Tuesday, June 16, 2009

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.

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would someone named Michael Fox choose to be known publicly as Michael J. Fox, given that there's a celebrity with the same name?
Baffling. Just baffling.

4:09 pm  
Blogger D. B. Scott said...

I presume because he thinks he has prior claim, or as good a claim, to the name. Why does this bother you?

4:12 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The actor's real middle initial is not J, by the way.

Another anonymous

9:35 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home