Proposed postal rate increase for *some* periodicals Skwor, Jeanette 17 May 2007 14:41 UTC
I debated with myself about sending this, am thinking it is a political thing, but am going ahead on 2 rationales: 1) the list admin can disallow it and 2) you, of course, are free to vote yea or nay or not at all. And this is pertinent to serials librarians and libraries. In sum, here are snippages of a quote from Andi Zeisler, who publishes a small independent magazine, and writes with a definite slant: Under the proposed rate structure for mailing periodicals, the biggest publications--your Times, your Rolling Stones, your Vanity Fairs--are granted the best prices thanks to their ability to produce better mailing efficiencies (bundling, sorting, transport); smaller publications that don't have the budget for such efficiences pay for the Postal Service's work on their behalf. >From a free-market standpoint, this isn't, on its face, unfair: since big mag publishers use fewer Postal Service resources, they get to pay less. But the USPS . . . (is) a government body whose rate structure has until now been meant to facilitate and encourage the dissemination of information and ensure a thriving marketplace of ideas. The new rates were not only developed with no public or congressional input/oversight, they weren't even developed by the Postal Service itself. Rather, the plan was brewed up by . . . Time Warner publications, publisher of such checkout-counter heavies as People, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, and Sunset. The announcement was made only weeks ago, and the short notice hasn't allowed the small publications at risk time to do much more than mutter obscenities in the USPS's general direction. As the largest magazine publisher in the U.S., Time Warner shouldn't need to look over its shoulder at the likes of a comparatively tiny operation like The Nation; nevertheless, the policy it proposed seems like a paranoid guarantee that it never has to. Many small magazines simply won't be able to afford to continue publishing if their mailing rates increase 30 percent; fewer new magazines will be able to launch without a sizable amount of start-up capital and/or corporate backing. And what that means is that we'll see a dwindling number of magazines devoted to independent, noncommercial discourse --whether that discourse is from the left or the right, about hunting or about pressing your own tofu. Can the decision be reversed? Well, it's worth trying. Free Press <http://action.freepress.net/campaign/postal> is encouraging anyone who cares about preserving media democracy and independent voices to urge Congress to intervene, and the Postal Board of Governors to revamp the new policy. The site provides a handy-dandy pre-written letter for the slacktivists among us, as well as links to more information about what the new regulations mean for your independent media. The link to the full piece I quoted is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andi-zeisler-/going-postal-on-rate-hike_b_ 48616.html There is an unbiased piece on the same topic at http://www.usps.com/ratecase/_txt/Per_Proposed_FR.txt The reason I am not quoting that one is because I found it difficult to understand. Now back to your regularly scheduled Serialist . . . Jeanette L. Skwor Serials Dept., Cofrin Library University of WI-Green Bay 2420 Nicolet Drive Green Bay, WI 54311-7003 "Libraries will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no libraries." Anne Herbert, The Whole Earth Catalog