Canadian Business Press calls for federal fairness in funding

The Canadian Business Press, which represents about 119 b2b, trade and farm titles published by 46 companies, has asked the federal government to completely overhaul its support to the Canadian magazine industry to ensure that the business and trade press gets its fair share of funding. In its 2009 pre-budget submission to the Commons' standing budget committee on finance, the CBP recommended two, major changes:

• Expansion of the eligibility of the forthcoming Canada Periodical Fund to recognize the unique circumstance of business publishers; and
  
• An overall increase its funding for the publishing sector targetted towards the short-term viability of as many existing titles as possible and to assist the industry in the future through a period of transition.

The submission document said, in part

Unfortunately, the funding formula of the past programs - the CMF and PAP - and the one initially proposed for the CPF fail to fully appreciate the cultural and economic contribution of business-to-business (“B2B”) publications. The formula favours a consumer-publication model that does not apply to B2B publications....

While the Canadian Business Press applauds the Government of Canada for revisiting the eligibility criteria for its new program, we are concerned that B2B magazines will continue to be underrepresented and that many publications will cease to be viable.

Although the trade press represents 27% of magazine titles in Canada, the document said, restrictions on the various funding formulas have -- and threaten to continue -- to receive less than 8% of government funding.

Despite representing approximately one quarter of Canada’s magazine industry (by any reasonable measure), B2B periodicals have always received a lower proportion of funds designed to support the magazine industry.

This inequity was always justified in the past by the need to support the extension of Canada’s “culture” through magazines. Yet, a closer examination of the criteria actually supported more successful consumer-oriented magazines indistinguishable from U.S.-based competition rather than important or leading edge publications that emphasized a uniquely Canadian cultural perspective. The most glaring example is that eligibility provisions such as weight were part of the criteria – the heavier the magazine, the more subsidy it received. A glance at your average popular consumer magazine will reveal that much of the magazine’s content, and therefore weight, is comprised of paid advertisements on heavy glossy paper. Therefore, the more ads the publication sells (and therefore the more successful it is) the more the magazines qualified for funds under the program.

The submission says that the policy needs to better address the challenges faced by the b2b press:

• High cost of distribution
• Foreign competition
• Limited access to government assistance

It also says that draft rules for the new Canada Periodical Fund continue to make unwarranted distinctions between "request" and "paid" subscription publications.

The difference between the two is a distribution model and not based on content or importance to the Canadian magazine industry. Both are viable business models for magazines. “Request” is a common model for industry-based B2B magazines and “paid” is a common model for consumer magazines. Both types face exactly the same business challenges – rising postal and distribution rates, foreign competition, the struggle to secure advertisers, the transition to digital media – yet “paid” subscription-based magazines continue to be favoured in the funding formula.