Xref: utzoo rec.mag:34 sci.misc:880 talk.rumors:1125
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ptsfa!pacbell!att-ih!chinet!rissa
From: rissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: rec.mag,sci.misc,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Unscientific Americans
Message-ID: <3135@chinet.UUCP>
Date: 4 Mar 88 05:21:03 GMT
References: <2736@gryphon.CTS.COM> <7428@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 19

In article <7428@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lum@apatosaur.UUCP writes:
>Agreed, Sci Am is an institution whose loss would be most regrettable!
>
>Over the last several years it has been getting harder and harder for them to
>find advertisers, accounting for much page loss and some content loss.
>Hopefully, they can broaden the base of their readership and thus their appeal
>to advertisers without too much obvious pandering.

"Publishers Weekly" discussed SA's financial woes a couple of
years ago pointing out that there really is only room for one 
general science magazine in the marketplace and that SA was 
losing more and more of its advertisers and subscribers to the 
new science magazines (ie, Omni, New Scientist, Science, etc).  
PW predicted that Omni would be the first to go, but that in 
any case, Scientific American was facing a very bleak future.  

Oh, well, remember money talks.

				              .
				t r i s h a   o t u a m a