Distribution Agreements

I have created this blog to foster an open dialog on the matter of distribution agreements being required for all bulk circulation.

Copies distributed in bulk (2 or more copies) to a location for redistribution (take-away) or on-site use (public place) must be documented by the obvious printing invoice to prove manufacture and shipping receipt to prove sending to the location, but also the not so obvious “DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT”.

This agreement states that the location will receive a specified number of copies (no limits) at a stated frequency and what the location will do with the copies.  These agreements must be with each location and not a central point of command as in a chain/franchise environment for all locations.  Further, the agreement must be renewed at least once every three years.  It is an opt-in agreement, not an opt-out agreement.  Agreements must be on hand for 95% of the recipients and 95% of the copies. This requirement has been in place at BPA for more than a decade.  See BPA rule C7.19 in the BPA Consumer Media Rules.

Why?  Well, frankly, advertisers have been burned by bulk distribution that never occurred. Copies were received at locations and then trashed or placed in storage never seeing the light of day.  Advertisers asked BPA to add a level of assurance that locations acknowledge that they are willing to receive copies and will place them for consumption.

We have been discussing the value and practicality of this rule in committee discussions this year.  I believe that rather than require an opt-in once every three years from 95% of the locations (and 95% of the copies), an opt-out on an annual basis is the more effective way to proceed. 

If opt-out is the process to put forward to the Board, it is my opinion that media buyers may not be comfortable with the control of the opt-out returns in the hands of the publishers or their agents.  There may be a perceived lack of independence with the party controlling the returns opting out. 

For this reason I recommend that the opt-out communication process be under BPA’s control (or another independent third party) and BPA be the direct recipient of any opt-out returns.  In this way, BPA can control the opportunity for locations to respond and be recorded in a database for use in subsequent audits.  Of course all responses will be provided to the participating publisher. 

If this change is accepted, I envision BPA’s confirmations staff providing a service to the industry by conducting opt-out communication with public place locations.  For agents, BPA can consolidate databases at BPA and conduct one mailing rather than have each agent conduct separate mailings.  This should save the industry expense.  Further, confirmations by BPA audit staff would no longer be required at the time of audit, saving cost for the publisher.

Prospectively, the public place dB at BPA would be maintained by BPA with annual additions by agents and publishers.  The identity of all locations opting out of receiving magazines in general, or specific titles, would be transmitted to the agents and publishers for suppression in their own dBs.  At the time of audit, a selection of locations from any one magazine can be checked by our electronic audit staff to the opt-out dB thus verifying each agent and publisher is in compliance.

I want to know what you think.  Click COMMENT below and let me know.  Let others know of the blog so that we can have a meaningful dialog.