Fox publication mail analysis shows decline of 51 million copies mailed in 2009

Every year, Michael J. Fox, the senior vice-president, circulation and development, for Rogers Publishing, publishes a detailed analysis of Canada Post's financial results and the situation with Publications Mail. It was published on the Magazines Canada  website.  This year, he reports (not surprisingly) that in the year of recession, 2009, 51 million copies were not mailed, a decrease of 9.7% from 2008. Revenues dropped 10% or $30 million to $259 million over the year before.

The decline in copies, he says, were a combination of a loss of 11 million copies when Time Canada ceased using the system and declines in the number of copies taking advantage of the (now discontinued) Publications Assistance Program.

The average recovery rate per copy was still roughly the same as last year, though revenue per piece declined slightly.

Publishers paid $0.55 on average in 2009. The 20+ different Pubs Mail rates range from $0.41 to $1.73 a copy depending on weight, density of copies to a postal facility, and distance; the  $0.55 average results from dividing Pubs Mail revenue by volume of copies. When CPC began distance-based pricing in January 2009, it estimated an average increase of 3.1% — local rates remained the same; regional rates increased $0.01; national rates increased $0.02 to $0.03 a copy. However, reduced advertising pages cut the weight of magazines, lowering CPC revenue per copy. [CPC’s rate card charges more for heavier magazines: it costs less to mail two copies of a 200-gram magazine than one copy of a 400-gram magazine.]

Cost of mailing a magazine up 38% in 6 years

The cost of mailing the average magazine in Canada has increased 38% in six years, according to the annual analysis and report for the year 2008, prepared for Rogers Publishing by Michael J. Fox, the senior vice-president, circulation and development. Fox, who is acknowledged to be one of Canada's leading experts on postal matters, prepares his analysis every year after Canada Post Corporation publishes its annual report.

"Publishers paid $0.55 on average in 2008, up 4% versus 2007. As shown on the chart...the average has increased $0.15 or 38% in the six years since 2002. The 20+ different Pubs Mail rates range from $0.40 to $1.69 a coopy, depending on weight and density. The $0.55 average results from dividing Pubs Mail revenue by volume of copies. Based on January 2009 rates, the average now probably is up another 4% or $0.012 a copy."

The report says that CPC data shows it costs the post office $0.35 to deliver an incremental copy of a magazine, an average that has remained relatively flat over the six years. However, notes Fox, while the pace and magnitude of annual price increases has eased for publications, their costs still run well above inflation and increases for other types of mail.

Fox's analysis is particularly apt this year because, although public policy has favoured the public mails as the primary distribution method for magazines, starting in April 2010 the Department of Canadian Heritage is replacing the postal subsidy (the Publications Assistance Program) with the Canada Periodical Fund (CPF), which will no longer require publishers to use Canada Post in order to receive the subsidy.

DCH's new CPF will end CPC's monopoly on subsidized delivery. By combining and replacing PAP and the Canada Magazine Fund, CPF will allow the use of other delivery services without financial penalty. This will faciliate competition by couriers or other delivery services. For instance, bundles can cost twice as much to mail using Pubs Mail.

The complete report can be dowloaded here.

Panel says Canada Post shouldn't subsidize magazines

A preliminary scan of the final report of the strategic review panel looking into Canada Post reveals two recommendations that bear on Canadian magazines:

With respect to the Publications Assistance Program (PAP), the Advisory Panel understands that the current obligation placed upon Canada Post to contribute to the PAP subsidy for publications mailings expires in March 2009 (Canada Post’s PAP contribution is equal to approximately seven cents per copy mailed). The Panel believes that Canada Post’s PAP obligation should be allowed to expire.

Translation: Canada Post should no longer be required to contribute to a postal subsidy for Canadian magazines. Since it stopped, effective March 31, this is moot. Essentially, the panel says if Canadian Heritage wants the PAP program (or library rate or other initiatives) it should pay for them.

The Panel also recommends that distance-based pricing for publications mail be reviewed to ensure that rural Canada is not unduly affected by the consequences of this type of pricing structure for publications mail.

Translation: The panel questions the fairness of distance-based pricing, feels it could have a big effect, particularly on rural subscribers, and they're not sure that the political heat will be worth it. Whether Canada Post sees it that way seems doubtful.
Related posts:

• Canada Post intent on implementing distance-based pricing
• Feds announce panel to review mandate, responsibilities of Canada Post

New Canada Periodical Fund to be unveiled Tuesday

The much-anticipated merger of the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) and the Canadian Magazine Fund (CMF) will be unveiled on Tuesday by Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore. Word is that invitations have gone out to key players in the industry so they can be in Ottawa Montreal for the announcement. The new program is expected to be launched starting April 1, 2010.

The anticipation of the new CPF hasn't been eager, mind you, since many publishers fear that the merged program may be somewhat less than the sum of its parts.) There has been vigorous lobbying by industry associations to ensure that the PAP in particular will be preserved. That seems to be assured, at least in the short term.

There is concern in some quarters that the program will be diluted by granting the same amount of money to a wider pool of applicants (it already goes to magazines and community newspapers). And Heritage has already put out a request for proposal for consulting on giving support to digital magazines and newspapers. The recent budget replaced $15 million that was being withdrawn from PAP by Canada Post, but there was no suggestion of increased funding over all.

Related posts:

• Magazine funding overhaul delayed until 2010
• Big funding changes require long transition, says Magazines Canada
  
• Radical funding overhaul by Canadian Heritage proposes merger of CMF and PAP

PAP topped up as part of federal budget

It appears that lobbying by the magazine industry has resulted in $15 million being injected into the Publications Assistance Program (PAP), replacing the contribution that was being withdrawn this spring by Canada Post. The funding is part of a substantial $335 million in new funding flowing to Heritage as part of the "stimulus" budget.Representatives from the industry have been vigorously arguing that, if Canada Post must remove the $15 million, Heritage should replace it. That's apparently what's happened.

The proposal by Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore has been to roll the PAP and the Canada Magazine Fund into a single, $75 million, envelope -- the new Canada Periodicals Fund (CPF).

That new fund has been approved as policy, and the commitment for the funding is for two years while the details of the new program are worked out. That means, for magazine clients of PAP and the CMF, it will be business as usual until April 2010 when the new program begins.

"We're very appreciative of the support we're getting. Clearly this minister is being listened to where it counts," said Magazines Canada president Mark Jamison.

Now, the magazine industry will want to make its voice heard in the development of the new program so that the $75 million is retained (that is, so the whole is not less than the sum of the parts) and, it would be hoped, enlarged.

Magazines Canada provides "calculator" to help titles figure out postal increase

Publishers of Canadian magazines now have a tool to help them find out how much trouble they're in with Canada Post's switch to distance-related pricing (starting January 2009).Magazines Canada has created a downloadable, do-it-yourself calculator that will give publishers a clearer sense of the inflation of their mailing costs under the new scheme. The calculator, based on an Excel spreadsheet, is also available on the organization's website under "Public Affairs".

Of course, the national lobby organization has a clear motive for publishing the calculator; it is hoping that publishers will do the math and let the organization know how hard they will be hit before writing to their member of Parliament to protest.

Canada Post will be releasing its new official rate card on July 14, at which time it will release the correct postal codes to use for mail entry points. As discussed in an earlier post, many publishers were finding that their LCP software was not producing accurate counts because CP was providing incorrect codes which counted all outgoing mail as national in nature. Under DRP, magazines are expected to pay no increase for delivery of "local" copies, up to 1 cent for regional and up to 3 cents for national. In effect, national distribution may cost many magazines an unprecedented increase in delivery costs of up to 8%.

"Many titles not based in large urban centres but that have mostly national reach could be at serious risk,whether or not they are eligible for the Publications Assistance Program (PAP)," said MagsCan in a release. "On top of the negative impact, the Government of Canada is rejecting its own cultural policy concerning access to content.

Related posts:

• Secret postal code for Gateway is L4W 1S2
  
• MagsCan urges members to blitz MPs and Canada Post about distance-based pricing
• Canada Post intent on implementing distance-based pricing
• Feds announce panel to review mandate, responsibility of Canada Post
• Strategic review imminent for Canada Post?

Secret postal code for Gateway is L4W 1S2

Today's announcement by Canada Post of its proposed rate increases for 2009 -- released, naturally, just before a long summer weekend -- says that for Publications Mail, local mailed copies will see no increase in 2009; for regional, rates go up 1 cent; for national, rates go up 3 cents. The problem is knowing what proportion of your mailed copies are in each category. As a friend writes:

In Canada Post's pursuit of more creative ways to raise rates, in 2007 it first proposed implementing distance-based pricing for magazines that use LCP sortation. After it was pointed out that publishers had no way of knowing how many copies are local, regional and national, CPC said that it would implement the new system in January 2008 but keep the rates the same for local, regional and national. Well, it's now half way through 2008, and some of the biggest publishers are still not sure how many copies are local, regional or national.

It turns out that there's a problem with the postal codes of the CPC facilities. If you use the published postal codes for the CPC facilities, then all copies are reported as national -- even the ones that should be local or regional. To fix this software bug, you need to use a different postal code, except that CPC hasn't finalized the list yet.

For Gateway in Mississauga, Ont., where many Ontario-based magazines mail, the secret is to use L4W 1S2. That's the postal code that needs to be plugged into both the LCP software for the reports, and the Statement of Mailing. From that, you get your quantities. CPC claims the overall weighted average increase of the Publications Mail hikes will be 3.1%, but then who really knows? CPC itself hasn't figured out yet how to make this work.

The import of the rate hikes may be lost in a flurry of media comment about costs for regular stamps going up from 52 to 54 cents, starting in January. (The spin being applied by the post office is that Canada will continue to enjoy the 3rd lowest rate of postage in the developed world. What it doesn't say is that, compared with those who are lower (Australia and the United States), the cost to mail a letter in Canada is already 15% higher.)

"We have done our best to shield our customers as much as possible from the full impact of rising fuel, energy and labour costs." said Canada Post president Moya Greene. "The overall pricing strategy has been designed to ensure no one segment of our customer base carries an unfair share of burden of these rising costs."

Magazines Canada president Mark Jamison issued a statement soon after the Canada Post announcement saying:

Distance-related pricing could be a potential disaster for the industry. Many titles, not based in large urban centres but who have mostly national reach could be at serious risk whether they have PAP (Publications Assistance Program) eligibility or not.

Make no mistake, large or small , many titles could be badly hurt or worse. On top of this impact, we are looking at a total rejection of the Government of Canada's own cultural policy concerning access to content. Does the Government of Canada have any say in the behaviours of its agencies in the context of the delivery of its own policies ?

MC and its members will continue press MPs across Canada to take action

[More detailed analysis of the postal increases to follow as it becomes available.]

Related posts:

• MagsCan urges members to blitz MPs and Canada Post about distance-based pricing
• Canada Post intent on implementing distance-based pricing
• Feds announce panel to review mandate, responsibility of Canada Post
• Strategic review imminent for Canada Post?

Canada Post intent on implementing distance-based pricing

(Even at the risk of treating readers like postal nerds and overloading them with the minutiae of postal policy and politics, we think this is an important issue for the delivery of magazines. So bear with us.)

Canada Post seems intent on moving to "distance based pricing" for Publications Mail starting in 2009, no matter what its customers say. Until now, it has cost the same to mail a magazine across the country as it did to mail it across town.

Already this year, Canada Post has laid the groundwork by requiring that publishers using Letter Carrier Presort (LCP) have had to declare local, regional and national volumes for their mailings.

The post office said customers would be allowed time to "assess the new structure" and therefore the earliest the new system would come in was 2009. Well, the customers have assessed it and they don't like it. But it looks like they're going to get it anyway. Magazines Canada is lobbying on this, but it is fighting a war on several fronts, given that it is also trying to deal with the jeopardy threatening the Canada Magazine Fund and the possible disappearance of the Publications Assistance Program.

Knowledgeable sources in the industry say that over all costs in 2009 are expected to go up by about 4% for regional and perhaps as much as 8% for national presorts. For every 2%, this increase represents about $0.01 on an average $0.50 cost of mailing a magazine. It shouldn't be assumed that this won't affect smaller magazines because some of them strive, against the odds, for every economy by trying to use the LCP presort.

The most direct impact on small publishers may well be to decide they simply can't be bothered with LCP anymore. Their often rudimentary software programs may not be able to provide the 11 subtotals necessary when filling out statements of mailing, so they do what -- start using a mailing house if they were doing it themselves? Switch to costlier NDG if indeed hitherto they were trying to prepare their own LCP mailings? Send everything out at the National LCP rates?

For larger magazines, the new policy would help some and hurt others; whether it is a wash for a big company like Rogers or Transcontinental is unknown. We somehow doubt it.

Magazines which already stop at sorting at the NDG level -- which already effectively is structured as distance-based pricing (cheap local, steps up for regional and national)-- are probably not going to notice as big a difference.

In the L/N/R formula, ostensibly created to more closely match prices to costs, there is no price reduction planned for low-cost "local" delivery, to offset the price increases for costly "regional" or "national", so it's just another way of increasing Canada Post's prices.

This creates a conundrum for some kinds of magazines. For instance, a company like Canada Wide (BC Business) prints and mails its magazines in Ontario, but delivers mostly to BC addresses. And should Toronto Life and Saltscapes, since they are largely regional, be expected to carry part of the load for The Beaver or Canadian Geographic, which have far-flung and diffuse circulations?

One of the bigger questions is whether printers/mailing houses will be adversely affected ... e.g. if Canada Wide has a good printing or mailing contract with an Ontario-based company, then will the increased postage cost under L/R/N pricing be significant enough to cause them to reconsider using a BC-based printer/mailer?

As an industry, magazines some years ago started taking for granted Canada Post's increased dedication to basing Publications Mail pricing on its attributable direct costs. Within living memory, the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) picked up the difference between those costs and a fixed rate per copy. But around the time when Canada Post started trying to analyse its costs more precisely, PAP also got changed to a percentage-based formula, with a sliding scale percentage relating to size of mailing. That put the onus on the mag industry to try and help Canada Post reduce the cost of mailing a magazine (and we stepped up to try and oblige), but it also means that nowadays, since Canada Post has decided they need to keep raising PubMail prices to maintain profitability by mail category, publishers take it on the chin each time.

(Of course PAP is under review and is probably going to disappear within a year as a separate support program...but that's a story for another day.)

It's not as though magazine publishers can respond to all of this by charging for subscriptions based on distance. We can't charge out-of-province subscribers more than in-province subscribers, so it's not like we can match our pricing with our costs either.

Related Posts:

• Meanwhile in the USA...
• Feds announce panel to review mandate of Canada Post
• Decline in general mail volume in U.S. threatens magazines hard-won agreement
• Radical funding overhaul by Heritage proposes merger of CMF and PAP
• Size matters -- too much -- in U.S. postal rates...

[UPDATE: Big changes at Canada Post [Magazines Canada bulletin to members]

Meanwhile, in the USA...

Interesting article in the New York Review of Magazines about postal rates for periodicals in the USA. I can't put my finger on it, but something about this whole "efficiency vs. public good" bit sounds, I dunno, vaguely familiar.

[hat tip to Boing Boing]

Less than two weeks left to comment on PAP and CMF proposals

A reminder that the deadline for submissions in the consultation process by the Department of Heritage on the redesign of the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) and the Canadian Magazine Fund (CMF) is fast approaching.Written comments will be accepted up to Friday April 25th, either by email at periodicals@canadianheritage.gc.ca, by fax at 819-994-3154, or by mail to:

Periodical Publishing Policy
15 Eddy Street, 15-4-F
Gatineau, PQ, K1A 0M5

You can read the department's proposals at its website and some questions that can be directly answered, though respondents needn't feel their comments are restricted to those. While publishers who are eligible for PAP and CMF now have an obvious interest, every publisher should probably be interested in influencing the ultimate outcomes of the review, which may be quite radical and sweeping.

See earlier post on this here.

Have your say about changes to federal magazine programs

It's April, already, and a deadline looms to have your say about proposals for re-designing the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) and the Canada Magazine Fund (CMF). The Department of Canadian Heritage has made specific proposals for reform and is seeking comment.

While various industry interest groups have participated in roundtables held across the country and will be making formal responses, individual publishers and others with a stake in magazines should not be slow to wade into the discussion. It is critical to the way magazines are going to be delivered and supported in the years to come.

You can read the proposals and the background information here. And you can comment on them at periodicals@canadianheritage.gc.ca.

You have until April 25.

Big funding changes require long transition, says Magazines Canada

Overhauling federal programs of support for the magazine industry is such a massive change, says Magazines Canada, that it is looking for a significant transition period, during which current programs need to be fully funded and functional. (How long? Certainly two or three years, at least through the 2009-10 government fiscal year.)

In a letter to the heritage minister, Magazines Canada President Mark Jamison said, in part:

The changes proposed in the consultation document are very substantial, including the elimination of the two primary programs serving the sector and their replacement with a single and very different program. If these changes move forward, they will impact the business plans and editorial decisions of periodical publishers across Canada. The development of a new program will be a complex task and will take time. We are also concerned with the length of time it will take to secure approvals in Ottawa, especially in light of a possible federal election prior to April 2009.

We urge you and your Cabinet colleagues to act immediately to ensure that the Publications Assistance Program and the Canada Magazines Fund continue and that they be fully funded at current levels through the 2009–2010 fiscal year or until the redesign process is complete and publishers have adequate time to analyze the new programs and plan for their implementation. In the case of the PAP, the funding level required through this transition period includes both the contribution amounts from Canadian Heritage and from Canada Post.

The announcement last week of the outcome of a comprehensive review was that Heritage is proposing to merge the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) and the Canada Magazine Fund (CMF) into one program called the Canada Periodical Fund.

Magazines Canada's strategy seems to include acknowledging the inevitability of changes, manage the transition and to obtain the best possible arrangement for Canadian magazines of all types. In a statement, Jamison said:

"The need for all parties to stay focused on the big picture is paramount. Based on our deliberations with members and other associations over many months, we will, in a few days be releasing top line perspectives on the DCH paper. The consensus at Magazines Canada is clear: we must work with the needs of all magazines at the table and, as stability and predictability are key goals, we must all recognize that a very carefully planned and executed transition to a new framework is just as important as the new policy framework itself."

Meanwhile, DCH has announced the dates for its "roundtable" discussions about its proposals:

Vancouver-February 11
Calgary-February 12
Winnipeg-February 14
Halifax-February 25
Montreal-February 27 and 28
Toronto-March 3 and 4

Radical funding overhaul by Canadian Heritage proposes merger of CMF and PAP

[This post has been updated.] The Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing a radical overhaul of its funding programs, combining the Canada Magazine Fund (CMF) and the Publications Assistance Program (PAP) into one, new program called the Canada Periodical Fund. It proposes that funding be used to encourage the development of digital and online intiatives of print publishers. [And it indicates that the $1 million program called Support for Arts and Literary Magazines (SALM) would be gone, a major hit for the hundreds of very small cultural magazines in this country.]

The department has launched a consultation process by posting a discussion paper, a PowerPoint presentation and various background documents on its website and asking for public and industry consultation and reaction by April 25. Individuals may respond and there will be roundtable discussions by invitation to stakeholder groups in the industry.

[UPDATE: Concern is already being expressed that the time allowed for consultation is extremely short in reviewing and commenting on such a sweeping change in policy, particularly one which, like the PAP postal subsidy, has been around for more than 100 years. While the proposals suggest that they are freeing magazines to be compensated for using alternative forms of delivery, for many smaller, independent magazines in this country this is not a reasonable or likely alternative. (Canadians have delivered to them more than 700 million copies of magazines every year through the mail.) The proposal, in effect, lets Canada Post off the hook from its long responsibility to allow Canadian publishers to reach Canadian readers in a cost-effective way.]

This review is not considering whether the Government should fund magazines and non-daily newspapers, [says the DCH document] but how they should be funded. Having considered the current environment and the history of the programs, Canadian Heritage has developed a proposal for discussion during these consultations: the development of a new, combined program tentatively called the Canada Periodical Fund.

All publications which now receive PAP or CMF funding -- that includes all consumer and trade magazines and community newspapers -- can expect to be affected by the proposed changes, says the ministry. No dollar figures are attached; the two programs together were worth $60 million to Canadian magazines in 2006-07 , although the PAP is set to lose $15 million effective March 31, 2009 when Canada Post withdraws the last of its financial support.

If the Canada Periodical Fund were to retain all of the current funding for CMF and PAP (less the departing Canada Post contribution), the merged program would have $60 million to spend, of which about $45 million (about 78%) could conceivably go to magazines. But there are no suggestions in the consultation documents of how much money the new fund may be getting. It could be less than it gets now; it is unlikely to get more.

Scott Shortliffe, the Director of Periodical Publishing and Programs bluntly told a Canadian Business Press meeting last June:

"Frankly, I think the idea of spending more is extraordinarily lofty. This government has been very consistent in saying it has new spending priorities and that more money will be allocated to the cultural industries. Even if someone came forward with a brilliant program that would cost $300 million, it's not going to happen."

Whatever the budget, the proposal is that 95% of the new Fund would go to periodical publishers (magazines and non-daily newspapers) and 5% to industry initiatives. Right now

• a fixed program budget would be allocated by formula to eligible publishers to reimburse magazine content and distribution expenses. Such a formula could be weighted by profitability, proportion of Canadian content, the ad:editorial ratio and whether the publication serves official and other language minorities, aboriginal or rural communities..

• The formula would be adjusted and refined annually.
  

• Publishers could apply and receive payment once a year for all their titles. In other words, application would be made by publisher rather than by title -- so Rogers Media and Transcontinental Media would make one application for support for their dozens of different consumer and trade magazines.The entire program budget would be allocated at one time.

• Eligible distribution expenses could be for either Canada Post or alternative delivery methods, a major change for the industry, which has already explored delivering magazines outside of the traditional and increasingly unaffordable mail system.

Somewhat ominously, the discussion document muses about "whether the relatively large share of program spending received by a relatively small number of large publishing companies is an appropriate and effective use of public funds". This can only be a reference to the postal subsidies and editorial content support being received by large companies like Transcontinental Media and Rogers Media Publishing and large circulation titles like Chatelaine and Maclean's or Canadian Living. DCH notes that 75% of the CMF goes to the 20 largest publishing companies.

It also questions whether the current funding regime is benefiting writers, photographers, illustrators and other creators. And whether federal government support for magazines should be focussed in areas that complement its Advantage Canada strategy to cut taxes and reduce the national debt.

The benchmarks for success of the program could be:

• Increased Canadian content in periodicals, measured by the number of pages of Canadian magazine content produced annually, the incomes of Canadian creators, and the diversity and number of Canadian magazines and non-daily newspapers;
• Greater access by Canadians to Canadian periodicals, measured by market share of Canadian magazines, circulation and access by in smaller communities;
• Greater stability and predictability in program delivery by establishing and adhering to service standards.

The discussion paper says that proposals, which are an outcome of a wide-ranging review over more than a year and a half, are intended to provide optimum value to Canadian readers and predictability and streamlined program delivery to publishers and DCH by merging two programs and delivering them by publishing company rather than by title. It also says that there will be greater flexibility in the type of distribution publishers may use now that Canada Post is withdrawing its last support from PAP effective March 31.

One of the most dramatic departures suggested by the discussion paper is that it contemplates directing money to support and encourage online and digital delivery of Canadian content.

The proposed approach offers opportunities to address changes in the way Canadians are consuming news and entertainment: through joint initiatives on industry-wide projects and by exploring the possibility of opening funding to new forms of publications or to online content produced by print publications.

DCH poses questions that people in the industry will undoubtedly want to answer, among which are (we're paraphrasing):

• Where should the government target its support?
• What types of publications should receive support and which should be excluded?
• Should the program support web-only magazines as well as digital ventures of online publishers?
• Should good environmental practices be rewarded within the program?
• Should appropriate compensation for writers and other contributors be a factor in the program?

There are probably a bunch of other questions to come, including the most compelling:

• Will there be more money, the same money spread differently or less money?

[Statement about consultation, from Magazines Canada.]

[More to come]

Waiting for the other Heritage shoe to drop. Are cuts coming?

Hold onto your hats, and other parts. Looming imminently (probably early next week) is the public announcement of the outcome of a review by the Department of Canadian Heritage of its support programs for magazines.

A recent article in Mastheadonline reported (sub req'd) on one aspect of this, the review of the Publications Assistance Program (PAP), commonly known as the postal subsidy. Scott Shortliffe, the periodical publishing policy and programs director told Masthead that there will be a release of documents to be followed by "extensive consultations".

But it was the plural that caught our attention -- proposals. Because over the past 18 months, DCH has reviewed all of the programs it delivers. And there is concern that the outcome may dismay everyone in the industry, not just those who qualify for PAP (though that includes a large number of Canada's consumer magazines) .

Much of the review is driven by the February 2007 recommendations from the so-called "Blue Ribbon Panel" that outlined suggested strategies for grants and contributions improvement and greater accountability across all Heritage programs.

The proposals concerning magazines may include cuts or major eligibility changes to PAP but also the four major components of the Canada Magazine Fund. (Experience is that by the time we get to the proposal stage after such a review, rearguard actions can only do so much. Of course the news could be an injection of new money... but don't hold your breath.)

As Masthead put it, it seems unlikely that DCH will simply make up the $15-million that Canada Post is pulling out of PAP this spring. What the industry should be more concerned about is the $45-million that DCH now puts into PAP plus the additional $16 million that goes to small magazines, to literary and cultural magazines, to larger magazines to support Canadian editorial and to industry associations to support industry-wide development.

[Fair disclosure; as a consultant, I sometimes do work for magazines and industry associations which pay for the work through contributions from the Canada Magazine Fund.]

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.