The Evolution of a Magazine. If you like what we've been doing, tell us. And if you don't, also tell us.

Editor's Note

April / May 2005 By: Bob Cochnar Volume 3 Number 2

Print this Article

E-mail this Article

Hundreds of new magazines are sprung on an unsuspecting public every year. Most are "niche" publications—€”for armadillo fanciers, manufacturers of gorgonzola cheese, twine collectors, etc.—€”and most suffer ignominious deaths before they reach the third issue. The magazine dodge is not for sissies.

But some survive. Since TechComm is now in its second year of publication, it's fair to place us among the survivors. And we did it without the benefit of advertising and paid circulation, thanks to our cooperative agreement with the National Nuclear Security Administration, which helps pay the bills.

So how should we measure our success as the National Journal of Technology Commercialization since the conventional standards (advertising and paid circulation) don't apply? One indicator is readership. The first issue of TechComm was distributed to about 5,000 prospective readers—€”entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers, government officials, technology company executives, investors—€”people gathered from the mailing lists of our parent company, Technology Ventures Corporation. Between then and now, our circulation has doubled and most of our readers have requested subscriptions. We're getting to the right audience.

Of course, we're never happy about our circulation, although 10,000 for a "niche" publication is nifty. That's why every issue contains subscription cards. We ask readers for some pertinent information so that we don't knowingly send magazines to pediatricians or fishmongers. Our readership is targeted and we want to keep it that way.

But are we on the right track? Are we providing information to you that you haven't seen elsewhere or that helps you do whatever you do? We think so but can't know for sure—€”unless we develop a readership survey to help determine the thrust and scope of TechComm. Given our variegated audience, we know it's fairly impossible to have every article or feature appeal to every reader. But we try. In the next issue we'll include a survey. We hope you'll tell us what you like about TechComm and, perhaps more important, what you don't like. You can count on us to pay attention.

Meanwhile, to the issue at hand:
We've introduced two new departments, one that will continue only if you stoke its coals. That's a letters column. We do welcome your input on topics large and small. With any luck, the column will become a national conversation on matters of technology commercialization. We don't plan to shy away from what some may consider controversy. Every magazine worth its salt needs a little juice, if you don't mind mixed culinary metaphors.

We call the other new department "Innovation." It's an area that is finally grasping some national attention, as well it should since without it the country is in deep trouble. The agenda of the National Innovation Initiative and the ongoing work of the Council on Competitiveness are worth your attention.

Finally, it seemed appropriate to call on two distinguished gentlemen to comment on the Bayh-Dole Act on the 25th anniversary of its passage. Bayh-Dole really did kick-start technology transfer from the labs to the marketplace (some success stories are also reported in this issue). Senators Birch Bayh and Bob Dole are hale, hearty and working at law firms in Washington, D.C. They accepted our invitation to contribute articles and we are delighted to publish them.
Oh, yes: Nine of our ten covers were created by Phillip Ortiz, 23. The latest is surely one of his best. We urge you to tackle the success maze. That other cover was the work of Scott Adams, whose day job is doing Dilbert.

Happy reading.