THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED: The new Canada Periodical Fund announced yesterday is the biggest shake-up in federal support for the magazine industry since the launch of the now-defunct Canada Magazine Fund in the late 1990s. Based on an analysis of the final year of the Canada Magazine Fund and the Publications Assistance Program, and on the rules for the new Canada Periodical Fund, here is Masthead’s assessment of the winners and losers under the program:
LOSERS:
The Big 5:
Five of Canada’s largest magazines all used to receive more than $1.5 million in combined CMF and PAP subsidies. The new CPF caps total grants to any one magazine at $1.5 million (a few titles are near the cap, such as Châtelaine – French). Here’s who will lose, based on the last year for which grants are listed (2008-2009) on the Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH) web site:
Maclean’s: $1.45 million less under the new regime Canadian Living: $1.36 million less Chatelaine (English only): $1.2 million less Reader’s Digest (English edition only): $728,558 less Canadian House & Home: $123,492
Total to be re-distributed: approx. $4.9 million
Magazines Canada had requested the cap be phased in given brutal advertising conditions, but DCH was unmoved.
Small literary and arts magazines:
The new “floor” of 5,000 annual paid circulation means many small-circulation arts and literary publications will be out of the program. (An arts quarterly, for example, would now require a per-issue paid circ of 1,250 to qualify.) The amounts these titles receive are small compared to large commercial titles—typically a few thousand dollars—but huge for the magazines involved, which rely on small mastheads and scant resources.
Many of these publications also receive funding from arts councils, but the Canada Council has said it will not close the gap between what these publications lose under the CPF and what they receive from the Canada Council.
The Facebook-based protest against the 5,000 floor was unsuccessful, and now harried small-mag publishers are scrambling to get their paid circulations over 5,000, find other sources of funding, or face drastic cuts.
Professional association magazines:
Many titles published by professional associations used to receive substantial funding under the CMF, PAP, or both, and now they will be cut out. For example, the Canadian Medical Association Journal received a combined $646,482 in CMF and PAP funding in 2008-2009. Other groups such as Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants received hundreds of thousands for their publications.
DCH struggled over the definition of “association” under the new CPF, because many consumer magazines are in fact published by associations or societies; for example, Canadian Geographic is published by the Royal Geographical Society of Canada.
In the end, DCH ruled that magazines published by “professional” associations meeting these conditions are ineligible:
Is directly owned by an association. Joining the association is necessary to maintain a professional status which is recognized by a federal or provincial statute. Joining the association includes paying professional dues which are deductible under subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) of the federal Income Tax Act.
WINNERS:
Ethnocultural, aboriginal, official language minority and GLBT magazines:
Magazines or non-daily newspapers published by ethnocultural, aboriginal, official language minority and gay-lesbian-bisexual-transexual groups, meeting all of the other criteria, are exempt from the minimum 50% paid or sponsored circulation rule. These publishers, with the exception of GLBT publishers, are also exempt from the 5,000-per-year paid circulation minimum. GLBT publishers must meet the 5,000 minimum. Typically, these publications receive grants in the four- or five-digit range.
Magazines with large newsstand circulations:
Under the old PAP, paid newsstand circulation counted towards the 50%-paid minimum eligibility, but was not part of the actual subsidy amounts, since these copies were not mailed through Canada Post. Under the CPF, paid newsstand copies will now be part of the formula that determines the actual grant, meaning publications with large newsstand circulations will likely see an increase in total federal funding.
This particularly affects Quebec, which has a higher proportion of newsstand-oriented titles than the rest of Canada. For example, the weekly 7 Jours has a single-copy circulation of about 88,000, yet only 2,000 subscribers. It received a PAP subsidy of only $54,725 in 2008-2009. The weekly Western Producer, a farm publication with a similar total circulation but almost entirely through the mail, received a PAP subsidy of $1.8 million (see below).
Watch for smiles on the faces of newsstand-oriented publishers. (As an aside, this could help Tory fortunes in Quebec given the beating the party took in the last election over its withdrawal of support for arts programs.)
Farm publications:
Agricultural publications are exempt from the $1.5 million cap on grants based on the special contribution they make to Canadian society, according to the government. As far as Masthead can determine, this only affects one publication to date, The Western Producer, which received $1.8 million in PAP subsidy in 2008-2009. The weekly has a paid circulation of 61,000 with offices across western Canada, but is headquartered in Saskatoon, which is represented by Tory MP Maurice Vellakott.
Everyone else not in the Losers category:
Given that the new fund is roughly equal to the total of the old CMF and PAP, the fact there is a $1.5 million cap on the large titles, the fact that many titles have shuttered over the recession, and the fact that small arts and especially professional association publications are out of the program, it stands to reason that more funds will be distributed to the remaining magazines in the program—the majority of titles.
Presumably this will benefit large publishers, too. While Maclean’s (Rogers) and Canadian Living (Transcontinental) will suffer cuts, sibling titles such as Flare and Elle Canada (respectively) could conceivably receive more under the new regime.
Only DCH knows for sure, based its modeling. In the next several months, publishers will find out, too.
I could never understand why the govt thinks so many magazines need govt funding. Cultural-related magazines, such as literary and art titles, maybe. But the big ones like Maclean's, and association member magazines, come on. If you can't publish a magazine that readers want and that advertisers will support, then change it or drop it. Govt subsidies of Canadian magazines are not needed and should end. --Don Griffith, SABMag, SAB Homes
2. Uneven Field says:
22 January 2010 at 10:36 AM
If our govt. wants to be in publishing, let's play fair and give everyone the same breaks. If magazines need financial assistance to continue, the message is clear. If there are not enough readers to support a magazine, the problem is obviously the magazine and consumers who don't care enough about it to support it. Let's allow a level playing field. Compete based on quality. I'm tired of competing against subsidized publications. Food and Drink, a beautiful magazine, my tax dollar is supporting, and my magazine is supposed to compete against. I don't get govt. support. I can't compete because I spend my own money on my own bills! Not fair. Take away the cash cow and let magazines stand on their own. Enough of the govt. interference and using our tax dollar to support publications and causes no one care about.
3. Alexander says:
22 January 2010 at 10:49 AM
Way to go Don say it as it is. I have been harping about this issue of Taxpayers' money going to Multi-nationals like Rogers, Transcontinental, St. Joe et all, profit making corporations. Why not give the subsidies to independent publishers who are struggling to put out a have decent magazine? But power and politics go hand in hand even in this industry.
4. Thom says:
22 January 2010 at 3:36 PM
I don't think Food & Drink would have ever qualified for PAP funding based on circ. requirements. They are not even on the list of recipients. Sounds like you can't compete on an "even field". That's unfortunate.
5. John says:
22 January 2010 at 3:59 PM
What I don't understand is why "gay-lesbian-transexual" titles get special treatment. What does sexuality have to do with anything here? In all other areas of life these special interest groups want to be considered without bias, prejudice, or even comment. They say they are no more nor no less than any other demographic. Well fine. Then let it be that way. Heck, what do I care who wears the wedding dress? But by the same token, they are also social groupings who should not merit special consideration or unfair access to privilege. By exempting gay-lesbian-bisexual-transexual titles from the under 5,000 ruling, special consideration is exactly what they are receiving.
6. Uneven Field says:
24 January 2010 at 11:46 AM
Food and Drink may not have qualified for PAP funding, but are you saying they are not subsidized by the LCBO, a govt. body?
7. Editor says:
25 January 2010 at 10:48 AM
A response from a member of the industry working for a magazine with a circulation around 5,000.
How will the possible lack of the Canada Periodical Fund affect your publication?
We will have to let someone go. If we don’t make up the funds in some other way then it is a person’s salary we’re losing. It is going to affect a lot of the literary magazines, obviously. That means far less venues for writers, especially new ones to get their work published. Because if half of those magazines go it is going to be even harder to get published.
The government obviously doesn’t want us to get the funding because they stuck the deadline right in the middle of the Canada Council Grant time, the deadline for which is March 1st. They are making it as difficult as possible. What is irking me is the timing of the deadline. They gave hardly any notice. It is a bit suspect. They waited until the last moment so everyone has to scramble, particularly small magazines who may qualify but have low levels of human resources and have to complete two grant applications at the same time.
8. Roger says:
25 January 2010 at 12:29 PM
This article is inaccurate. GLBT magazines are not exempt from the 5,000 threshold. The reporter should re-read the guidelines. The other minority groups are exempt but GLBT magazines are not.
9. Masthead Editor says:
25 January 2010 at 2:19 PM
Roger is correct, our mistake. GLBT magazines are not exempt from the 5,000 minimum-paid threshold. However, they are exempt—along with aboriginal, official language minority, and ethnocultural publications–from the minimum 50% paid circulation rule. Official eligibility guidelines can be found here:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcp-cpf/aae-atp/guide/102-eng.cfm. We have updated the story to reflect this, thanks for pointing it out.
10. Thom says:
25 January 2010 at 4:20 PM
The LCBO is a very profitable crown corporation. It is a revenue generator for the provincial government. Your false claim is way off base. It has nothing to do with the content of this article.
11. Uneven Field says:
26 January 2010 at 10:47 PM
Yes, the LCBO is a profitable crown corporation. One could almost call it a monopoly. But you are still not answering the question. To repeat, is Food & Drink not subsidized by the LCBO, who are very much a govt. body, and as such are run, using our tax dollar to publish the magazine, with no concern or worry about their bottom line, unlike the publications they are supposedly competing against?
12. Thom says:
27 January 2010 at 2:47 PM
To answer your question; no, I don't believe it is subsidized by tax dollars. I can't tell you whether the magazine profits as it's own entity. Maybe it does rely on LCBO revenue. In which case, I am happy to support them every time I buy Crown Royal! Go Canada!
13. Uneven Field says:
27 January 2010 at 10:23 PM
I heard what you said. I just didn't understand what you said. You don't THINK it's subsidized, and you don't know if the magazine profits ais its own entity. And MAYBE it does rely on LCBO revenue? BINGO!! That's my point. Most other publishers, the ones competing with this subsidized magazine, are not on an even playing field. They pay taxes to the govt. which is using their money to fund a competitive magazine. Sounds odd to me.
14. Hic says:
28 January 2010 at 1:22 PM
What's interesting is what a quality magazine Food & Drink actually is. Whether it's profitable on its own ... and how much the need for ongoing access to the LCBO's stores plays in the selling of ad space - well that would be hard to determine, now wouldn't it?
15. Thom says:
29 January 2010 at 10:08 AM
I understand what you are getting at. I guess what I am trying to say is that if the LCBO is a profitable crown corporation then, I don't feel my tax dollars are subsidizing the magazine, even if the LCBO is partialy funding it. So, if I could offer an olive branch; I wish you the best of luck and hope that you can take advantage of the CPF where Food & Drink can't.
How will the possible lack of the Canada Periodical Fund affect your publication?
We will have to let someone go. If we don’t make up the funds in some other way then it is a person’s salary we’re losing. It is going to affect a lot of the literary magazines, obviously. That means far less venues for writers, especially new ones to get their work published. Because if half of those magazines go it is going to be even harder to get published.
The government obviously doesn’t want us to get the funding because they stuck the deadline right in the middle of the Canada Council Grant time, the deadline for which is March 1st. They are making it as difficult as possible. What is irking me is the timing of the deadline. They gave hardly any notice. It is a bit suspect. They waited until the last moment so everyone has to scramble, particularly small magazines who may qualify but have low levels of human resources and have to complete two grant applications at the same time.
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcp-cpf/aae-atp/guide/102-eng.cfm. We have updated the story to reflect this, thanks for pointing it out.