if its cost doubles every ten years. Publishers have their hands around the newsstand's neck and are throttling the poor thing. And they wonder why it's endangered?
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Re: Is the Newsstand Endangered? And If It Is, What to Do?
Hi, Bob, Reading John Harrington's article, I remember the 2004-2007 period he cites where magazine sales leveled off after years of slow losses.
That was when Bauer was shaking up the industry with their low-cost publications. By 2007, wholesalers and John Harrington, among others, were pressuring Bauer to raise prices and encouraging other publishers to do the same. In October/November 2007, Bauer did significantly raise prices, citing wholesaler pressure. And that was the end of magazines' newsstand sales turnaround.
At the time I remember being flummoxed by the cry to raise prices. It seemed that Bauer was doing something right and was engaging new customers with a product that was priced appropriately. If only other publishers had followed suit.
It's gotten to the point that newsstand magazines are generally overpriced for the value they offer (certainly that's true looking at historical prices adjusted for inflation). In many cases the value proposition of their corresponding subscription rates is so much better that they make potential customers feel like idiots for buying single copies at 5 to 10 times the subscription rate. And yet many of those potential newsstand customers who are deterred by newsstand prices don't then go and purchase the subscription, either. They just wind up not buying the magazine at all. Some customers are just not subscribers.
While bookazines' success might suggest that the opposite of the value argument is true, I think they have done so well because the value comparison is to trade paperbacks, and that comparison is favorable. And there is no corresponding disincentive to buy because the bookazine can't be found elsewhere at 80-90% off through subscription. Customers then only have to decide if the product itself feels worth it.
For our own publications we've had the opportunity to test increasing value (adding more pages and increasing the price by significantly less than the proportion of new content), and I can say that we've consistently found that readers respond to this. We make more money offering better value at lower margins but significantly increased sales volume and efficiencies. I think this should prove to be true for our wholesale and retail partners as well. It seems to me that the sweet spot price for a lot of newsstand titles should prove to be at significantly better value propositions, which includes price cuts where appropriate.
Printing costs are historically low right now. There are opportunities to test this theory aggressively.
I'm glad John proposed the concept of lower prices in his latest article. I think that's a major step in the right direction. Newsstand magazines are by and large "mass market" product and have to be priced as such. We in this industry have an enviable number of sales venues to move our product. If we on the whole make our newsstand editions a vibrant and compelling value in the marketplace, I believe many of the readers we've lost will return.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
RE: Key to success is digital first, says Kreisky
As someone who works at a publisher that went "digital first" successfully, I have to say this guy is wrong on so many counts. "All future growth lies in new digital businesses"? Wrong: Events are a growth area for many publishers, as are printed books and bookazines. Part of the problem is that he never defines what he means by "digital first," a phrase that is definitely open to different interpretations. Nor does he explain why every publisher has to be on all possible digital platforms. Just because it's digital doesn't make it profitable. Chasing every shiny new digital platform is a sure ticket to
bankruptcy. Publishers need to make smart, tough choices about what ventures to
pursue and not make simplistic assumptions about "digital" and "print."
By the way, in my company, "print" includes digital magazines and e-books because for us, and some other publishers, "print" has come to mean "paginated media" (a Bo-ism, I believe). When we promote one of our books, we present both the digital and print options. I don't give a rat's ass which one the consumer chooses.
(Submitted by a Director of MFG and DST)
RE: Key to success is digital first, says Kreisky
hmmm.... digital first....
my urologist said the same thing at my last examination....
(Submitted by an Industry Analyst)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Grim Industry Averages Overlook Many Cases of Success
Bob, Great newsletter today! You are right- maybe we should focus on the positives. More to the point, maybe we should look at what the successful magazines are doing, either editorially or in marketing, and emulate them. But another thought along the same lines. For many years, there were several major magazine launches each year from both small amd large publishers. These new titles were edgy and took advantage of new trends. Remember when the men's magazine market was dying and along came FHM and Maxim selling over 1.5 million copies on the newsstand between them? That seems to have stopped. There have not been any really major launches in the last few years with the exception of HGTV magazine. And that has done quite well in a down market. I guess it is the fear or failure or lack of print advertising to support a major launch but it is an element of the industry that is definitely missing.
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Grim Industry Averages Overlook Many Cases of Success
Thanks Bob, and Hooray for writing something positive. One of my clients has grown from 13-14,000 sale to an avg of 90,000+ and maintaining a sell through 15 points above the national average. Darn close to 50%.
(Submitted by a Newsstand Consultant)
Observations
It has been a long time since we have talked and gotten together. In fact, it goes back to the time you were a speaker at Consumer Reports some years ago.
As a former consultant and owner of XXX XXX XXX Services and currently a partner in a new digital company, XXX XXX,I felt I needed to pass on some of my observations.
As I survey the retail landscape for both books and magazines, a troubling reality has thrust itself upon me. How is it possible that Barnes & Noble finds its retail and online sales virtually unchanged to lower from years past when Borders was still in existence? Is it possible that B&N has not gained any sales at all from the closing of the only other major book and magazine retailer? Now, it is true that independent booksellers have seen a modest increase in sales, but with Borders having ceased to exist it does still seem that most all of their customers have also ceased to exist, venture to the Amazon or have taken up residence in cyberspace - frightening for our traditional sales outlets and the suppliers to these traditional outlets.
Barnes & Noble should really look at this and move swiftly to address the new
reality, as should all other traditional book and magazine sellers or be swallowed up by the same regions that have captured the majority of Borders' customers.
(Submitted by an Industry Consultant)
| 
"The Industry that Vents Together Stays Together" 
