On Wal-Mart Dropping 1,000 Magazine Titles

I think the story of Wal-Mart cutting a thousand magazine titles off its list is probably more complicated than it seems on the surface. Wal-Mart is driven by operational efficiency. Part of that means carrying products that really move. News stand sales are often the opposite of efficiency - think 70 to 85 percent or more being returned because no one buys them. Plus, the article talks about the list having magazines that hadn't existed in a significant period of time.

It sounds to me like they are purging lists of things they haven't/didn't want to carry for a while, even with some major titles being taken off. I'd also wonder if this is a step toward something else that would be pretty significant: taking control of their own magazine distribution, rather than doing the "usual" thing of allowing distributors to populate the shelves as they please.

Finally, dropping 1,000 magazines? That alone is a clue, to me, at least, that something is odd. I've been in some large Wal-Marts, and there's simply not enough shelf room to drop 1,000 magazines and have anything left. Maybe a lot of the titles were distributed regionally, or had been brought in and one time and then not a second. In fact, I just saw something from a publishing consultant (sorry, no free online link) that suggests a) the magazines left in Wal-Marts will easily account for over 95% of their sales, and b) the number of magazines actually on display at a Wal-Mart at any one time is closer to 300. Many of the cut titles are only sold in certain geographic areas or during particular times of the year. Finally, some of the magazines - like the Economist or the New Yorker - are aimed at a different demographic than Wal-Mart's customers.

So, when Wal-Mart trims magazine list, it's significant news for the publishing industry. But the real significance - taking more control over distribution - is yet to be seen.

Address Problems When They Arise

A noticed a writer discussing a situation that has become too familiar - after taking an assignment and signing a contract, the client wants to change the terms. That in itself isn't necessarily unreasonable. Both you and the client (whether a corporation, a non-profit, or a publisher) anticipated certain conditions, but the client has realized that it made a mistake or that a situation had unexpectedly changed. Each side needs to remember that business, as well as life, has its twists and turns, and sometimes you need to be flexible.

However, changes may have an impact on how you and the client will work together. It may be that your contract addresses that; for example, it might provide payment by length, with additional material generating additional revenue. But what if someone wants to cut an assignment after you are in it and have committed the time that can no longer be contracted out to another client? Does the contract specify a minimum flat fee? Is there an expectation that as the scope drops, your pay drops? Does a flat fee bring into question whether an expansion will gain increased payment?

It's normal for questions to arise, and the time to bring them up is when they occur. Do not continue working until you resolve them. In the case I saw mentioned, the writer was asked to provide more material with an editor saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'll cut it down." Then, suddenly, the editor decided to run something twice the length and now, supposedly, had to get the top editor to authorize something. More likely, the editor in question was hoping the writer wouldn't say anything, and once the writer did, was now caught and didn't want to bring the situation up with the EIC. I had this happen recently with a corporate client that wanted to pretend that some commissioned work didn't happen, asking to be billed for one part and not another.

You cannot let this sort of situation pass, even if you think that you will permanently lose the client. Not only do you set a precedent, but you will feel terrible for letting yourself be bullied. There is a world of clients out there, and no matter what the size of one, you don't need to do business with it. Bring up the problem when it arises and don't meekly accept your fate.

This reminds me of a story an academic and consultant told me of a small manufacturer doing business with Wal-Mart. Over a few years, the retailer pushed for one concession after another. Eventually the small company said, "We're sorry, but it's no longer profitable for us to do business this way," and it walked away. The tiny margin on the volume didn't make up for all the hoop-jumping. Wal-Mart pointed out that it could find another supplier, and did. Interestingly, though, a couple of years later, the chain went back to the manufacturer, asking if it would be willing to take the business under better terms. What happened was that Wal-Mart had forgotten what the small company had remembered - that you have to look at the value of the entire relationship. When it went with another vendor, there were huge customer service problems that increased the overall cost of doing business, no matter how cheap the products seemed to be. But even if Wal-Mart hadn't come back, the company would have been better off, because it didn't back down from what it knew was its own interest.

Whether a client comes back or not is immaterial. There is more to life than money, and to keep your own self-respect, treat your business dealings as though you have the right to equitable treatment. If you won't, no one else will, either.