All consumers have a choice in buying Microsoft or Wal-Mart products or services, but the way these two companies positioned themselves means that, in reality, both have tremendous power and influence in their respective industries. Like any giant, the more power there is, the more potential for abuse of that power. Wal-Mart and Microsoft both have been accused of unsavory behavior and both continue to be under the public microscope today as well.

But, when I heard that Wal-Mart wanted to have access to a couple of editorial pages in the magazines that were sold in its UK Asda division, something inside my mind twitched. Why on earth would Asda want to interfere with the pages of magazines sold on its shelves? Could this be the start of something profound? A few pages in a magazine may sound harmless, but is it?

Grasping for straws that could turn into pipelines

Asda's demands have been pretty forthright: two pages of editorial and advertising space in the magazine titles of its choosing. Since a handful of large publishers are responsible for the lion's share of magazines sold in many countries, doling out even a single page of content to your main distribution partner can lead to loss of revenues and, to a point, control. Would any other company get by with asking the publishers of the magazines on its shelves to give them a few pages in some large-selling magazine titles? Why would Asda even care what is in the pages of the magazines it sells?

Another odd position Asda has taken was the announcement of a "space contribution" that would require thousands of dollars in payments to give magazine titles placement in its stores. Along with that, newer magazine titles would be forced to pay just to have placement inside Asda stores. Is this a way Wal-Mart is exerting influence over Asda to make more profit per square foot inside Asda stores? After all, the world's largest retailer started removing hundreds of smaller magazine titles from its U.S. shelves earlier this year. Are magazines just not that profitable?

Are Wal-Mart and Asda both trying to maximize sales and profit from the in-store areas where magazines are currently sold? That certainly would be the easy explanation. Regarding Asda, a senior magazine publishing source said "Asking for a contribution for each line [magazine title] in a new store is just not economically viable." This reminds one of the "protection money" grade school bullies would charge to weak students -- teaching them about extortion at an early age.

Some other publishing executives stated that "The most annoying thing is asking for editorial space in magazines. The implications of that are huge because Tesco and Sainsbury would want it too and then all of a sudden magazines are full of advertorials." In other words, one request from Asda would turn into a handful of requests from the remainder of the UK's grocery chains. It's the classic "opening a can of worms" problem.

The magazine market's response

Although the publishing industry feels that larger retailers believe they are awash with money, the publishing houses argue that there is no way it can pay all of the different amounts for magazine title shelf entry and a stipend back to Asda should a magazine not move very well off the shelves. Is Asda trying to bully most magazines except the high-volume ones right off the shelves at its stores?

In Wal-Mart's case, inventory turns are a crucial metric and it would make sense for all merchandised areas to be studied to ensure every single square foot of selling space is being profit-maximized. Perhaps that attitude is creeping into its Asda division? My guess is that Asda's new stance is exactly that: the result of a simple business review or a resetting of sales per square foot metric. Now that Wal-Mart has jettisoned one thousand magazine titles from its shelves, apparently magazine sales just don't justify themselves in an age of instant information sources (mostly, the internet).

Are the maladies currently being experienced by the newspaper publishing industry taking hold in the magazine industry? Are readers simply not buying magazines at the rate they have in the past? Are retailers making sure that every square inch of selling space is being used to its full capacity? Are magazine shelves taking up too much space in Wal-Mart and Asda stores without the profit margin to support all those titles moving forward? The answer to all of those questions, at least partially, is yes.

So, the gut feeling from where I sit is that Wal-Mart and Asda is not looking for editorial influence in magazine titles more than more profit from the shelves those magazines sit on day after day. What's your feel for this situation? Sound off below in comments and let it out.

Join me here next week for another edition of The Wal-Mart Weekly. Until then, have a safe week.