Last week I quickly wrote a diary seeking to draw attention to the pending chaos about to afflict the magazine industry. Though I realize we adherents of the dead tree society are a minority population here, the chaos continues and an update seems briefly in order.
The story so far, in brief: Source InterLink and Anderson News, two large regional distributors of magazines, sought in January to impose a 7 cents per issue surcharge. Several large publishers declined that option, which was, apparently, taken quickly from the table. The damage appears to have been done, however, as Anderson News employees arrived on Monday to find a note on the door indicating publishers had quit shipping magazine to their facility, and that they should go home.
Since Anderson delivers roughly half the magazines to the bookstore for which I buy magazines, and since I once was co-publisher of a magazine handled by Anderson, this is a matter of some interest. But let me, below the fold, suggest why we should all care. And expand the story, a bit.
Here's why this should matter to this community: Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, Foreign Policy, National Review, Reason, The Nation, The New Republic. As of May 2007, the most recent list I have on my computer, those titles were all distributed by Anderson News. None of those may be your personal favorites, but the landscape would be poorer in the absence of each of those titles. I've no way of knowing if they are still distributed by Anderson, but...
...at the turn of the 1990s, the English record label Rough Trade opened a distribution arm in the United States, and then began issuing records in North America as well. It didn't go well (and I've a hunch some of the failure had to do with a not very interesting but probably pretty expensive Butthole Surfers album, for which I have retained all these years a roll of promotional toilet paper). A number of independent record labels folded when Rough Trade proved unable to pay its bills.
...not so many years ago, independent magazine publishers formed a collective distribution company that was called, I believe, IPD (Independent Publishers' Distribution). My magazine managed to get shed of them before they failed, but when Punk Planet (to pick a favorite) shut down, one of the principal factors they cited was the bankruptcy of IPD.
The way distribution works, you get paid six months (or more) after your product goes on sale -- music or magazine (past that, I don't know, and it doesn't matter for these purposes). If there's demand for it, you produce more of 'em. The distributor, presumably, gets paid. The manufacturer, presumably gets paid, both on 30-day terms. You, who settle for six months because that's how long it takes and that's how the game is played, you don't get paid. Funny how that works.
So that's why I think this obscure corner of the publishing industry is worth paying attention to.
We all know print is in trouble. There was an interesting piece, I think in The New York Times a few days back talking about Newsweek's plans to reformat and reduce its rate base. Which may or may not work, but which sounded -- from my seat on the sidelines -- like good ideas. I have argued ceaselessly and to many deaf ears that we need print, that it's an essential component of our participatory democracy, and that the job print can and is supposed to do cannot easily be replaced by the models of web journalism presently available.
Again: The web is not a viable tool for niche publishing. It is only viable for mass audiences. By niche publishing I mean paid content of interest to markets of 10,000-150,000. I recognize that there are exceptions to this rule, and I am receptive to new ideas.
What appears to be happening if I can piece fragments together correctly is that the major publishers have chosen to move the bulk of their distribution to one or two national firms, and away from the regionals. This means that WalMart (to pick the most obvious example) will continue top get its allotments of People.
What this means for our bookstore is far less clear. Oddly enough, Anderson isn't answering its phones (my rep's phone gave me a fax tone, finally), and when last I looked had posted nothing on its website. We got our magazines last Friday, on schedule. We doubt they'll come this Friday.
This presents some problems, and I am reminded again that there are many books instructing entrepreneurs on the art of starting a business, but none (to my knowledge) explaining how ethically to shut one down. So...on our newsstand now are a number of titles distributed by Anderson. Some will sell, some not. Will they come pick them up? I doubt it, but if they don't, how are we to return and account for titles sold or unsold? (Many other distributors just have you rip the covers off unsold copies and mail those in for proof of non-purchase.) Will we be billed, and, if so, how and on what basis? Switching hats, if I were a publisher, how will I be treated? What accounting will I be offered?
In the meantime, we've been approached by two smaller regional distributors, one of whom is probably going to get our business, by default. They won't pick up and deliver, and we'll get over it. But my broader concern is what happens -- to them, and to us -- if the major publishers decide it's not worth feeding small newsstands. I need to be able to sell Time and Newsweek in order to create an environment in which I can sell the Washington Monthly and The Advocate, and I am fairly confident we're the only newsstand in a sixty mile radius where those titles can be found.
So. I wait for Anderson's blue tubs to come or not come on Friday. But I'm not holding my breath. And I'm darn glad they don't owe me money. Ah. And I feel badly for the employees now out on the streets. Those were mostly tough, physically demanding warehouse jobs that didn't pay well, but they were jobs...and I don't really have one of those right now. The juxtaposition of technological change and economic hard times is going to be brutal. But that's hardly news, is it.