Magazines feeling postal pinch

Magazines feeling postal pinch
High-circulation periodicals enjoy discounted rates, while smaller publications get hit with steep rate hikes.
By Teresa Stack and Jack Fowler, TERESA STACK is president of the Nation. JACK FOWLER is publisher of the National Review.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-stack28may28,1,5257005.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true


THE COST OF getting magazines into your mailbox will shoot up July 15. How much? It depends.

Magazine publishers are facing a radical postage rate restructuring that favors those with large circulations and transfers costs to small- and mid-circulation publications.

Past increases to periodical postage were applied fairly equally across all publications. But this time, things are drastically different — and potentially damaging to the diversity of voices that our founders strove to foster when they created the national postal system.

Our respective magazines — the Nation and the National Review — sit on opposite ends of the political spectrum and disagree on nearly every issue. But we concur on this: These proposed postal rate hikes are deeply unfair.

It is not simply that we want to avoid a massive increase in our mailing costs, though that is a factor. More important to us is that we believe in a vibrant marketplace of ideas (where we each think our ideas will prevail). We are not afraid of intellectual competition; we welcome it.

For this latest round of rate hikes, the U.S. Postal Service proposed a 12% increase that would have affected magazines more or less equitably. Then, in an unprecedented move, that plan was rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission, the body responsible for setting rates. Instead, it approved a complicated pricing system based on a proposal by Time Warner Inc., the largest magazine publisher in the country. Rather than base rates on total weight and total number of pieces mailed, the new, complex formula is full of incentives that take into account packaging, shape, distance traveled and more.

It adds up to this: discounts for some periodicals; as far as we can see, mostly the huge-circulation titles associated with firms like Time Warner. At smaller magazines like ours, rates will go up 15% to 25%. Research by McGraw-Hill Cos. concludes that the rate increases for some small-circulation publications could hit 30%.

Time Warner and the Postal Regulatory Commission say this scheme rewards efficiency. But the rates appear to have been adopted with little research into their effect on publishers and with no meaningful public input.

How will small magazines that operate on the economic margins — yet have an outsized effect on public discourse — accommodate $500,000 (in the case of the Nation and the National Review) in additional postage expense? Will we be forced to cut back on reporting, raise our prices, reduce our staffs or our number of pages to stay afloat? For some titles, the change may prove fatal. It certainly will make it more difficult to start a new magazine, and publishing will be less competitive as a result.

Time Warner and the postal commission seem to have little understanding of the crucial role the Postal Service has played in establishing an open marketplace of ideas. It has always been a central policy of the Postal Service to use its pricing mechanism to encourage smaller publications and competition.

Since the time of James Madison and the founders in the 1790s, it has been understood that low rates for small publications make it possible to have the rich, open and diverse media that a self-governing people require. This is what is at stake today. And because so much of the material online originates in print magazines, these postal rates could have the unintended effect of shrinking the digital marketplace of ideas as well.

We urge the relevant congressional committees to hold a hearing to investigate this coming crisis before it is too late. The last 215 years of postal policy were instrumental in the creation of the extraordinary free press we have in the U.S. today. We should not begin to overturn this magnificent tradition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS FLASH * * * Elimination of Publishers Periodical Rates for Foreign Subscribers.

BoSacks Speaks Out: The Following News Flash was submitted by a BoSacks Reader. I felt it was too important not to pass along immediately .

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else"
Benjamin Franklin


It appears to be a little known fact that included in the next increase and effective May 14th is the elimination of Publishers Periodical Rates for foreign subscribers. Publishers will no longer be able to include foreign mail on Form 3541, nor will they be able to pay for these subscribers from their Periodicals accounts at their respective mailing points. These copies will have top be repackaged and mailed with postage affixed via ISAL. The USPS will not allow the copies to be mailed even though the new mailing statements 3541-1 (8 pages vs. 3) don't go into effect until July 15. As an example a 10oz magazine from the US to Canada will go from $1.09 to $2.45 that is almost a 244% increase. I don't think the fulfillment houses are even aware of this change.

The USPS says the change is being forced due to complaints on service to foreign countries by Publishers, but won't give any names. I don't know what service the IMTAC committee has provided in this area for the small publisher as most of their foreign subs are already being handled by remailers. This is about the stupidest thing I have see the USPS do in the 33 years I have been in this business.
(Submitted by a Director)

USPS May Revise Slim-Jim Specs

USPS May Revise Slim-Jim Specs
May 8, 2007 6:11 PM , By Jim Tierney


Catalogers considering switching to a slim-jim format to save on postage costs might want to put those plans on hold. The U.S. Postal Service will begin to test a variety of booklets—which by postal definition includes slim-jims. The result could be revised specifications for such mail pieces.

USPS spokesperson Dave Partenheimer tells MULTICHANNEL MERCHANT that the Postal Service has been contemplating revising its standards for folded self-mailers and booklets, which fall under the “letter mail” category, for some time. “We do have current plans to conduct testing of a variety of booklets within the next few months,” he says. “Based on the results of the tests, we may find that we need to make some revisions to standards.”

What’s more, Partenheimer says, the USPS wants to “get the word out” that requirements might change, “so mailers don’t risk spending money on converting to the wrong letter booklet specifications.”

Don Landis, vice president of postal affairs for Menomonee Falls, WI-based printer Arandell Corp., says the USPS recently discovered that many supervisors were running slim-jims on flat sorters rather than letter sorters.

“Some slim-jims were causing the letter sorters to jam; however, some slim-jims sorted just fine,” Landis says. “The USPS is now testing various types of slim-jims, different piece weights, cover weights, and sizes. The test is supposed to last a couple of months. I do think there will be new specs for slim-jims to qualify for the letter rate.”

Dimensions for slim-jim catalogs are roughly 6-1/8" × 11-1/2" and 1/4" thick. To qualify for conventional letter-size rates, the catalog must weigh 3 oz. or less. In addition to these rates, there is a subclass referred to by the U.S. Postal Service as Heavy Letters for catalogs weighing more than 3 oz. and up to 3.5 oz. that are placed in envelopes. If a book weighs more than 3.3 oz. and up to 3.5 oz., it will qualify for a hybrid rate that is still significantly below the rates for flats. Any book over 3.5 oz., even if it is enveloped, will be considered a flat.

Under the postal rates that go into effect on May 14, you could save roughly $0.10 per book in postage by switching from a standard-size catalog, which is considered a flat, that weighs less than 3.0 oz. to a slim-jim.