Media Correction: Our Decision Not to Attend ICRS

Today, Christian Retailing ran a story about Thomas Nelson pulling out of the International Christian Retail Show (i.e., “ICRS,” the show formerly known as “CBA”). The article was entitled, “Thomas Nelson: ICRS Pull Out.” Unfortunately, it is not available online, so I can’t link to it.

Pencil and eraser

For the most part, CR got the story right. However, there are two items I’d like to correct. Both of them are near the end of the article. The first item is a simple omission.   A few weeks ago, in response to our decision not to attend ICRS, CBA issued a press release. The last paragraph said,

 

Despite Nelson’s short cancellation notice, CBA expects the six booth spaces reserved by the publisher to fill quickly.

The implication is that we left CBA high and dry. What neither CBA nor Christian Retailing noted is that we, in fact, had already paid for the booth space. As a result, CBA isn’t out a dime. If they re-sell the space—which clearly they expect to do—it’s all gravy.

Second, the article indirectly misquotes me. It says,

 

But Nelson pointed out that less than 5% of Nelson’s total Christian retail revenue comes from retailers who attend ICRS.

Not exactly. The way it is written the article suggests that Christian retail channel only accounts for 5% of Thomas Nelson’s total revenue. By inference, it is therefore unimportant to us. But this is not what I said, nor is it how we feel. Christian Retail is still our single largest sales channel.

In an email to the reporter, Eric Tiansay, I stated:

 

We personally visit our top 600 accounts [in the Christian Retail channel] four times a year. Those accounts represent 90% of our revenue in this channel. We phone the next 600 accounts 12 times a year. This takes the total up to 95% of our revenue in this channel. The remaining retail accounts—the ones that we would only see at ICRS—are less than 5% of our total Christian retail revenue. I am not saying they are unimportant, but no business can afford to structure its sales and marketing efforts around its smallest customers.

I don’t mind Christian Retailing summarizing my comments. I understand the space constraints of traditional media. But a more accurate summary would have been:

 

But Nelson pointed out that it connects on a regular basis with those accounts that represent 95% of its revenue in this channel. The remaining retail accounts—the ones that it would only see at ICRS—are less than 5% of its total Christian retail revenue.

The bottom line is two-fold: First, we honored our commitment to CBA by paying our booth fee, even though we will not be attending. Second, the Christian Retail channel is very important to us, but we believe we can reclaim the dollars that we spend at trade shows and do things that matter more to our best customers, like driving traffic and sell-through.

Update: Andy Butcher, editor for Christian Retailing, sent me the following email this morning (Tuesday, May 13). He has given me permission to post it here:

Mike,

Hi from Christian Retailing. I hope you are well. I just read your latest blog and wanted to follow up with you directly. Yes, we were squeezed for space; our original report was considerably longer before we had to cut it on the page. However it’s still our responsibility to be fair and accurate, of course.

We were inaccurate in paraphrasing that less than 5% of Nelson’s Christian retail revenues came from retailers who attend ICRS; as you point out, it should have been that less than 5% of revenues from Christian retailers with whom Nelson did not have other regular contact came from ICRS.

We intend to run a correction in that regard in our next issue. You’re welcome to submit a letter to the editor, too, of course if you would want to do that.

Sincerely,

Andy Butcher

I have to hand it to Andy for stepping up and taking responsibility. In my experience, this is rare. I should also point out that Christian Retailing gave us a tremendous amount of ink in the current issue. I am grateful for that.

Want to launch your own blog or upgrade to self-hosted WordPress? Watch my free, twenty-minute screencast. I show you exactly how to do it. You don’t need any technical knowledge. Click here to get started.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are snarky, offensive, or off-topic. If in doubt, read My Comments Policy.

  • http://www.beyondJEMS.wordpress.com Amy Halleran

    Michael, out of curiousity does this publication have ties to ICRS or CBA?

  • http://www.freemoneyfinance.com FMF

    I understand and agree with you on the first point. However, the second seems clear to me that what they are saying is the same as what you are saying. Their quote:

    “But Nelson pointed out that less than 5% of Nelson’s total Christian retail revenue comes from retailers who attend ICRS.”

    I get out of this:

    *Nelson’s Christian retail volume is some unstated percentage of the company’s total sales. It could be 80% or it could be 10%. We can’t tell by the statement.

    *Only 5% of Nelson’s total Christian retail revenue (whatever amount it is) comes from retailers that attend ICRS.

    *My conclusion from this: no wonder Nelson doesn’t want to attend ICRS — only a small percentage of their business (only 5% of some other percent) attends it. I wouldn’t want to attend either.

    Just my two cents. I’ve always known you to be fair and able to see both sides of an issue, so maybe it’s just a poor reaction to a perceived attack. But my take is that they said the same thing that you did on point #2.

  • http://www.michaelhyatt.com Michael Hyatt

    @Amy: No Christian Retailing is published by Strang Communications. They are independent of CBA.

    @FMF: The problem is that nearly all of our accounts attend ICRS, the big as well as the small. My point is that, for the most part, we are seeing these accounts in other contexts. The way it is written it sounds like either only the small accounts (the 5%) attend ICRS or that those who do attend represent 5% of our sales. Neither is true.

    Thanks.

  • Jim Thomason

    Not a comment on your ICRS rebuttal, but glad to see you’ve been reading “The Power and the Glory”, one of the great Christian-themed novels of our age. Since its long-since in paperback release (my last Graham Greene paperback cost me $4.95), I highly recommend it to anyone interested in pondering grace-based vs. legalistic theology.

  • http://lashawnbarber.com La Shawn

    Don’t you hate it when misquotes are set in print-stone? Corrections are always too little, too late.

  • http://www.michaelhyatt.com Michael Hyatt

    @La Shawn: I think that used to be true. But with the Internet and blogs that has all changed.

    In the past, I would have asked for a correction. Then, if the magazine agreed, they would print one. In 8-point type. In the back of the magazine. A month later. Regardless, both issues of the magazine would be thrown away and few would ever think about it again.

    Today, everything has changed. I can almost instantly correct the record by blogging on the topic. It’s on the front page of my site and will end up in my archives, indexed by Google, and discoverable by anyone who looks, even years from now. And, since I have roughly 15,000 unique visitors a week, I can tell my side of the story to the audience that matters most—my own.

    I prefer the new media.

    Thanks for your comments,

    Mike

  • http://christianfictionblogalliance.com Bonnie Calhoun

    I had read another article of the announcement. I think it was in PW, and they stated the facts correctly, so I too noticed the discrepancies.

  • http://ctethozduugx.com/ csyirvb

    WxJauO jbvatysiowys, [url=http://omqgswlyuina.com/]omqgswlyuina[/url], [link=http://pfyvbcbsvnzy.com/]pfyvbcbsvnzy[/link], http://fccessfysids.com/