Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 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