Standing in line at the supermarket recently, I saw no less than five magazines doing a cover story on the death of actor and singer Cory Monteith. In fact, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that one could not pick up a single publication in that line without getting some kind of feature on the young man, each one handled with a varying degree of respect.
One might suggest that the sheer amount of coverage is an inherently bad thing, but that's not what bothered me. Lots of people were fans of the young man, so naturally any publications that are focused on celebrity culture would do their own spin on the story. No, what the death of Monteith made obvious is that, when standing in line at the store, there is very little other than celebrity gossip on display.
It sells, and it's there because that's what moves in a grocery store. It has likely been proven over many years that this celebrity obsession moves units. Most weeks, there are all sorts of different celebrity gossip stories, so nobody notices how we have a wide variety of magazines offering the same thing. It's all a bunch of nonsense about the trials and tribulations of the rich and famous, and they sell well enough that this kind of magazine has slowly taken over the entirety of the checkout line.
However, given changing demographics and the different way people consume information, why isn't there a greater variety of publications at the checkout line? In a battle to get eyes and convince people to put a magazine on the conveyor, it's the right time to start reconsidering exactly what makes sense on the checkout line. Celebrity gossip might be a reliable seller, but it's not going to sell to everyone, and there are enough sources for it that the checkout line is going to be increasingly limited in the amount that it can actually support. It's time to start thinking about what else people want to read, and if we can get publications with a bit more variation in the impulse section of the store.
I can't claim to know what the best combination of ideas are, and that would vary at the various stores anyway. The solution is easy, just start experimenting with different magazines up by the counter, and see what gets a response. A magazine that has different content might draw eyes, and might become an impulse purchase, even for those who actively ignore the cavalcade of gossip that assaults their eyes. There is a risk it might not sell, but such an experiment would not take up too much real estate, so there would not be a substantial loss of profit. There's a reward for taking that risk, so someone should do it.
Since nobody wants to risk changing what works, I can't anticipate a big change to the grocery line magazine selection. Apart from the death of Weekly World News and the introduction of Hello, the magazine most likely to say really nice things about the Queen, the selection at the checkout hasn't changed for as long as I can remember. But people change, and the world is a different place than it was even 10 years ago. As a result, the maddening refusal to move beyond an assortment of magazines about famous lives seems frustratingly old fashioned. It's time to start trying new content, and get new people impulse buying things at checkout time.
