Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600 of 824

as good as Fortune. It was big, it was printed on beautiful paper, it had beautiful photographs, and it had great big stories that really dealt in depth with business problems and quite a few social problems. It became very successful, and was successful through the 1930s despite all the bad times.

I think I mentioned somewhere why Fortune did so well during the war--namely rationing. They were given an excess amount of paper to use. They paid the price right after the war, in that they thought they were so beloved and so much in demand and then discovered they weren't at all. In the late 1940s, Fortune went from making a lot of money to--I think it went in the red then. I know it went in the red in the late 1950s. The re-thinking of Fortune started. I guess it goes back even that far that the discussion of whether Fortune should be a weekly or a fortnightly thing started. I know that in the 1950s, when Harry was involved in a major re-think of Fortune, the proposition of going fortnightly was very seriously considered. I cannot remember who was involved as a publisher then. I guess Ralph Payne was. He had been the managing editor before that. They never really got a new focus on the magazine that I can remember. But through good publishing and promotion they got themselves out of the red and in to the black. Then Shepley was publisher, and he too fought the battle of the fortnightly. I'm now trying to remember when the fortnightly actually occurred.

The 1970s?

In the 1970s. There was terrible discussion because