The NFRN statement says: “There is an old saying that “Empty Vessels Make the Most Sound” and that is certainly ringing true of the Press Distribution Forum (PDF). In its latest attempt to gain credibility the PDF has issued a Press Release in which it is saying that “the aim of the new code is to underpin a process of providing a fair and efficient system for the distribution of newspapers and magazines to the public.” The PDF has appointed Michelle Woodman (ex DTI/BIS) to undertake a review of the Code and now says: “The review will be comprehensive and only matters that are prevented from inclusion by restrictions arising from competition law will be excluded from full consideration.”
Yeah right!
What the PDF seems to have forgotten is that it wrote to the 20 odd retailers that attended a meeting in Broxbourne back in October last year in which it included a long list of issues that it claimed could not be discussed by the PDF either for legislative or commercial reasons. Unfortunately, however, included in that list was just about every issue that retailers want to resolve.
To be fair, there are some difficulties and restrictions under competition law that are genuine. But this is mainly to do with market rigging or fixing prices that could adversely impact on consumers, and no one is suggesting we should do that. However, there are a range of discussions that could take place – for instance a discussion about the principles on how this supply chain is funded through carriage charges and the potential for other methods of funding – that do not involve any discussions or agreements that impinge on competition law.
Moreover, it is self-evident that PDF discussions are not going to get very far if publishers or wholesalers veto any debate that impacts on their commercial best interests. That is not self-regulation, it is dictatorship. It is borne from a fundamental viewpoint held by publishers that they own this industry and everyone and everything in it should answer to their beck and call with no rights of their own. So why are they messing about with meaningless self-regulation that doesn’t convince anyone?
And, just as a means of inspiring retailer confidence in the Press Distribution Forum, who does the PDF appoint to replace Adrian Smith as retiring Chairman? It’s none other than Mike Newman, Group Circulation Director of Mail Newspapers, Chairman of the ACE Circulation Executives Committee and former NPA representative on the Joint Industry Group. Yes it’s Mr Stone Wall himself! And just when we thought the PDF might appoint an independent chairman. Not likely!
Is this appointment a progressive way forward, or is this merely “hiring a Fox to run a chicken ranch”? And will this make retailers flock to the PDF? We don’t think so.
Says NFRN Chief Executive Paul Baxter, “I cannot see retailers being in any way impressed with this latest announcement from the PDF, which fails on every level to give retailers what they want which, in particular, includes an equal stake in this industry”.
