The Economist has proved an authoritative chronicler of global businesses' financial difficulties over the past year, but the weekly business title is not in the habit of economising itself.
Quite the reverse, in fact: the 170-year-old title has just splurged £1m on a cinema advertising campaign in a bid to shed its elitist image and bring the brand to the popcorn-chomping masses. Or, as The Economist puts it, to tap into the "three million individuals in the UK with high levels of curiosity".
Aired before films such as Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, the eye-catching ad, featuring the wire-jumper Florent Blondeau, marks a big departure for The Economist, whose iconic, no-nonsense, red-on-white poster ads have become synonymous with the brand over the past 25 years.
The new campaign could prove something of a risk for The Economist, as the ragtag bunch Media Week watched the Tarantino film with didn't look like Rolex wearers, Mercedes-Benz buyers or analysts of America's long-term budget plans.
But Yvonne Ossman, UK publisher of The Economist, is confident the move will boost the UK circulation of the magazine, which stands at 186,995, compared to its global circulation of more than 1.4 million.
She says: "The aim of our cinema advertising campaign is to make the brand more inclusive; it is for the intellectually curious. Our managing director put it best when he said ‘we want to give people a gift at the cinema'."
But any C-suite businessmen balking at the possibility the title is dumbing down can rest easy. Ossman adds: "The ads will not alienate readers for two reasons. One, we are not changing the product, and two, we are a premium-priced magazine and The Economist is a self-selecting title."
Circulation history for the title certainly suggests The Economist - unlike much of the quality newspaper press - is in a strong position, having posted 56 consecutive rises in the six-monthly magazine ABC reports.
Baptism of fire
Ossman has worked at the company for 15 years, following the unusual path from marketing director to circulation director to publisher. She describes her appointment to the publisher role in 2008 as "a baptism of fire", coinciding with the economy plunging into recession.
But, ever the marketer, Ossman has tried to exploit the band's prestige during her tenure as publisher, whether last year's use of targeted vendors ("something we may look to do again") or the recent same-day delivery scheme, which allows readers to receive a copy of the £4 cover price magazine without having to take out a subscription.
Before joining The Economist, she spent six years at the BBC as subscriptions director, a period where she learnt the different styles of publishers and that they do not have to have hailed from an advertising background.
In keeping with the brand's bid to be less stuffy, Ossman eschews corporate airs. She greets Media Week at reception, plays mum by making the drinks during the interview and reveals that The Economist - or "mum's comic" as her eight-year-old son calls it - is read in the downstairs loo in her household.
She is clearly fiercely loyal to the brand, which perhaps comes across as unintentionally?patronising when appraising the fortunes of other current affairs titles - Ossman describes The Spectator as "parochial" and believes readers of Dennis Publishing's The Week are likely to "trade up" to The Economist.
For some, The Week's compendium of news has been the success story in the current affairs market in recent years. But then The Economist has always ploughed its own furrow, whether through its preference for being known as a newspaper despite its glossy cover, its penchant for non-bylined stories or the appointment of its new editor by a board of trustees.
Like the Murdochs and the rest of the publishing world, The Economist is grappling with the holy grail of how best to make money from its online content. Editorial copy from the magazine is currently served up free of charge, but the magazine plans to move to a paid-for model in the near future.
Ossman says: "Newspapers are losing revenue to free content online and people will pay for analysis and debate. Murdoch's move to a paid-for model is welcome, although I am not sure others will follow suit."
Given the performance of the magazine and its high reader retention rate, it seems The Economist has little to lose from going down this path. And while critics argue the decision to ditch the title's outdoor ads will damage the brand, Ossman thinks not. She says: "The outdoor sector has become crowded with the likes of Virgin and it can be difficult to know what the brands are for. It was time for a change."
The Economist, which is jointly owned by Financial Times proprietor Pearson and a group of independent shareholders, has not been exempt from making cuts, such as the loss of its ad director David Weeks, now at rival The Week.
However, it retains its sheen in the eyes of media buyers, who describe it - for the time being, at least - as the go-to brand for their C-suite clients.
UK publisher, The Economist
Circulation and marketing director for UK and EMEA, The Economist
Marketing director for UK and EMEA, The Economist
Marketing manager for UK and EMEA, The Economist
Subscriptions director, BBC Magazines
Ealing, West London
Married to Lutfy with son Rafique, aged eight
Learnt to surf this summer
James Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture: The BBC treads a difficult line. Murdoch talked about the BBC, but BSkyB is also a media giant. I don't agree with Murdoch's assertion that only companies driven by profit make good programmes.
The Economist's marketing campaigns: During the 1980s, the advertising for the Economist brand could be perceived as aloof. But a lot of it was tongue-in-cheek and self-effacing. Through our new campaign, we have distanced ourselves from the campaigns of that era.
Her move from marketing to publishing: There used to be a 70/30 split between publishers coming from an ad background and those from marketing and circulation roles. But it is now more of a 50/50 divide.
Paid-for content online: Murdoch's move is welcome, but I am not sure if others will follow suit. People will pay for quality content online - and if you saw the rigour that goes into our news meeting, you would understand why.