Vendor Survey 2001
As the old nursery rhyme has it: “Three wise men of Gotham / Went to sea in a bowl; / If the bowl had been stronger / My story had been longer.” The ever trenchant respondents to Publishing Trends’ annual survey on publisher services to wholesalers and retailers have cast publishers in the image of those merry fools of Gotham, setting sail not in a bowl but on a schooner made of spreadsheets. As they blithely pursue efficiencies, say booksellers, publishers are sinking amid evaporating sales representation and operational fumbles that are putting the industry comically out of touch with the real world. “Publishers are trying to save money by hiring work-at-home moms,” one account typically relates. “Unfortunately, they’re moms first, reps second. Wake up, New York.”
Indeed, a blend of Monty Python and Grand Guignol characterized this year’s responses, which, though scattered with Ds and Fs — in fact, average grades slipped a notch — were by and large free of last year’s splenetic rage. Confirming the theme of disconnection, we note that this year’s question on Internet resources — a category suggested by an independent bookseller concerned about online sales support and links from publishers to account sites — was largely ignored by accounts, even after we specifically explained its import. While some houses have plowed resources into online databases, it seems accounts aren’t firing up their browsers (but see below for a few exceptions). As a national chain explains, “We utilize vendors’ web sites on a very infrequent basis.”
Lonelier at the Top
Backlash against New York jarred survey champion Random House. A regional chain cut to the chase: “They want to run our business for us! NY attitude sucks, but rep compensates.” As a wholesaler explains further, Random is “attempting to micromanage their business, and the result is that they are not providing info as needed to us. Their performance is perceived to be lacking compared to previous years.” The heavy artillery of Bertelsmann’s corporate warship prompted other complaints about meddling management and stricter contractual terms. As an independent bookseller notes, “New procedures for ‘managed’ titles confusing. Refused returns have increased greatly this year. Inflexibility of credit dept. lowers grade.” Meanwhile, last year’s “SAP disaster” seems to have been downgraded to a mere calamity. “Warehouse problems were horrible, now OK, but still more inaccuracies in shipments than most large publishers,” one account says, confirming the Cs cropping up for Random’s shipping, which received low As and Bs last year. “Great sales force and Internet support,” a bookseller adds, “but inaccurate shipping, a host of receiving problems, and consistent technical ordering glitches make for overall lower evaluation.”
As a wholesaler marveled, “Amazing that two good companies can merge and slip in all areas other than sales and marketing.” Respondents observed that Random’s combined warehouse still does not match levels achieved two years ago, in the pre-merger era. A national chain notes, “Warehouse problems in 2000 were made worse by lack of proactive communication between operations areas.” But the warehouse isn’t the only problem — behemoth lists are again a source of dismay: “All Little Random imprints in one sales call is a tremendous amount for the rep to present and the buyer to absorb.” And not all reps are created equal, even in Random-land: “BDD department is excellent. The trade rep is very responsive and timely; she is even taking our orders for the Random rep.”
Ranking second overall, Simon & Schuster won accolades for improved fulfillment and operations. “Old reliable,” one bookseller sighed, while another cheered, “The best all-around.” A national chain notes that S&S “finally resolved most of the endemic database problems,” and a bookseller adds: “Turnover in credit dept. has been a horror, but sales dept., publicity, and fulfillment are commendable.” But not everyone sent flowers with their survey. “Prompt Plus was very reliable for new release ship dates, but is now bad,” says a bookseller, apparently forced to work through reps even though better discounts would apply to EDI orders: “Reps getting better ship dates just recently. Event ordering by phone gets 45% whereas EDI gets 46% (so we go through rep which is not the most efficient).” Others faced “continual shipping problems” and hassles receiving credit for shortages, while a wholesaler expressed “growing concern with out-of-stock titles, defective books, and price discrepancies.” Still, a chain looked upon such vagaries with a perfectly saintly attitude: “Great house with opportunity to improve.”
Mixed messages hit HarperCollins, with breezy comments such as “refreshingly competent” and “no complaints” accompanied by grouchy rants: “VERY unreliable on ship dates for new releases; in general has gone downhill in past several years in most service aspects.” On the whole, Harper gained ground for complete statements, prompt ship times, and improved stock availability, and was one of the few houses commended for Internet services. One indie praised Harper as a “very proactive Internet resource,” while a wholesaler added, “online support great.” Unfortunately, “Availability of titles still a big issue,” a wholesaler writes. “Serious problems with stock allocations, reprints, and initial order cuts,” says another. And the incredible shrinking sales force has caused the ultimate lapse. “We have very little contact with this company — no longer have a trade rep,” a bookseller writes. “We just don’t have the time to handle our needs for these titles via telephone or the Internet.” An indie scolds: “No representation in Texas except telephone reps! BAD!!” Consequently, a national chain observes: “Fiscal conservatism compromises commitment to sales.”
Fourth-ranked Houghton Mifflin found comparatively smooth sailing, with a national chain applauding the publisher’s “good sales, good books,” and another bookseller chiming in, “They are great with sales! Rep in touch all the time; have really gotten better in the past few years (after warehouse disaster with PRI)!” Quibbles included remarks that Houghton’s packing slips are “very difficult to read” and one particularly sour bookseller’s note: “Timeliness of shipments needs improvement — worse than anyone else in this survey.” Perhaps most worrying was the comment from this underserviced bookseller: “I don’t have a sales rep for this vendor. Nor do we frequently order from them.” Quid pro quo, eh? Mayday broadcasts for reps lost at sea also haunted Time Warner Trade. As a regional chain puts it, “I could not remember my rep’s name when I filled out this survey . . . how’s that for service?” Another bookseller notes that TWTP “seems to know least about how a bookstore operates.” (National chains seem to fare better with this publisher, as one praises a “strong focus on sales and marketing,” and another calls the publisher a “leader in information exchange.”) As far as the rest of the business, a wholesaler lauds the publisher’s “extremely prompt shipping,” though an indie cautions that “shipments are very fast, but accuracy has been sacrificed.”
Meanwhile, grades for St. Martin’s remained mostly unchanged, an unfortunate result considering the failing marks it received last year. This time around, complaints were aptly summarized by one bookseller: “Dealing with Holtzbrinck is a constant nightmare. Their excellent sales reps are undermined by an incompetent back office.” Consequently, as another bookseller adds, “We won’t buy directly from them except frontlist, and they still routinely lose our orders.” Concerns still circled around the publisher’s long-promised but apparently still missing-in-action direct EDI link. “VHPS needs to implement an EDI ordering system,” a bookseller urges. “VHPS and Norton are the only major trade publishers that do not have this capability.” Among other concerns, several booksellers sounded this desperate plea: “Horrible freight costs — please — go to a standard discount with no freight charge.” A national wholesaler also cites “ongoing barcode problems,” while an indie complains that “co-op is a joke.” Speaking of co-op, Workman raised hackles on that issue, as a wholesaler explains: “There is extra concern in regard to the recently announced co-op policy, which is not compatible with the industry.” Alas, Workman was again chastised for its antiquated procedures. “They must be the only company in the world still using carbon paper!” one account stammers. “Makes me nuts! Did they buy a 30-year supply in 1975??”
Off the Shoals?
Penguin Putnam pulled itself out of a last-place ranking last year and on balance received kinder, gentler criticism this year. “Warehouse finally working well,” says a wholesaler. “Still a few shipping problems, but much better than before,” adds another, and a bookseller says: “Trade rep delivers the results we need and keeps me posted via the Internet.” Indeed, a national chain deemed Penguin “a leader in information exchanges.” But we’re not off the shoals yet. “Steadily improving, but still the most bureaucratic and slow-moving of all the major publishers we deal with,” one bookseller writes, while accounts cited customer service reps’ “attitude problems” and unremitting paperwork disputes. “They are impossible with processing claims, for both returns and co-op,” one bookseller explains. “We’ve had a group of claims that they haven’t processed for a year (at two months we called; we’ve sent copies several times; people leave; calls are not returned; promises to fix the problem are not kept; now they’re trying to say the claims are ‘too old’).” And though “ship times have improved from last year,” a wholesaler says, duplicate shipments and unordered merchandise persist.
Prayers for Scholastic to ditch Penguin Putnam’s fulfillment services were answered on July 1, when a new back-office agreement went into effect with HarperCollins. The industry response? “Thank god they left Penguin!” exults one bookseller. “Alliance with HarperCollins has helped,” says another. In any case, post-Harry improvements boosted Scholastic’s grades in almost all areas. “Overall, given the challenge, I give them pretty high marks for handling Harry Potter,” an account explains. However, a wholesaler cites “continued problems with sales rep for our account” and another regrets a “combative ‘us against them’ attitude from sales management.”
Finally, PGW again draws exasperated grunts from accounts. “Can’t seem to get act together,” one bookseller says. “Never seem to have the bestselling books in stock,” adds another. A national chain notes that PGW “tries hard,” but the “nature of multiple sales distributors is inherently difficult, particularly in inventory management.” Missing paperwork, mis-numbered cartons, and slow shipping of backlist orders from the West coast to the East topped the laundry list of complaints. While PGW “has improved turnaround time,” a bookseller says, “customer service staff can be terse,” and a regional chain blasts “prehistoric” EDI systems. Others were more lenient, even in the face of adversity. “They will ship one book in ten boxes instead of ten books in one box,” an account says, “but overall performance OK.” Fortunately for PGW’s sake, signs of complaisance were noted elsewhere. “Poor fulfillment, but we try to be understanding,” a bookseller says. Such tenderness despite PGW’s many shortcomings may in fact be a matter of geography. After all, Berkeley is a world away from Gotham.
