Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645 of 824

have any feel at all for it.

You mean so there's a large dose of art in it?

It surely is not a science. You have to have --I know what the ingredients are. But I can't always put them together in the proper dosages. The ingredients are, to fill a void with a magazine that has got a clear sense of purpose. Then, of course, implement it properly and then hope to God that the readers will A: be numerous, and B: financially substantial enough so that you can attract the advertising. And given the very few magazines that survive entirely on circulation revenues-- the Readers Digest used to, but even the Readers Digest, small as it was (small in cost), finally had to take advertising to survive. So in this kind of a market you depend upon the advertiser, and you in one way or the other you want to create an audience that is a value to some or all advertisers. Again, I go back to the frame, it's got to be very clear. If you look at the names that we used, they're very simple and reasonably clear. Time, the weekly news magazine. Life, I'll come back to that because that's slightly different, Fortune, obviously, Money, obviously, Sports Illustrated, clear cut. You didn't have to do much explaining to the reader. He either want's it or he doesn't. And even, sometimes when doesn't want it, doesn't think he wants it, he comes upon it and finds it very interesting.

The curious thing about Life is its entire history, though the reader seemed to have recognized it for what it was and loved it for a period, we always had great trouble in defining it, giving it