Autosport magazine to stop printing magazines at the end of the year

[thetool]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Apart from taking up valuable display space, it doesn't cost the vast majority of retailers to stock newspapers and magazines as they will all be on a sale or return basis. Every night, retailers bundle up all unsold dailies and magazines at the end of their currency, and leave them where the distributors deliver the next day's delivery who then takes them back to the warehouse.

Generally there is a set list of titles that major retailers stock, and the bigger the store and more specialist towards magazines/newspapers it is, the more niche titles will be sold. Sorting out the magazine returns was actually part of my job a fair few years ago! For this supermarket, what sold or didn't sell in a particular store didn't seem to be relevant, they simply took a particular range of magazines that dictated by the company. The biggest cost of stocking them is opportunity cost of not being able to sell something else in that space, which is true for a lot of products.

[Fiorentina 1]

Originally Posted by hoffman66

And in the meantime probably made thousands of people either realise they don't want or need the thing anymore and no doubt also put off a similar number.

These people are so dumb it is painful, how on earth can anyone be running a business like that?

Exactly! I read the Mexican GP issue in the shops. Last month I would have bought it without hesitation. The Greg Moore piece was the only thing worth a quid, but it was short.

I got use to not having it. Now, I'll browse it before buying it.

So stupid is right. They held the magazine hostage trying to get people to subscribe to their website, without realizing that they weren't the only source for news. For sports cars for example, I don't even check motorsport or autosport dot balls anymore.... Sportscar 365 is so much more superior!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Fiorentina 1

I got use to not having it. Now, I'll browse it before buying it.

Whilst I do understand the sentiment, this approach is IMHO wrong. Either you want to buy the product or you don't. I totally disagree with the publisher's approach to this but frankly, if you read it without buying it you are "stealing".

My apologies if this appears harsh.

[hoffman66]

I think in all honesty many people have been doing this for a long, long time.

I used to work near a supermarket and routinely went in to peruse the odd magazine. I would occasionally buy one, but 9/10 times I would not.

I do not consider that stealing, I consider it making the most of a situation, if the magazines were cheaper I would buy them without much thought as I did years ago or do with the occasional magazine nowadays, sadly automotive magazines are at the very highest end of pricing, mainly because people will pay through the nose for them.

You really don't get what you pay for.

And this form someone who worked in the industry eons ago.

[Peter Mallett]

Ok, but you aren't just reading like in a library, you are also taking away the earnings of the shop workers. Buy it or ignore it but don't "borrow" without permission.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ok, but you aren't just reading like in a library, you are also taking away the earnings of the shop workers. Buy it or ignore it but don't "borrow" without permission.

As a shopper, I must admit that it annoys me the hell when going to select my newspapers in the supermarket when I bother to buy any, that there is usually one or two people (always middle to late age and always male) who are stood by the display reading a newspaper.

I am so tempted to tell them to buy the bloody things and get out of real shoppers' way, but discretion always gets the better of me, thank goodness! How long that can last I can only surmise.

[S griffin]

Shame there are no cafes or libraries that have them AFAIK

[John Elwin]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ok, but you aren't just reading like in a library, you are also taking away the earnings of the shop workers. Buy it or ignore it but don't "borrow" without permission.

...and more importantly; the income of those who write & produce the magazines.

[hoffman66]

If you decided a few years to get into print journalism at a dying publication you had to expect this to happen eventually. Print journalism is dying, has been for 10 years.

All that keeps it afloat is habit mainly. there are plenty of mags that survive quite happily in other areas without this and without the falling numbers trend. ,

This one I feel for the people as what they have been through recently is bad but I doubt more than 2 or 3 people work there, most of it is contributor based, and believe me they don't earn enough to make a living.

So yes, if having a brief peruse in a shop is stealing then I am happy to be called a thief. because if the cost of the thing per week was not the cost of most non motoring monthlies, then maybe I might have been tempted to buy it!

[Peter Mallett]

Sorry it is still stealing in my book.

Either buy the damn thing or ignore it as I do on most occasions.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Sorry it is still stealing in my book.

Either buy the damn thing or ignore it as I do on most occasions.

I'm with you on this Peter.
Unfortunately in the modern internet age people are becoming accustomed to free information being readily available but somewhere/somehow it needs to be paid for...

[Fiorentina 1]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ok, but you aren't just reading like in a library, you are also taking away the earnings of the shop workers. Buy it or ignore it but don't "borrow" without permission.

If they didn't want to do that, they'd have the magazines sealed. I don't sit there for 2-hours or even a 1/2 hour. 5 minutes and I'm gone. Usually I look at 3 mags and buy 1. Autosport was one, i'd buy 80% of the time. I bought Practical Classics the time I read the Greg Moore article. basically, it was everything I had already read the last 20-years....At 11 quid, forget it!

But, I already paid for this weeks Autosport. I bought it before the end of the GP. From Newsstand co uk Sometimes they are worth having, some times it's 50-50 and sometimes they are not. Now the 50-50 will take longer to make that determination.

[Fiorentina 1]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ok, but you aren't just reading like in a library, you are also taking away the earnings of the shop workers. Buy it or ignore it but don't "borrow" without permission.

Ya, but are you assuming that after I look at the Autosport that they are throwing it away? What if someone else buys it at a later date? If I go on Thursday, browse thru the issue, come back Saturday, they are gone. They have 2 copies max, where I go. Like I said, if the publishers didn't want you to look thru it, they would have it sealed. Advertisers actually like people to browse thru the issues...

As for newspapers? Really? I've never seen anybody open a newspaper, without buying it...

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Fiorentina 1

Ya, but are you assuming that after I look at the Autosport that they are throwing it away?

Not assuming that at all.

[Fiorentina 1]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

but frankly, if you read it without buying it you are "stealing".

My apologies if this appears harsh.

That's wrong. If you go to buy it every week, just subscribe and be done with it.

I worked at a newsstand in college and we had people who never bought anything, and we'd kick them out after 10-minutes. But guys, like me, who would browse for 3-5 minutes and buy it 6 out of 10 times, we wouldn't say anything. Even foreign fashion magazines at $50 each. At book stores (like a WH Smith) for example, people would sit for hours. They don't kick them out. The worst, is when they don't put stuff back....

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As a shopper, I must admit that it annoys me the hell when going to select my newspapers in the supermarket when I bother to buy any, that there is usually one or two people (always middle to late age and always male) who are stood by the display reading a newspaper.

As for newspapers; no way! Once in a while, someone would flip threw sections looking for New York Times travel section to see if it was the day for that, but that's how far it would go.

[hoffman66]

People do it in bookshops all the time, they even have seats in there!

I guess we are all different eh

[S griffin]

By flicking through it, not buying it and putting it back, it means you can’t relook up something in there at home. Nothing much wrong with that

[Adam43]

There is a difference between flicking through to see if you want to buy it and actually reading part of it and putting it back. Or in the case of the bookshop example reading a few pages of a novel to judge it.

The point Peter is making is fair. For it to exist people have to pay for it. If you are reading it and not paying then those that read and pay are subsidising you. It’s like tax dodging. Or forgetting about VAT, I’m sure you think that cash in hand is fine, but it is subsided by those that pay properly.

As for the difference is you don’t have it as a reference? Really? It’s a magazine, even when it was good it was rarely used for that!

[S griffin]

The point is you pay to keep it. It's different for me as I have a subscription to the site, so I can read mine as easily as that

[Adam43]

I understood your point.

Is it OK to sneak into a concert because it’s not like keeping the CD?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

There is a difference between flicking through to see if you want to buy it and actually reading part of it and putting it back. Or in the case of the bookshop example reading a few pages of a novel to judge it.

The point Peter is making is fair. For it to exist people have to pay for it. If you are reading it and not paying then those that read and pay are subsidising you. It’s like tax dodging. Or forgetting about VAT, I’m sure you think that cash in hand is fine, but it is subsided by those that pay properly.

Agreed. For a publication to be made, and then consumed, the costs have to be borne somewhere. This is usually a combination of advertising and cover price or subscription.
That is from the writer, through to printing, distribution and retail space.
If someone 'consumes' a publication without the consumption being paid for appropriately, then surely that is nothing but theft?

I don't see having an online subscription as an excuse either. That subscription is for consumption in digital format, and pays for the hosting services and other features. It does not cover printing, distribution and retail costs.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I understood your point.

Is it OK to sneak into a concert because it’s not like keeping the CD?

I have a subscription to a music streaming service. Does that mean that if a piece of music appears from an artist, I am entitled to see them live for no cost?

[hoffman66]

Such a bizarre argument.

A musician makes money for several people when selling their music. Did they write it? The record company, the manager, the studios, the musicians possibly. All these costs are absorbed from either the record company initially as potential and later on by the artist if they make it and negotiate deals.

And gigging is their way to make some of that back a different way, it has little or nothing to do with sales of a download or a CD, it is a totally separate revenue stream!

[S griffin]

There have been music stores that allow you to listen before you buy. That’s a better comparison

[Adam43]

No, it’s not.

The reason they have these is so you can decide to buy or not. It isn’t as a replacement so you don’t have to ever buy anything.