THE ECONOMIST BOYCOTTED IN BRAZIL - deepening the investigation on the modus operandi

I interviewed several owners of newsstands this morning in the rich west area of São Paulo (city) and this confirmed my arguments about the rationale behind the boycott on The Economist print edition on focus here, which was certainly imposed in view of the elements of the magazine coverage that touch Dilma Rousseff personally (cover, puns with her name, etc.)rather than as a reaction to the figures of the economy or the futures around politics no one in Brazil can now disguise or deny.

Through this morning interviews I found out that the owner of the business(newsstand) does not choose how many editions (one, two or three) he can have available to sell. He is totally in the hands of the distributor, because we are talking about an imported magazine.

This fact also makes a boycott easier than we have described previously. Not four or five phone calls sets the scheme, but a single one is the right count.

One of those owners said that he is going to receive the latest edition on Monday (18). Only this edition. Later, by talking to another owner, I found out that this is the case when the sales at the newsstand is poor. "And if you do not sell at all, the distributor, without much delay or even a note of good-bye, will simply put you aside and will take the magazines to other stands that sell",clarified he.

Another told me the normal operation means having the two latest editions. Weekly (on Tuesdays, occasionally on the following day,Wednesday)the distributor takes away the second latest the owner has and replaces it with the newest edition, so that, again, he holds the two latest editions.

One of the stand owners was particularly outspoken, straight about the modus operandi. I have never talked to him before, even though we knew each other by sight. He also made clear owners are tied up: 'If I run out of stock of any edition of The Economist - including the special The World in 2016 - I cannot go ask the distributor for more to sell. It is up to him [the distributor] to determine when I will have the magazines as well as when the balance of each edition is to be settled.'

At such 'moment of truth', the owner declares how many magazines he has sold, returning the ones not sold.Out of his pocket he takes part of the earnings and pays the distributor (he pays nothing when receiving the magazines).

Pretty clear: he keeps the surplus on the number of magazines sold and the ones not sold means a zero. Zero at that instant. Later, zero will make the distributor skip that stand when distributing a later edition of the magazine the owner had failed to sell.

It is thus true the owner does not lose money if he does not sell. Conversely, it is also true that if he does not sell, nothing is earned.

The boycott on the "Dilma's edition" delayed the settlement of one or two editions - neither pain, nor gain - and postponed for three weeks, also attested my interviewees, the enter of new editions - money that would have entered did not.

"Muita gente pediu a da Dilma [na capa]" (Many folks asked the magazine with Dilma on the cover)
"So you lost a lot of sales", I check. The answer was a firm confirmation with his head.

In a now vivid contrast with such testimonies, the words of the employee with a big bookstore - which we mentioned in the post here updated - must be taken as unreliable. Refreshing, he affirmed that the "edition about Brazil" is going to be available next Monday (18). He had also offered the dubious excuse that the distributor was on vacation and "has now returned".

Such employee's prospect about the so much awaited (in Brazil) edition under boycott, i.e. "Brazil's fall", made us consider that the delay of three weeks could be extended (by keeping the pace of only one edition per week, without skipping any).

However, our investigation today clearly showed that this is not to be expected.
Having at most the two latest editions for sale means the edition "Brazil's fall" will not be available. There are now three editions of The Economist issued this month, none of them made available by the distributor that controls the area of São Paulo we investigated.

I am reassured by letting you know the results of my further investigation on the silent boycott on The Economist in Brazil. We all are now left with the much easier task of just waiting a little more - until Monday, for another visit to the chain store, further till Tuesday for the follow up on the street businesses. And see.