There was a time (which seems like many years ago now), where I thought wasteful publications (and I think you can guess what I mean by that: flyers, catalogues and other things you get, but never asked for) would become extinct.
So I was rather dismayed by an announcement made by the City of Toronto (where I live) that they are going to publish a new publication, called Our Toronto, up to four times a year, which would incorporate ‘newsletters’ that would go out to city residents about things like crime, garbage and taxes. The publication is going to cost about $800 000 per year.
While those familiar with Toronto might already know that the city is almost 3 billion dollars in debt — and wonder why close to a million dollars is being spent on this publication — something else came to mind as I read this story.
Most Canadians, like most people around the world, are relying more and more on the internet for information and transactions — so why is the city trying to turn back the clock and publish a newsletter that will almost certainly end up going straight in the recycling bins of most city residents?
People are already bombarded with information on a daily basis — and as any advertising agency would tell you, getting a few minutes of people’s time to read your message is extremely difficult (and not getting any easier). So what is it about Our Toronto that is going to be different?
And while official sources of electronic information are still important to web users, people have come to rely increasingly on divergent sources of information — not just the City of Toronto’s website to find out what’s going on in the city, but online newspapers, blogs and forums to get a more holistic perspective on any issue that happens to interest them.
A publication that is so obviously put out in the interest of the mayor (and which you can see from the article I’ve linked to), and does not even have the support of the city’s councillors, is going to be of little interest to a populace that has a wealth of choice when it comes to information consumption.
It’s not just that this idea is cost-ineffective — it’s just plain and simply ineffective. I’m not going to preach about what better uses $800 000 could have gone to, but I think you can probably think of something.
Like this post? Subscribe now to the full RSS feed.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I can only think it’s about a fat commision …just before the winter time … for a short holliday in Asia. That’s where i would go …:)
November 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Maybe you should run for city office.
Seriously, I think they need insight from people like you about the incredible amount of money they’re wasting.
Our state bar (the agency that regulates lawyers) asked for ways to help balance the budget. Some people suggested they quit mailing out their fancy magazine every month. But the bar just claimed that people prefer to read it in print. What a waste!
November 12th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Nah, I’d be a terrible politician.
Funny how these ‘claims’ often have little to back them up — I’d be much more inclined to believe the claim of people preferring the paper copy if there was a study of their readership to back it up. I agree completely with you — such a waste, of both time and money.
January 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Well i think this kind of publications sometimes are used to pump the ego of politicians. They like to see their faces printed in newspapers talking good about them. In the town where i live, in Italy, very very smaller than Toronto, we have the city periodic newsletter and the county periodic newsletter, both in A4 format, full color and glossy paper. Once i counted how many times the mayor’s face was printed on an issue: 14! Fourteen times on a 24 pages newsletter. That’s were our money ends!
January 19th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
And just think: how many of those full format, glossy, colour newsletters go directly into the recycling bin or wastebasket. I know in my building, the bins are constantly overflowing with these kinds of superfluous publications. If this were an electronic publication, the law would require an unsubscribe link — so why not make it easy for people who aren’t interested in this type of thing to unsubscribe? Or even better (and like all other publications), why not only send it to people who opt in?