|
|
of science in business
Talking with Scientific American's Bruce Brandfon
By Jamie L. Jones
Scientific American named Bruce Brandfon its new publisher on Sept. 24. Brandfon comes to Scientific American from Newsweek, where he was advertising director for six years. In April, Scientific American unveiled a massive redesign that sought to make the magazine more accessible and visually appealing. Brandfon now faces the challenge of selling the new look and image to advertisers in what has become the toughest ad climate in a decade. Ad pages in Scientific American have dropped 15.7 percent year-to-date, from 202.9 to 171.1, according to the August figures from the Publishers Information Bureau. Revenue has decreased 6.2 percent in the same period, from $8,599,164 to $8,065,688. Brandfon is a native New Yorker who has also lived in California and Washington, D.C. He lives with his wife and two sons, 14 and 19, in Chappaqua, N.Y. Brandfon may seem every inch the ad space salesman but his roots are really in music. For six years after he graduated from the University of Virginia, Brandfon was a professional musician, playing saxophone (alto, tenor, and soprano) in jazz groups. He still jams and even records with one of his sons, and when he’s not working or playing, he likes to garden, golf and run.
What keeps you in the magazine business?
I really believe that there are publications that serve either the public need or the need of important organizations like businesses and governments. The contribution, in the case of Scientific American, that it makes to global leadership cannot be underestimated.
And the work remains intellectually very stimulating. I enjoy the competition.
How do you envision the magazine you are coming into? How might you describe Scientific American to someone who has not seen it lately?
To me, Scientific American is in a unique position and has been for its history. That is, it is at the focal point of where technology, science, exploration and research breakthroughs increase with application.
In which category does Scientific American belong? Is it a title for science enthusiasts, an academic forum for scientists, a businessperson’s investment guide?
What category do we properly belong in? Some say science or business or opinion. All of those magazines have readers that may look like some of our readers. But I believe that we do provide a unique aperture. Our role is to inform people who are in leadership roles.
Popular Science and Discover are for people who have a casual interest in science—or not even casual as much as of a different kind.
Scientific American also isn’t a journal. It is a consumer magazine. While the edit is probably challenging to some people, you don’t need a Ph.D. to read Scientific American.
So what do Scientific American readers need, and what should they want from the magazine? Who reads the magazine now, and who should be reading it?
We had done some editorial focus groups, which were a cross-section of our current subscriber list. We had everyone from the computer scientist whom you might associate with Scientific American reader profiles, to a guy who was a young consultant, to a very young woman who was an investment banker and who reads Scientific American to keep up with breakthroughs.
You’re just as apt to find an article in Scientific American about business technology—à la computer technology—as about a new drug or a new process, or cures for what are now diseases.
This isn’t pie-in-the-sky stuff. These are the kinds of breakthroughs that companies that are going to survive in this incredibly competitive environment need to know about.
But this is a weak economy. The internet economy is hurting and dot.coms are virtually extinct. Who has money to invest in a scientific breakthrough or to implement expensive new technology?
It used to be, and it wasn’t that long ago, that business management decided on a strategy and they would say this is what we’re going to do, what markets we’re going into. Then they said, "Let’s get that guy with the pocket protector and the propeller on his beanie to buy into this idea."
What happened was that the people who had the technical knowledge in the corporation were called to the table. They came to the executive suite as CEO or were invited to the table. General management roles are increasingly being played by people who have engineering or science backgrounds.
What do you say to those people who still think Scientific American is a scientist’s magazine, or an esoteric academic journal?
There is a cost of entry as a reader. Let’s face it. Education is a requirement—but education is in the environment. And the magazine doesn’t only address your intellect; it also stirs your emotions.
If you’re not passionately engaged with the material, then you’re not going to get engaged at all.
In terms of demographics, the readership is 73 percent male. The median age is 44. The cost of entry is college: virtually all readers are college-educated, and a huge complement has postgraduate degrees. One of the misconceptions is that it reaches scientists in lab coats. It reaches predominantly people in business.
What did the April redesign at Scientific American accomplish for the magazine?
The goal of the redesign was to make the content that much more accessible and contemporary, to open it up a little bit to people who might have wanted to test the magazine but who were intimidated.
The business magazines and the newsweeklies all have tremendous edit on subjects of science and tech. It’s something that’s front and center in society. Some of our greatest heroes are people who have been engaged in it. So the redesign gave us the opportunity to leverage the intense passion that people have for the subject material.
October 4, 2001 © 2001 Media Life
-Jamie L. Jones is a staff writer for Media Life.
Printer-Friendly
Version | Send
to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact
Us
