If we can help an advertiser refine a message so it works for our consumers, we should be doing that, but at the same time, you never want to do it by confusing the customer about what the experience is. If we fail in that regard, we do our brand and our customers a disservice.

Just as there's some technologies that jeopardize revenue for traditional products, there are also technologies that can significantly lower costs.

Yes, there may be some convergence to what you see on a screen that's different from the way you will experience a magazine in your hand, but there are lots of ways you can signal differences. Where native advertising and these other things get tricky is when the consumer can't tell the difference between edit and advertising.

The technology is not only the way we change stories, but also changing the relationship to the consumer.

I've always had an interest in geopolitics and macroeconomics.

If our brands are going to be in print and on mobile handsets and in video and events, we have to acknowledge that the playing fields are going to be different than a print-only product or a print product with extensions to it.

You can't just reprise the news. You have to have journalism that makes a point and you have to be in sync with your audience.

We should want our advertising to be compelling.

I think there's still room for compelling voices to build up and get a great following.