There are two other independent sources for HPR income--subscriptions and advertisements. In some of the pre-cultural revolution issues, there was as much "advertising contributed for the public good" as there were paid ads. This had changed under the new format, but the expanded costs of publishing the new Review more than negate any increase in its advertising space. The income from ads in each issue covers less than a third of its publishing expenses.
As for subscriptions, the only remaining hope for HPR self-sufficiency, the outlook is dim. Despite the tenfold increase in subscriptions, Saylor estimates that for complete independence a subscription increase of over 3000 would be needed. To achieve such an increase, according to Saylor, would involve a mass mailing of over 100,000, the costs of which would be twice the Review's annual budget. After more than 75 years existence, The New Republic has a subscription list of less than 25,000; despite and extensive campaign to increase the list of subscribers, success has been minimal. The New Republic's inability to boost its circulation provides ample evidence of a non-expanding market for political analysis; under such tight conditions, the Review had no choice but to troop back to the Student Advisory Committee and ask for continued subsidization at the '74-75 levels.
Self-Criticism and Revisionist History
In return for assurances of continued SAC support, the committee demanded a detailed accounting of why the Review's expected "take-off" into the national market fizzled. 1975-76 became a time for re-evaluation of the Review by its editors, with some startling conclusions. Incoming Review president George H. White '77 calls Mendelson's and Bliss's conceptions of what it would take to break into the national market "idealistic and unrealistic." "They talked to people over at the Harvard Business Review, and not to other political journals," says White.
Saylor terms the Mendelson period an "identity crisis--we were losing our identity as a political journal." White agrees: "Rick and Tim viewed the Review more as a marketable product than anything else. Their entrepreneurial spirit was permeating the editorial staff." Saylor says that Mendelson and Bliss's pursuit of professional content and production and a firm financial base "soon became transformed into a sort of entrepreneurial game. With all the interest in marketing we kind of lost sight of what kind of magazine we were putting out." Even the SAC had harsh words for Mendelson and Bliss: "Nothing like the optimistic goals that the previous editors had suggested was possible."
Retrenchment
George White believes there's no reason not to have long-range expansion goals. His period of re-evaluation "hasn't made me pessimistic--just made me want to concentrate on the things we're doing well." White includes in his list of positive developments the expanding involvement of members of the Harvard community in all aspects of HPR operations and the "nice balance" of contributions from students on the staff and outside writers, at a ratio of three to two. "The Harvard Political Review isn't a national magazine at all," says White. "It's a forum for political analysis and a service to Harvard students, most of whom don't get much political analysis in whatever newspapers and newsweeklies they read."
The philosophy that Mark Saylor is bequeathing to White is based on the desire to "publish people who wouldn't otherwise be published." Saylor professes an aversion to publishing professors: "They have their own academic journals, and besides, sometimes they give us and Public Interest say, similar articles." Saylor and White are looking first of all for student political writing, and second, for off-beat articles by people who do get published all the time but would never ordinarily write pieces out of their fields. Nieman Fellows are a case in point--James Scudder, a city editor for the Arkansas Democrat, wrote on power vacuums and irresponsibility at Harvard in the HPR last winter.
White looks forward to a time when a large staff will enable the Review to explore new fields and present diverging views on the same issues, as in the most recent HPR when two staffers disagreed about aid to cities. Likewise, in the next issue of the Review, several contributors will react to Martha Gershun's article urging continued and expanded U.S. participation in the United Nations. Another upcoming feature, which White calls "as close as we can get to investigative reporting considering our month-long lead times," is an account of the Howard Hughes/Glomar Explorer affair.
It remained for the old-hand outgoing editor Saylor to add the sobering note: "Really, though, our only general philosophy is just stabilizing the magazine, making sure that we'll be coming out the following year"--and making sure those advertisements stay in the Columbia Journalism Review