AddThis SmartLayers

Publishers under fire from newsagents over “unacceptable” cover price rises

NFRNSig245The newsagents’ trade body has hit out after two regional publishers announced price rises at a series of newspapers across the South East.

Both Trinity Mirror and the KM Group, whose titles are in direct competition with each other in some parts of Kent, have announced price increases in recent weeks.

The changes will see cover price rises on around 20 newspapers including the Croydon Advertiser, which is going up from 80p to 90p, and the Essex Chronicle, which goes from £1 to £1.10.

However the National Federation of Retail Newsagents has branded the increases “unacceptable” after being advised by letter that the pro-rata increase will not be passed on, with the pence per copy margin for retailers remaining unchanged.

Letters addressed to retailers from Trinity Mirror’s brand editors in the South-East – Andy Worden, Luke Jacobs and Mark Miseldine – explained the increases in the context of improvements to the papers.

Kent brands editor Luke, whose titles include the Kent & Sussex Courier and Sevenoaks Chronicle, wrote:  “The Courier Media Group has changed its focus to develop its news and leisure section to reflect the priorities of our customers.

“We will offer the reader more detailed news and features, where we will go in depth into the key issues that matter to local people. In addition to this we will also refocus our leisure offering this year to focus on food and drink and entertainment for the family, while still offering local event listings.

“To reflect this investment we have a planned 10p increase to the cover price which will come into effect from Monday, August 29th.”

NFRN chief executive Paul Baxter commented: “Whilst the product improvement mooted in the letter is much needed, particularly at a time when local newspapers are struggling with sales, the fact is that space on news retailers’ shelves is under threat and it is inconceivable to put the cover prices up but give no incentive to sellers.

“Rather than the publishers keeping all the profit for themselves, how much better to properly reward the people who are best placed to promote and sell those titles?

“Instead, these actions are totally unacceptable and for that reason we will be seeking a meeting with each publisher so we can lay bare our concerns and explore other and better ways in which retailers and these newspapers can work together to ensure the survival of local newspapers.”

A Trinity Mirror spokeswoman said: “We work closely with the NFRN and its members and will continue to do so. Price changes and margins are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

The KM Group explained the reasoning behind its price increases in a letter from Fiona Maddison, head of newspaper sales and distribution, to the NFRN’s Kent District chairman Christine Southern.

It reads: “As you know we remain the only publisher in Kent totally committed to maintaining the pad for sale of our newspapers and in turn supporting the independent news retailers. By carrying out the actions we can continue to provide good quality newspapers through local journalism.”

KM Group editorial director Ian Carter added:  “As Fiona said in her letter to the NFRN, we have remained committed to paid-for newspapers during a period in which numerous free titles have launched. In other cases, newspapers that previously had a cover price have been turned free.

“We are also aware that, even with this change, our terms remain preferable to others in Kent. We will, of course, be more than happy to meet with NFRN members to discuss ways we can work together to our mutual benefit.”

11 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • September 1, 2016 at 9:04 am
    Permalink

    So, it is all right to take more money out of the readers’ pockets and boost the income to the publishers but not to give an increase to the newsagents. Having worked in a newsagent selling papers after being a journo for several decades I could see they have to sell a heck of a lot of papers to start making any money. Then the publishers wonder many newsagents are going out of business. One rule for one and another for the rest.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(13)
  • September 1, 2016 at 9:43 am
    Permalink

    Wordsmith’s right in some respects but why should the newspaper vendors get a slice of the rise? I’ve no doubt it’s a bit of a faff for little reward but it does generate footfall – although less and less each year, admittedly.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 1, 2016 at 9:53 am
    Permalink

    Looks like this article could do with a good subbing!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • September 1, 2016 at 10:13 am
    Permalink

    Simple thing to do is all the newsagents need to return all the papers unsold for a week. They will soon back down.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • September 1, 2016 at 10:22 am
    Permalink

    Selling less for more,that`s always a sales boosting strategy,not!

    By increasing the cover prices on papers that are already selling fewer copies than ever, newsagents will sell less and therefore their earnings will drop ,so naturally they can see the folly and desperation of creeping cover prices up.

    just dont mention covert price rises around Norfolk,two slipped in under the radar already this year have resulted in further huge losses for the Norwich dailes
    …and they wonder why

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(15)
  • September 1, 2016 at 11:00 am
    Permalink

    On the back of free falling copy sales,to increase the cover price on papers that aren’t selling as it is is usually the last desperate sign of a business out of ideas and on the brink of collapse.
    In over thirty years working in the regional press I have never known this weakest of strategies to work, in most cases it simply makes those buyers reconsider the value of ever they’re paying and results in further sales losses.
    Less for more, good luck with that one

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(14)
  • September 1, 2016 at 11:40 am
    Permalink

    Where’s the incentive for a retailer or newsagent to sell a local paper when the publisher is expecting to rage a bigger cut yet the seller gets no more? The only thing the newsagent will get is more flack once the poor existing buyer comes to settle his monthly bill inky to find the price has been increased without warning.
    This greedy policy once ripped off the customer, now it’s ripping off the retailer too and with no end game, no one wins and even fewer copies will be sold, nice way to treat your customers

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • September 1, 2016 at 3:24 pm
    Permalink

    Not sure what more the newsagents are doing to justify extra money.
    But same applies to papers. Poorer quality, pay more. You know it makes sense.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm
    Permalink

    Of course one way to abolish these problems is to abolish cover prices. Beanz and dog food don’t set prices they just negotiate with the retailer or they have a trade price list. What the consumer pays is decided by the retailer.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 1, 2016 at 6:05 pm
    Permalink

    Despite the god awful ABC figures which sees paid for regional newspapers on the brink of extinction, putting cover prices up, sometimes twice in a year,is indicative of publishers desperate to grasp any revenue they can in Q4 to damage limitate and offset losses elsewhere.they have no consideration or interest in them likely sales losses by newsagents as this take all tactic demonstrates.

    The last distress flares being fired off the roof of ailing publishers who decide asking more for less is their best strategy having given up on investing in content and quality staff.

    The end of 2016 is rapidly approaching and with it the end of the line for newspapers that have completely lost their audiences.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • September 4, 2016 at 11:29 am
    Permalink

    The most distasteful element of this story is the pretence by “brand editors” that the increase is helping pay for a more detailed news service. In Trinity’s Kent titles, the news ratio is lamentable. Press releases, appalling photos with facile captions, leisure “puffs”, negligible sports coverage – all a million miles from when local papers were all about local news. Increasing prices yet again is suicidal.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)