Dark clouds on the PAP horizon
A review of the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) at Canadian Heritage raises the possibility that later this spring, the postal subsidy could be removed from "request" circulation publications -- largely trade magazines -- and from more than 200 consumer magazine titles who fall below a certain threshold because of their small circulation size. The possible changes are the result of recommendations made during a routine 5-year review of PAP and the Canada Magazine Fund by the private consulting firm R. A. Malatest & Associates.
The argument against continuing PAP support for "request" titles is that the subsidy doesn't meet the government's goals in running the program; it is argued that that it costs more to deliver the subsidy to small magazines than the subsidy is worth to them. Most of the titles in question have circulations less than 1,000.
A more complete summary is available from mastheadonline. [UPDATE: The full document is available from Canadian Heritage's website]
The argument against continuing PAP support for "request" titles is that the subsidy doesn't meet the government's goals in running the program; it is argued that that it costs more to deliver the subsidy to small magazines than the subsidy is worth to them. Most of the titles in question have circulations less than 1,000.
A more complete summary is available from mastheadonline. [UPDATE: The full document is available from Canadian Heritage's website]
posted by D. B. Scott at
11:35 am
3 Comments:
The small magazines recommendation is very surprising, since a lot of what PAP is supposedly intended for is supporting the availability of Canadian culture. From their website:
"The PAP helps to connect Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast, by helping all Canadians have access to the rich literature, fine reporting and fierce opinions contained in Canadian magazines and community newspapers."
I would argue that Canada's tiniest magazines tend to be more 'cultural' in focus than many of our largest publications, particularly in literature, the arts, and in reflecting diversity of opinion.
If Heritage is spending more to administer the small mags than their portion of the subsidy, Heritage should probably be looking at their admin costs, not cutting those smallest magazines out of a program that is working.
Why not further reduce the reporting requirements and oversight that are in place to ensure that public moneys aren't being squandered, in those situations where the moneys in question are so tiny that they're dwarfed by the cost of reporting and accounting for those funds?
My concern is that the CMF review will similarly say that giving, say, $12,000 to a small magazine is hardly worth the cost and effort. However, we must remember Scott's Law: No bureaucrat ever got into trouble by not giving out money.
As chair of the Mags Cda Postal Subcommittee, I would note that Mags Cda is preparing some comments on the PAP Evaluation. It's available on the PAP website -- http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pap/documents_e.cfm -- for those who enjoy this stuff. It's always frustrating when a document dated June 22, 2005, is only released on Feb. 20, 2006, but DCH has written a one-page letter to all PAP registrants telling them the report is out.
In the 2001-02 consultation process that led to the 2003 changes, Magazines Canada gave DCH several suggestions about how to improve access to PAP for smaller circulation, aboriginal and ethnocultual periodicals. Some of those ideas -- such as relaxing auditing requirements for smaller volume periodicals -- were adopted. Also, more of the scrutiny has been shifted to magazines where more PAP flows -- a logical approach to risk management of taxpayer dollars.
Other ideas, such as reducing or eliminating the 50% paid or request threshold for smaller circulation publications, were not implemented. This would be one way to expand access to PAP. The reality is that for many smaller magazines, much of the effort expended is by volunteers and the only people who get paid are the printers and the post office. To these magazines, small amounts such as $100 to $1,000 of PAP a year can be significant in allowing them to develop subscriber lists of like-minded readers. The good news about PAP administration is that only 2.4 cents is spent on PAP administration for every dollar of funding delivered, which makes it very efficient. I think that DCH should challenge itself to find a way to keep the administrative cost low for the magazines that get small amounts of funds, as opposed to just cutting off the funding because a magazine isn't "big enough" to be worth PAP.
Finally, it has taken a few years, but at least CPC is finally considering if there are ways to make it easier for small magazines to use Pubs Mail. The hassle of preparing an NDG sort using volunteer staff -- or a mailing house -- for lists of a few hundred or a few thousand has been another barrier to entry to Pubs Mail (and therefore to PAP) for smaller magazines trying to develop subscriber lists. Ideas being considered include, for small volume mailings, a very simple sort based on FSAs in alphabetical sequence -- something that can be done on a spreadsheet. If a simple way to mail small volumes is created, that would help list development and access to PAP for smaller magazines.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home