Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Disseminate Information, Protect Democracy

By Teresa Stack, The Nation. Posted May 5, 2007.


Unless the US Postal Service reverses its steep increases in bulk-mailing rates to favor large corporate publishers, the future of small magazines is grim.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is a shortened version of a letter drafted by Nation president Teresa Stack and signed by her and her counterparts at more than a dozen independent journals, including National Review, The American Spectator and Mother Jones.

James C. Miller III
Chairman, Postal Board of Governors

We write to you today on a matter of great urgency. The recent decision of the Postal Service Board of Governors (BOG) to accept the startling periodical rate recommendations of the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) undermines the historic foundation of our national mail system. These new rates will have grave consequences for disseminating the very type of information our Founding Fathers strove to protect and foster when they established the public postal service.

As the publishers of small national magazines that focus primarily on politics and culture, we share a common mission of providing the information essential to a flourishing democracy. We struggle to inform the national dialogue in a way the Founders believed essential to the health of this country. As journals of opinion and ideas, we do not do it for the money; we do it because, like the Founders, we believe it to be a public good.

As you know, in May 2006 the United States Postal Service proposed a rate increase for periodicals of about 11.7 percent, an increase that would have affected all periodicals more or less equally. Instead, in February the PRC recommended a version of the rate proposal put forward by Time Warner, which had previously been rejected by the PRC and strongly opposed by the USPS. This proposal would have a disproportionately adverse effect on small national publications while easing the burden on the largest magazines.

The decision was followed by an industry "comment period" of only eight working days, an impossibly short time for small publications to digest changes so complex that to this day there is no definitive computer model to fully assess them. Nonetheless, the new rates are scheduled to take effect July 15.

We now know that small titles will be devastated. According to an analysis by McGraw-Hill (but not, inexplicably, done by the PRC or BOG), about 5,700 small-circulation publications will incur rate increases exceeding 20 percent; another 1,260 publications will see increases above 25 percent; and hundreds more, increases above 30 percent. Some small magazines will no doubt go out of business. Meanwhile, the largest magazines will enjoy the benefit of much smaller increases and in some cases, decreases. To make matters even worse, editorial content charges will now be based on distance. The system of charging one price however far editorial content travels, which has existed since our country's founding, seems to have been summarily dismissed by the PRC, and then by the governors, with little thought of its future impact.

These increased postal rates will also raise barriers for prospective new publishers, thus destroying competition in the periodicals market and locking in the privileged positions of the largest firms. While it is understandable that Time Warner would relish the idea of making it more difficult for new competitors, there is no reason to think that it is in the interest of the American people or the market economy.

Since its inception, the US Postal Service has recognized small magazines like ours as serving a vital function in the American political system. And while the realities of the marketplace no doubt require some adjustments to postal costs, the PRC's new rates turn the ideals of Jefferson and Madison on their head. These ideals have been eloquently defended in all previous rate cases. Instead, we will now have an entirely cost-based system.

Even if the argument can be made that such a system trumps all other interests, the USPS remains in effect a government monopoly. We are small businesses, and to raise costs so dramatically without our input and with no recourse is devastating. Comments were heard only from companies that could afford to provide them, via expert testimony and top-notch legal advice. No one considered how a small business would accommodate a 30 percent increase in one of the most expensive items in its budget.

The PRC has managed to take a historically preferred class of mail and turn it into the most complex, cost-based and bureaucratically burdened of all mail classes in the span of a single rate case. Periodical rates ought to be the least cost-based, because that class exists for content.

In accepting the Time Warner rate plan, the PRC and the governors have allowed the cost-based proposal of one of the country's largest mailers to prevail over public and small business concerns. Small magazines that have historically contributed to the diversity of voices and opinions and have an outsized effect on our public discourse are now potentially silenced so that the likes of Time Warner can mail People more cheaply.

We appreciate that costs increase and mail technologies change. However, the mail system is a public system, and the dissemination of small magazines remains a public good. Accordingly, any changes should be implemented gradually and on a cost-averaged basis so as not to threaten the very existence of small magazines. We ask that:

1. the Board of Governors move quickly to delay the implementation of these new rates, allowing an additional period of public comment;

2. a full assessment and justification of the new rates and their impact on the public good be completed, and if the new rates cannot be adequately assessed and justified, that the decision of the BOG be revised and the new rates revoked;

3. whether the Postal Service exercises its right to file for another rate increase under the old postal reform law or moves directly to the new law's provisions, during the next rate case the Postal Service will shift some of the added burden away from the small-circulation publications that have survived until then.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: us postal service, magazines

Teresa Stack is president of The Nation. To learn what you can do to help, go to www.stoppostalratehikes.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Excrement
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 5, 2007 12:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you wish to be the modern equivalent of the buggy whip makers, aghast when people traded horses and buggies for cars or do you wish to move forward? The answer is right before your eyes- the internet.

Multiple companies are in the business of distributing magazines and newspapers via the internet, most commonly using Adobe Acrobat/Adobe Reader technology. No paper, no ink, nothing to recycle, color doesn't cost more than black and white, embedded hotlinks, no gas or diesel trucks for distribution, no time lag between issue and reader. Duh. Get with the program. The Nation and other small circulation mags can sell the subscription for the same price and make more money or opt to drop the price.

But you say what about copying? Why should someone pay for content is it can then be redistributed? The answer is DRM (Digital Rights Management). The Nation can send PDFs with DRM to subscribers and they will only read on computers with the proper software key. If they want a hard copy they can always print it with their own ink and paper.

Time Warner's push for the postal rate change is BS, but let them choke on it. Jump past the old and get green with electronic distribution. You will be glad you did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blogs.
Posted by: utilitarianist on May 5, 2007 1:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People still have the same interests, it is merely shifting to the internet. If these magazines are doing it for the public good then they should have no problem shutting down and redirecting their efforts towards the internet and if the government becomes a huge hardcore soviet fascism overnight and starts shutting down political websites they don't like, then all that will achieve is the rebirth of small magazines and newspapers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The future of USPS is advertising & eBay
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on May 5, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The postal service is not fading into oblivion anytime soon. Advertising isn't going away (much as some of us might lament that); advertisers can't get people's attention on the net in the way they like; most people never read much of anything but they'll look thru a catalog (i.e. consumer porn).

And if you're one who thinks the USPS is unreliable with packages, you're probably not an eBay-er. Check out eBay sometime and you'll see that the vast majority of that crap is shipped by USPS. They've gotten much more reliable in recent times, even if the crap being sold has not. Maybe the extinction of all those pesky personal letters helps them concentrate on the packages more?

Most likely TimeWarner IS shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Will Time or even People still exist 25 years from now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who needs magazines anyway?
Posted by: HughScott on May 5, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get two publications at home: “Arizona Highways,” a gift from my brother who lives in Phoenix, and “Aviation Week & Space Technology,” which I‘ve been taking since 1966 when I left the Air Force.

Most other magazines that interest me, such as “Time,” are available on the Internet -- the only way to publish, in my humble opinion, if nothing else but to save trees.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of the forthcoming JohnQPublic4PRESIDENT2008.com and King-George.biz, the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To some, the LL Bean catalog makes better reading than the Nation
Posted by: edith on May 5, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Teresa Stack's plea on behalf of political "opinion" journals of the left and right is nothing but a hands out for a govt payoff because in her opinion, one magazine has more important editorial content than another. She states: "Periodical rates ought to be the least cost-based, because that class exists for content." Yet who is to say what "content" is better than another? Is a sympathy card mailed at high first class rates more valuable to the public than a copy of the Nation, of Playboy or of the Lands End catalog?

Clearly the idea of the government running a delivery company in the 21st century is dubious, particularly with electronic alternatives available to low-circulation-political/cultural/university/member association journals which cost more to handle than bulk mailed mass circulation magazines like Time or National Geographic.

The Stack letter just proves that government funding brings out the greed in everyone, regardless of their otherwise finely honed ethical and philosophical beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well put... Posted by: EagleMB
LEFTIST DOUBLE SPEAK!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell on May 5, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our first class rates are higher to SUBSIDIZE the large publishers postal rates. I thought progressives were against corporate subsidies? Or perhaps, small publishers like Nation Magazine should expect we first class psotal customers to keep subsidizing them and other for-profit busineeses?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the point is that
Posted by: hellofriends on May 7, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the nation and thousands of other independent publications are going out of business because of this. this is a big deal and it's not good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement