Previous | Next
601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645 of 824
success out of it. But it was very difficult to read. You really
had to know science thoroughly to be able to understand it. So we
were trying to create a magazine that was sort of in the middle
between pop science and Scientific American. At the same time Hearst
was creating one and the National Association for Scientific
Advancement, I forget what the name is, also put out a magazine
called Science '85. It was science with the year after it. So
suddenly, instead of there being no scientific magazine in that
field--there were three. And all three had great troubles. The
marketplace was probably not as hungry as we thought it was for
science, straight science news, although parenthetically I have to
say that the Tuesday science section of the New York Times seems to
be very popular.
So we plowed ahead with Discover at great expense, losing lots
of money. Now, in it's sixth year, it's still losing lots of money.
And the other two magazines went by the wayside. The one run by this
non profit scientific group was too expensive for their pocket books.
And the Hearst one, we bought the subscription list, in effect. So
now there's only one left and we'll see whether that succeeds or not.
One of the strange things is that the audiences of the science
magazine turned out to be relatively small, i.e. readers per copy,
and consisted of people with relatively little money. A lot of them
very young. Fifteen year olds and seventeen year olds seemed to take
to it more than did forty-five year olds, which, of course, creates
an advertising problem.
So you think that was a major problem of the magazine? The money
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help