Subscribe to RSS 2.0
I have absolutely had enough
posted by Emma on 17 Oct 2007
of returns. I am seriously furious about them today - because of the sheer, utter, bloody wastefulness and stupidity of this industry to still be operating in such a mindless, thoughtless, incompetent way. It's SO RETARDED to print thousands of books, send them on a lorry somewhere, let them sit unboxed in the back room, send them back, pulp them, raise a credit note, publisher doesn't get paid.
Not only does the publisher not get paid: the publisher has spent the following money:
Cost of print
Cost of shipping from printer
Cost of storage
Cost of shipping to retailer
Cost of pulping (3% of net receipts) or
Cost of putting back into stock (9% of net receipts)
Cost of having a high returns profile (distributor uses that as a way of assigning 'unidentified credit notes'. Who knows why they are unidentified - because of the genius Industry Returns Initiative, maybe, that only aims to automate, rather than reduce, returns?)
Cost of paying the royalty to authors based on a sales figure which slips backwards
If it wouldn't spell the end of my company, I would switch - today - to firm sale only. But it would. No one would buy books in any quantity from us - because they're unable to forecast stock, because they've never had to learn and because their ranges are so wide.
Damn, it makes me mad. Stupid, stupid publishing industry.
(Oh, and if anyone's out there thinking 'well, it doesn't have to be that way,' then please, share your insight in the comments - that's what they're there for.)
Comments: 5
Well I know you're not Bloomsbury but I was intrigued by their cap on returns for Harry Potter.
This seems like a good halfway house to me. Say only 30% of the order could be returned (it was 10% with HP), you'd have some security you had sold 70% of your orders, some of the risk would be transferred to the retailer and yet the retailer could also overstock so as to create one of those enticing piles of books that supposedly gets the attention of the passerby. Of course your orders might be smaller but so would your costs be. This would probably only work as an industry wide initiative....so fat chance really but there is the precedent.
You could also try firm sale with some accounts I suppose. Add up the costs of all those returns and see whether you could increase your margin significantly if the books were firm sale. There are some accounts out there who will take firm sale at a higher discount.
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew | October 17, 2007 01:04 PM
Hear, hear Em,
I'm with you. I think capping, while a nice middle ground is ultimately a bad idea. Over time the cap would be bent and retailers would pressure us to give a little more. All assuming that we could impose it to begin with!
Eoin
Posted by: Eoin Purcell | October 17, 2007 01:47 PM
I'm no publisher but...
Would it be absolutely groundbreaking for the retailer to pay for their innaccuracy in demand forecasting - by paying some of your costs on the returned stock?
Perhaps they could be persuaded to pay you for returned stock in return for (slightly) lower prices or higher discount from you. Or is this mad?
It seems that there's no discincentive for a retailer to wildly over order to cover its position, with no cost penalty. This doesn't sound like an appropriate allocation of risk (ie, all the publisher's). Trouble is, with an entrenched modus operandi, it will be tough to change without bribing (oops - incentivising) them. Has to be a win-win in there somewhere though.
Posted by: John A-W | October 17, 2007 03:20 PM
And another thing...
How many Harry Potters were returned anyway. Hardly any risk there, I'd have thought.
And I agree that pulping is the work of the devil.
Posted by: John A-W | October 17, 2007 03:22 PM
When I first got involved in this industry, returns just befuddled me... and in a way I'm glad I don't deal with bookshops.
But, I still want Waterstones to stock my books...
Who actually started the whole returns thing - and why did the publishers at the time agree to it?
Posted by: Chris | October 17, 2007 03:36 PM