I've recently received correspondence from a couple of consumer publishers expressing deep concern with the current approach of WH Smith. One publisher wrote:

"I would suggest that, economy apart, the biggest headache for consumer magazine publishers is the attitude of WH Smith.  The PPA are doing nothing, and none of us can go public as we are so dependent on them.

 

Basically they are asking for more money to display our mags than is economically viable. And the figures are constantly rising. Moreover with no guarantee of compliance, it is a major, major concern."

 

Another wrote:

 

"Recently WH Smith have started demanding premium or "promotion" payments from magazines to keep their listing in the W H Smith's outlets.  Now personally I feel this is bullying tactics and very short sighted.  My own suspicions are that the Board have certain targets to meet to get their bonuses and are more interested in short term gain rather than long term survival."

 

Any thoughts?

 

---

James Evelegh
Editor
InPublishing
http://www.inpublishing.co.uk

I am somewhat surprised that more interest wasn't shown in this posting, as it is an issue that effects many of us independent publishers. But it is wriong to single out WH Smith's they are not alone in demanding money with menaces. In 2009 I have paid over £50,000 for promotions with various multiples, I didn't want or need. But if that's the way it is, then so be it.

But it doesn't need to be one way traffic. We all know compliance and efficency are poor and promotions seldom produce the return we hope for. However, in the full knowledge that the magazine buyer is expected to achieve a level of spend from you, at least in line with the previous year, stand firm. Tell the buyer you want more for your money. If you spent £10,000 on four promotions in 2008 and you didn't get a return on your investment, tell the buyer you want six or even eight promotions for the same money. The reality is, the buyer is briefed to get money from you. the promotions are a sprat to catch a mackeral. ask for more and I promise you in nine cases out of ten you will get more. I know it's not a perfect solution but it is better than simply throwing good money after bad.

This is nothing new, as I recall the High Street arm of WHS threatening to withdraw distribution of a politics/current affairs title I was working for in 2004/5. The Travel arm was unaffected as it was the sort of title that sold well at train stations and airports. Reluctantly the publisher took the decision to make a payment that allowed the magazine to remain in the High Street stores - I have no idea for what amount - primarily to retain the magazine's profile.

From a business point of view one can understand WHS's decision - after all, if they know they can shift larger numbers of consumer magazines then they're going to want to clear shelf space accordingly. They don't have a duty to stock poorer selling 'niche' titles, however much that might niggle those of who have worked at one!