Previous | Next
138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202 of 824
management and, God, it took a lot of my time from 1946 on.
Then, of course, all the time you were looking at these awful
things--figures--and looking at the future. You had to go out and
rally the troops, always. Part of the job of being a boss, a
publisher, is that you have to instill confidence. You travel around
the country; you go to every bureau as many times as you can in a
year; you go to meetings of the national advertisers, meetings of the
advertising agencies. You try to make the troops feel happy and
confident, even when you don't feel that confident yourself.
And despite staff cuts starting in the 1960s.
Yes, that's right. Everytime you had a staff cut, it
meant one more swing around the country to explain this was not the
end of the world.
Let me ask you something. In the late 1950s, Howard Black--this
was one of these periods of trying to figure out what to do--had
suggested--and there's a document on this, but perhaps everybody had
mentioned this as a possibility as well--that LIFE quit this kind of
circulation war, this “firstism” attitude, and settle on four million
very high-grade subscribers and not budge from there. Now,
ultimately, as you just said, in the last year there were a lot of
circulation cuts, in a last effort. Do you think, had LIFE done
this, that the outcome would have been different? Is that “no”?
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help