ABSTRACT
For the eight decades from 1930s to the early 2000s, the United States market for business magazines was dominated by the “Big Three” of Fortune, Forbes, and BusinessWeek. A study of their long and lucrative reign reveals the factors that can sustain oligopolistic competition. Each title differentiated itself through its primary subject matter as well as its dominant editorial voice. Forbes focused on investing, Fortune on corporate management, and BusinessWeek on news. Forbes’ voice was frequently acerbic, while Fortune’s was literary, even Olympian, and BusinessWeek’s was strictly factual rather than flashy. While this differentiation helped segment the market, the editors of the Big Three readily copied whatever innovations proved particularly successful at their rivals. And so, over time, the three magazines became similar in many important ways even while holding on to key elements that set apart their personalities, which this chapter examines. The chapter also investigates the outsized influence of a small number of individuals who shaped this field through innovative thinking and forceful personalities, and the longevity of their leadership, including B.C. Forbes, Malcolm Forbes, and James Michaels at Forbes; Henry Luce at Fortune; and Stephen Shepard at BusinessWeek.
