Canadian Magazine Industry News
9 September 2010, CANADA
Canadian Heritage announces results of Canada Periodical Fund grants
The grant data for the inaugural year of the Canada Periodical Fund has been released, with 484 titles receiving $52.7 million.
Amounts range from the highest, $1.5 million to the lowest, $386. The Canada Periodical Fund replaces the Publications Assistance Program and Canada Magazine Fund.
Five magazines received the maximum grant amount, they are:
Canadian House and Home
Canadian Living
Chatelaine
Maclean’s
Reader’s Digest
Though they received the maximum amount, these magazines took a big hit under the new program, as expected. Here’s how much they lost, based on the last year for which grants were listed (2008-2009) on the Department of Canadian Heritage website:
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
The average grant publications received was $108,820. Magazines which received more than $1 million under the Canada Periodical Fund, including the top five are:
Châtelaine (French): $1,236,251
Coup de Pouce: $1,426,187
Movie Entertainment: $1,292,492
Primeurs: $1,103,183
Style at Home: $1,349, 466)
TV Hebdo: $1,157,100
As Masthead reported earlier, many small magazines were shut out of funding because of the rule which disqualified titles with less than 5,000 paid copies per year. Many of these publications also receive funding from arts councils, but the Canada Council did not close the gap between what these publications lost under the Canada Periodical Fund and what they receive from the Canada Council.
Though the top five large magazines lost out under the new program, some of their parent company's smaller titles came out ahead. Here is a list of many titles which are receiving more than under the PAP and CMF.
Canadian Business: up $64,000
Clin d'oeil: up $44,168
Cottage Life: up $28,139
Fashion: up $48,193
Flare: up $62,000
Frank: up $20,248
Homemaker's: up $169,450
MoneySense: up $54,705
Toronto Life : up $36,870
The Walrus: up $44,065
Stay with Masthead for more on the results of the Canada Periodical Fund.
Amounts range from the highest, $1.5 million to the lowest, $386. The Canada Periodical Fund replaces the Publications Assistance Program and Canada Magazine Fund.
Five magazines received the maximum grant amount, they are:
Canadian House and Home
Canadian Living
Chatelaine
Maclean’s
Reader’s Digest
Though they received the maximum amount, these magazines took a big hit under the new program, as expected. Here’s how much they lost, based on the last year for which grants were listed (2008-2009) on the Department of Canadian Heritage website:
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
The average grant publications received was $108,820. Magazines which received more than $1 million under the Canada Periodical Fund, including the top five are:
Châtelaine (French): $1,236,251
Coup de Pouce: $1,426,187
Movie Entertainment: $1,292,492
Primeurs: $1,103,183
Style at Home: $1,349, 466)
TV Hebdo: $1,157,100
As Masthead reported earlier, many small magazines were shut out of funding because of the rule which disqualified titles with less than 5,000 paid copies per year. Many of these publications also receive funding from arts councils, but the Canada Council did not close the gap between what these publications lost under the Canada Periodical Fund and what they receive from the Canada Council.
Though the top five large magazines lost out under the new program, some of their parent company's smaller titles came out ahead. Here is a list of many titles which are receiving more than under the PAP and CMF.
Canadian Business: up $64,000
Clin d'oeil: up $44,168
Cottage Life: up $28,139
Fashion: up $48,193
Flare: up $62,000
Frank: up $20,248
Homemaker's: up $169,450
MoneySense: up $54,705
Toronto Life : up $36,870
The Walrus: up $44,065
Stay with Masthead for more on the results of the Canada Periodical Fund.
Most Recent News Comment
![]() |
|
Jaded says: | |
Wow, Torstar really seems to be on a mission to bankrupt one magazine after another.... |
Most Recent Blog Comment
![]() |
|
Lorene Shyba says: | |
Full of terrific information, Thanks!... |
Most Read Stories
Special Reports
A couple of these immediately stick out like sore thumbs (at least to me they do), and a few others seem somewhat "odd".
Great for the publishers that are investing in the overall quality of their publications and are legitimately scoring some decent funding, but I don't know - some of these numbers appear to be quite bizarre.
In fact - again, to the absolute best of my knowledge, these publications don't even appear to have the total circulation number(s) required to score the dollars that they were apparently given. Even if they were 100% paid or 100% request (which they aren't), the total circulation is simply not big enough to justify being awarded such handsome amounts.
If memory serves � and someone correct me if I'm wrong � CPF grew out of the old Canadian Magazines Fund. That fund was established in the late 1990s to compensate for the bringing down of barriers that blocked split-run U.S. magazines from taking a bigger piece of the Canadian advertising pie. The bigger titles stood to lose proportionally more than smaller titles to split runs, so they got proportionally larger cheques.
Obviously, things are different today, so there may be a case for rethinking the hows and whys of CPF. I imagine the large publishers would still get the lion's share of funding, though. Without them, the industry doesn't have a whole lot of lobbying power.
Isn't it interesting the smaller publishers don't qualify. But the Transcons, Quebecor and Rogers outfits, the ones with the staff to hunt out and effectively apply for these grants continue to benefit. I can't blame them. If the money is there, shame on them if they don't grab it. The true culprits are those who sign the cheques. The old saying is right, The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The beauty of the postal subsidy program, in my mind, was that it was seen as a subsidy to readers to get cheap subscriptions to Canadian magazines, not as a subsidy to publishers. So no matter where readers lived in Canada, they could get access to Canadian periodicals at the same price as anyone else. The subsidy was actually paid to Canada Post, based on the number of subscribers each publisher had.
All that has been thrown out the window. Publishers no longer pay a reduced postal bill. In fact, with the new distance-based pricing, publishers pay more to send their magazines out of province than they do for local subscribers. Of course, publishers can (and will) use their CPF grants to help cover massively increased postage costs. But the optics have changed, and my fear is that it will be easier for future governments to cut grants to publishers than it will be to cut subsidies to readers (i.e. voters).
Writers unions or agencies should lobby the government officials in charge of these programs for the magazines to have standards when it comes to hiring out interns and freelance writers so they don't have to work for nearly-free or give up all rights for nothing.