ON Nature gives up in its battle to hold onto
postal subsidy
[UPDATE: Click on comments below.]ON Nature, the magazine of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists has apparently given up a protracted struggle to retain the federal PAP postal subsidy. According to a story in mastheadonline (sub req'd), editor Victoria Foote has decided that she will not make the latest round of changes required by the Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH) to meet the rules of the Publications Assistance Program.
“At this point it looks like I will be losing the subsidy,” she says. ON Nature’s final deadline will expire at the end of this month. “I think the original intent of the program is to support Canadian magazines that are available to the public. I should not have to be fighting with the DCH for months on end.”
The essence of the dispute is that magazines published by associations have to offer subscriptions and single copies to the public separate from membership and subscribers who are also members cannot be counted as paid for purposes of calculating PAP support; despite separating out subscription and membership fees and changing various forms, ON Nature was unable to get DCH's agreement and was so informed last month. The loss for the magazine will be in the area of $13,000 a year.
Labels: postal subsidy
posted by D. B. Scott at
4:51 pm
8 Comments:
So how do the Beaver and Canadian Geographc pull this off?
It may be that they will have a hard time, too, once Canadian Heritage gets around to reviewing their files. The agency is reviewing and auditing ALL association titles which have PAP funding and Magazines Canada has let its members know this. ON Nature may have been unfortunate enough to have been an early pick. However, there is more texture to this story.
To be fair to Magazines Canada, we understand they intervened several times and got extensions so that ON Nature could meet DCH's terms.
To be fair to DCH, it required compled separation of membership and subscription, which meant that a clear opt out -- including the dollar value of the subscription -- was required. This ON Nature refused to do, effectively saying that people could pass on the magazine but had to pay the same price as before (membership + sub).
Whether we like it or not, DCH was at least clear about the process and the rules and probably went an extra mile by providing a "cut and paste" template that ON Nature could follow. It chose not to. Ultimately, it became ON Nature's decision to forego the $13,000 in PAP funding though both Magazines Canada and DCH endeavoured to find a way for this magazine to keep it.
Other association titles such as The Beaver and Canadian Geographicsell a magazine sub and people get a society membership as part of the package. Whether that practice will be able to be sustained is a good and open question.
Victoria Foote, editor of ON Nature said...
D.B. Scott's original posting outlining ON Nature's experience with the PAP was based on the Masthead online article, which was accurately reported. Marco Ursi, the editor of Masthead spoke to me, and the other parties concerned, at length and this is reflected in his reporting.
I don't know what source was used for this new version (in D.B. Scott's comment) of how the situation between ON Nature and the PAP was handled but I was never contacted regarding this posting and it contains several important errors.
1."To be fair to DCH, it required compled separation of membership and subscription, which meant that a clear opt out -- including the dollar value of the subscription -- was required. This ON Nature refused to do." Hah! On the contrary, ON Nature has been offering an opt out option since 2005 (unlike any other association mag I've looked at) and in a letter dated December 4, 2007, agreed to refund in dollars those members who choose not to be subscribers. Magazines Canada should know this as they were cc'd on that letter and received it via email on December 4.
2. "DCH was at least clear about the process and the rules and probably went an extra mile by providing a "cut and paste" template that ON Nature could follow." ON Nature did follow DCH's template which is why we state in every conceivable location (unlike any other association mag I've looked at) that, should you choose to be both a member and a subscriber, "$25 of your membership fee goes towards a subscription to the magazine." But DCH decided it didn't want that template. Instead, it required that none of the individuals who had chosen to be both members and subscribers would be recognized as paid subs even though our accounting process (forwarded to DCH) clearly separates out membership fees (under donations and for which you receive a charitable receipt) from subscriber revenue (under ON Nature, no charitable receipt).
3. "It chose not to. Ultimately, it became ON Nature's decision to forego the $13,000 in PAP funding though both Magazines Canada and DCH endeavoured to find a way for this magazine to keep it." Ok. But I don't think this was a choice if you're using the dictionary definition. The subsidy really wouldn't do us much good if we're forced to lose over half our subscribers to get it. I'm not sure how one would then conclude that MC and DCH tried to find a way for the magazine to keep the subsidy given that ON Nature went many, many extra miles (Ontario Nature almost became the first charity ever to literally return donations thanks to the PAP for example) to meet all three criteria. As required, ON Nature a) identifies the cost of membership fee and subscription separately; b) offers an opt-out for members; and c) indicates the the cost of subscription is the same for members and non-members.
Fair enough, there is a difference between Masthead's reporting and my response to a comment. Clearly there is a difference of interpretation and opinion here. I think that Victoria Foote does an admirable job of providing her perspective in her comment. My concern is that it should have been possible to come to a resolution of this matter and, failing to do so -- for whatever reason -- may put into jeopardy the postal subsidy of other association magazines which, for many years, have had PAP support. Frankly, other consumer magazines that grow out of a membership base could be forgiven for feeling confused, nervous and annoyed about the lack of clarity. The point of this support program should be to make it easier for Canadians to receive and read their own magazines. That should be everyone's goal.
I have no idea whether DCH is lookikng askance at the funding for other association magazines as a result of ON Nature's infuriating encounters with a bureaucracy that appears to have lost sight of the fundamental objectives of Canada's support for the magazine industry. But it seems to me that a bit more outrage, from this blog and the industry lobbyists, would be entirely appropriate. Victoria blew the whistle here. We should be listening, not shooting the messenger, no?
You wouldn't know that I spent a good deal of time trying to help resolve the ON Nature situation and get the magazine some help, but Victoria does.
Whether escalating to outrage is appropriate, I don't know. I doubt it will change the DCH decision.
I don't believe I was shooting the messenger, just demonstrating that there are other perspectives.
I think I've got no apologies to make about promoting the interests of magazines generally and ON Nature in particular.
Sometimes stupid stuff happens and we have to make the best of it. I think this may be one of those times.
Canada's magazine strategy is meant to help magazines just like ON Nature, and yet it hasn't. That's stupid, as you say, but it should be corrected. Otherwise, you have an unfair subsidy that benefits some and disadvantages others.
On the stitch-in sheet for the latest issue of Canadian Geographic (which I contribute to), the line at the top says, "Start my subscription to Canadian Geographic and enrol me in the Society today." There's no opt-out option anywhere in sight: you get one, you get the other. In OnNature's case, however, DCH pulled the plug on the postal subsidy, despite the fact that the magazine went a good deal further in trying to separate membership from subscription. Canadian Geo's postal subsidy is large, and, I'd guess, not in jeopardy. So why didn't ON Nature qualify. You're right: "stupid stuff happens," but they should be corrected.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home