Previous | Next
573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600 of 824
Newsweek rose nearly 100 pages to 3,008. I guess this is one of the
first signs. I'll read you something else--this is from Prendergast.
“A basic decision had been made in TIME's circulating policy to hold
at the 4,250,000 level reached in 1970. Since 1952 TIME's write base
had gone up every year, etcetera etcetera. TIME was in fact nearing
the situation that LIFE had faced of pricing itself out of the market
against television, which could for the same dollars” and blah, blah,
blah, blah. So TIME I guess decided at that point to hold its
circulation level. According to Prendergast this left an obvious
opportunity for Newsweek, which was then at 2,725,000 circulation, to
narrow the lead--which apparently it didn't do right at that point.
I just wanted to refresh your memory on some things.
How would you describe the whole competition with Newsweek?
There was a continuous jockeying. Newsweek had one
advantage all along. That is, it had more pass along circulation
than TIME did. As t.v. grew, the audience figures became more
important than the circulation figures in a lot of advertisers'
minds, because that's how they measured t.v.. So TIME was always at
a comparative disadvantage to Newsweek. But as far as actual
circulation rates and pages were concerned, it was a continuous
see-saw with Newsweek becoming better editorially and maybe TIME not
improving at all. That would result in more acceptance in
advertising terms. Then Kay Graham, God bless her, would fire the
editor-in-chief, or the publisher, then Newsweek would go in to a
slump and TIME, when it was wise, would take advantage of that slump
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help