BoSacks Speaks Out: The Rest of the World Does Not Worship at the Altar of Returns

We have a habit in this business. We take a structural flaw, dress it up, and call it a system.

Consider returns. For decades, we printed far beyond demand, shipped it everywhere, celebrated “presence,” and quietly accepted that a large percentage would come back stripped, pulped, or written off. Historically, U.S. sell-through has often lived in the 20 to 30 percent range for many mass titles. That is not a rounding error. That is the model.

We print ten, sell three, and call it distribution.

That is not efficiency. That is ritual.

What the Rest of the World Actually Does

Out of curiosity, this weekend, I revisited global practices, not the mythology, the reality. The differences are not philosophical. They are operational.

United Kingdom
Still sale or return. No magic there. The difference is discipline. The system, largely consolidated under Smiths News and Menzies Distribution, uses store-level data, traffic patterns, and historical sales to control draw.
Well-managed categories often push sell-through into the 60 percent range and, in strong cases, higher. That is not luck. That is math applied consistently.

Japan
Also a returns market. Also disciplined. Distribution flows through centralized players like Nippan and Tohan. Inventory is constantly adjusted, replenishment is precise, and data moves quickly.
Add one more factor: resale price maintenance. Fixed pricing removes discount chaos and stabilizes value perception. The result is tighter control and, in many cases, sell-through that can exceed 70 percent on efficiently managed titles. Waste still exists, but it is managed, not celebrated.

Australia
Same sale-or-return framework, led by distributors like Gordon and Gotch. The difference is speed. Electronic reporting cycles are faster, and publishers see results in weeks.
That timing matters. Adjustments happen before optimism becomes inventory.

China
The “no returns” myth I believed in for years, does not hold up. What exists instead is strict channel control and a lack of sentimentality. If something does not sell, it is corrected quickly.
Control replaces guesswork.

Let’s Be Honest About the U.S.

The United States did not invent returns, but we perfected inefficiency.

Sell-through in the 20 to 30 percent range is not a failure of demand. It is a byproduct of how we operate. We overprint, over-distribute, and accept waste as the cost of visibility.

We also layered in structural friction.

Distribution is concentrated among a few dominant players, including Hudson News and A360 Media. That concentration limits flexibility.

Then come the economics. Scan-Based Trading, SBT, shifts risk downstream while encouraging volume upstream. Add “Cost to Serve,” CTS, fees, upfront discounts, and display charges, and you have a system that extracts margin before the first copy sells.

Put it together and you get what I call a quiet tax. A trash tax.
We subsidize inefficiency by design.

The Structural Gap, Data vs Habit

Here is the uncomfortable comparison.

Global markets that rely on disciplined draw management, precise store-level data, and fast feedback loops routinely achieve sell-through rates north of 60 percent, sometimes approaching 70 percent in tightly controlled categories.

The U.S. system, by contrast, often operates at half that efficiency.

This is not about culture. It is about process.

Other markets treat distribution as a dynamic system. We treat it as a legacy entitlement.

What the U.S. Could Learn, Without Pretending It’s Easy

Print to evidence, not ego
Granular data exists. Use it. A chain in Chicago is not a rural outlet in Kansas.

Speed beats hindsight
A fast correction saves money. A delayed report guarantees repeat mistakes.

Returns are not the enemy, indiscipline is
Every market has returns. Not every market tolerates waste.

Retailers are partners, not clearance bins
They know what sells in their stores. Their data is more valuable than your assumptions.

Volume is not visibility
More copies do not create demand. They create returns.

The Bigger Structural Problem

Returns are the symptom. Incentives are the disease.

We built a system that rewards oversupply. High print runs once signaled strength. Today they often signal denial.

Margins are thinner. Retail space is tighter. Magazines now compete in an environment where attention is scarce and shelf space is transactional.

Meanwhile, the economics punish restraint. Print less and risk losing presence. Print more and absorb the waste. That is not strategy. That is inertia with a spreadsheet.

The Real Lesson

No serious market has eliminated returns. That is not the point.

The point is discipline.

The UK did not reinvent distribution. Japan did not eliminate risk. Australia did not discover a secret formula. They all did something far less glamorous. They managed their numbers.

We can do the same. The tools are already in place.

What is missing is the willingness to stop confusing excess with reach.

The adult question remains:

How many copies can this store actually sell?

Answer that honestly, and the system starts to fix itself.

Ignore it, and we will continue paying the trash tax, one unsold copy at a time.

Bo’s Final Thought
Returns are not the scandal. Designing a system that depends on waste is.