Such paternalism is being replaced by a focus on numbers. Imagine Pittman reviewing the three-year plans that Time Inc. editors used to write "every once in a while," as Graves remembers it. "Everybody knew that only the first year was really serious," he says.
Today, executives at Time Inc. find themselves worrying about quarterly - even weekly - targets rather than annual ones. "It becomes a very controlled environment," says one. At some magazines, taking colleagues out to lunch, once encouraged, is more or less a no-no; bananas have vanished from the Fortune kitchen; and they're scrutinizing the magazine subscriptions of People staffers. At going-away parties, says one Time Inc. writer, "you serve pretzels, there is no shrimp anymore. Those little things do make a difference." And last month the company eliminated its internal biweekly company newsletter FYI and its four-person staff. Launched in 1939, it was technically the fourth-oldest magazine published by Time Inc. It will continue to exist in some circumscribed form online.
But the real worry is the "L" word. A significant layoff of about 2,400 at the newly combined company came only a week after the merger was finalized. Time Inc. editorial wasn't hard hit, but Time-Life books is being phased out, and hundreds of people lost their jobs at CNN. Ted Turner went on the record in the New Yorker in April decrying how the financial targets imposed by AOL - the "occupying army," in one editor's words - would jeopardize the editorial excellence of the news channel.
Many inside the company insist that Time Inc. has lived through hard times before and suffered through other "reductions in force." During the recession of 1991, Time Inc. laid off 10 percent of its workforce. Just how much pressure is coming from AOL is discussed more in terms of gut feelings than hard facts. "People are very, very worried," notes one editor, about the finances and about the journalism. "Case and Pittman apparently say all the right things about journalistic independence," he says. "But I don't know these guys and they're very stock-price driven. I'm very skeptical of them."
Logan is the man on the barricades. When he first arrived at Time Inc. in 1992, some of the older staffers saw it as the ultimate expression of the changes ushered in by the Warner merger. Fears swirled that he would be a financial hatchet man. And he imposed unprecedented financial discipline. Under Logan, Pearlstine was the first editor in chief at Time Inc. to have formal business duties. To many, it was significant that he reported to Logan rather than directly to the company's board - a move perceived as a decline in the editorial side's power. But now that AOL appears to be out-Loganing Logan, he is looked upon as editorial's savior. One Time Inc. editor admits "we were all wrong" about Logan. "You couldn't find anyone on the edit side who would say anything less than that he saved the company. He rationalized the processes, gave great power to the business units. He gave people goals, supported entrepreneurship." Logan indicated at a breakfast meeting in April that he had his limits when it came to cuts. "He said that we're a company that's grown through new ideas and 'I'm not going to make cuts that hurt us in the long run,'" recalls one executive. Logan declined to be interviewed.
AOL, some at the magazines point out, hasn't gone through down cycles like this one before. "I think they just don't understand that it's OK, that this is what happens in businesses. They slow down," one editor says. Logan is a good line of defense, he adds, "but if they put a gun to his head ... Time Inc. is still committed to producing these high numbers at a very tough time." Indeed, some of the highest-ranking magazine executives dutifully say the AOL targets could be reachable. "This isn't about people smoking dope down in Dulles," says one. AOL declined comment, except to say it was "committed to journalistic integrity and quality."
Though Time Inc. has weathered tough times before, perhaps none has been so financially pressing as these. Staffers are counting on their new colleagues from AOL to realize that even if "making a nickel" takes precedence over newsgathering in Luce's two-pronged imperative, it still can't be the company's exclusive motive. This is, they reason, the legacy of Time's culture - that good magazines are what ultimately bring in the money. After the Logan years, the company has maintained a respectable measure of editorial quality, and it works like hell to hit the numbers. "At this place, it's 'just produce,'" says one editor. "I would be stunned if Pittman would ever want to tamper with that."
