Council's £270,000 magazine brings in £3,400

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20760 ... gs_in_3400" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SURREY Matters, the taxpayer-funded, in-house magazine put together by county council staff, cost almost £270,000 to produce last year, Freedom of Information (FOI) figures have revealed.

In contrast, the publication generated just £3,400 in revenue in the form of two advertisements from Southern Legal Services and the Environment Agency.

The magazine generated no income at all in 2008/09. A £5,600 compensation payment from Royal Mail for poor delivery and distribution was the only money received by Surrey County Council.

County Hall insisted the magazine, which is distributed free to every home in the county three times a year, was not meant to be in direct competition with local newspapers.

The cost of Surrey Matters in 2009/10 fell when compared to the previous year, according to figures obtained through an FOI request.

The authority also ended a contract with an outside agency for the magazine last year, bringing all responsibility for design and editorial in-house in 2009/10.

The costs were revealed as the county council looks to save more than £180m before 2013/14. Some £22.7m of cuts in vital services have already been identified.

All services at County Hall, including Surrey Matters, are subject to the authority’s public value review.

Christine Melsom, from taxpayers campaign group Isitfair, said in-house publications were anything but value for money.

“I think a lot of what they are doing is propaganda. They are pushing out information that they want people to hear,” she said.

“I really do think that if you are talking about £260,000, as far as Surrey County Council is concerned, it might not be such a big deal.

“But as far as their taxpayers are concerned it’s a waste of money, and think about how much could be spent on other things, especially in this climate.

“I think that these in-house publications are not all necessary and are only interested in telling us what good they are doing.”

Some £126,576 was spent on print and design for all editions of Surrey Matters during 2009/10, down on the £139,702 splashed out during the previous year.

However, the cost of staff working on the magazine jumped from £16,409 in 2008/09 to £75,018. This came after editorial responsibility was moved in-house.

Almost £68,000 was spent on distribution costs and £237.50 on photography.

During 2008/09, journalism, design, print and distribution costs set the taxpayer back £307,142.

The summer 2010 edition featured articles on how residents can cut down on food waste, how adults are taking more control over their own social care support and what communities are doing to support the county council.

It is also made available in other languages and formats.

A spokesman for Surrey County Council said: “We believe Surrey Matters is an effective way for us to communicate with local people.

“We are committed to providing value for money for residents and will continue to look at ways of making the magazine as cost-effective as possible.

“In the past this has included advertising requests that have come in to us.”

[dvbuk55]

Well there's a fiscal triumph for you, having said that it is probably £3400 more than CWU TV brought in last year.................. as I recall they had hoped to offset costs with advertising

[La Poste]

However, the cost of staff working on the magazine jumped from £16,409 in 2008/09 to £75,018. This came after editorial responsibility was moved in-house.

Sounds like corruption and nepotism to me.
Expense accounts and business lunches, hotels and trips away with fuk all work getting done.

Well there's a fiscal triumph for you, having said that it is probably £3400 more than CWU TV brought in last year.................. as I recall they had hoped to offset costs with advertising

Maybe they should get Crozier in to sort the mess out.

[DGP1]

Well there's a fiscal triumph for you, having said that it is probably £3400 more than CWU TV brought in last year.................. as I recall they had hoped to offset costs with advertising

Maybe they should get Crozier in to sort the mess out.

That would belike putting ITV2/3/4 HD onto a subscription basis.....................I don't watch them now when they're free so why do they think someone will pay

[dvbuk55]

Well there's a fiscal triumph for you, having said that it is probably £3400 more than CWU TV brought in last year.................. as I recall they had hoped to offset costs with advertising

Maybe they should get Crozier in to sort the mess out.

That would belike putting ITV2/3/4 HD onto a subscription basis.....................I don't watch them now when they're free so why do they think someone will pay

That DGP is a stroke of genius - why not make it subscription TV - oh hang on though it's already subsciption TV