I got an interesting heads-up from a Retch reader who says this is the proposed new Orlando Sentinel redesign, to be rolled out on June 22. The Baltimore Sun will follow shortly and similarly, reader says. The Los Angeles Times going cartoon cannot be far behind.
The reader says that the word is that the design has made Lee Abrams go "ga-ga." Not that I understand how anybody could know that. It's kind of like saying the Pope seems holy.
The big question the redesign raises is this: where is the engagement over journalism? Why are the Zellots getting excited about how the paper looks? How about the news that goes inside? Not as in, "We're in charge of the news now." But "Let's get more great stories in the paper every day." I'd welcome that enthusiasm, instead of being compared to a cowardly, confused, frozen monkey.
The redesign also brings to mind an offhand comment by Randy Randy during the infamous Q1 earnings call. He told the money lenders that the Tribune was moving toward a new web platform. "If you want to take a peak at the future, we have a new platform up,'' he said. (although he noted that the site still does not have "the linking and so forth turned on." Just like the new school at the old Ambassador Hotel site does not have "the walls and so forth built.")
It seemed as though Randy was suggesting that all the Tribune websites would move toward the same platform. Which is…..exactly the same mistake that the old Tribune folks made!! It sounds great on paper: everybody literally on the same page. But in practice, the centralization slows everybody down. In any case, he directed the curious to www.cw11tv.com. First thing that pops up is an ad for Budweiser. Err, no, it's a story about Budweiser. Drink up anyway!
31 comments:
two stories and a shitload of refers... now THAT'S why I got into journalism, to work for a paper that looks like a web site.
It looks horrrrible! As a page designer I can say with confidence that it is NOT good design.
If this happens to the LAT it's going under.
When will these people get it? The key is simple and INTERESTING! When you have good content the design will follow.
These editors need to sign up for a journalism 101 course and get reeducated.
Totally in agreement, blunt. Great stories. Interesting stuff. Can't put lipstick on a pig.
Maybe the Zell monkeys have been reading this paper.
For all the talk from Zell and the Clear Channel Mafia (the same guys who destroyed local radio, by the way) about the need to break from the past and be innovative, this is hardly new or innovative. It's style over substance, visuals over content, art direction over editing. And it is old news.
Actually, it's the same design that the Sun-Sentinel (Orlando's sister paper in Ft. Lauderdale) has had for about a year now. It hasn't changed anything in that market. Check it out.
As an OS insider (thus the anonymity), I must inform that the redesign was completely the work of the AME of Visuals and her design team.
After reading yours and Alan Mutter's comments on the redesign (which I agree with for the most part), I asked around about how much influence the higher powers exerted over the redesign. According to the people I talked to it was none.
I find this hard to believe considering the increasingly McPaper look of the thing. But, I just thought I would throw that out there. The redesigns of the Sun-Sentinel, (Baltimore) Sun and the others are apparently all up to their respective AME of Visuals. We'll have to see how those compare when they emerge I suppose.
Either way, the Zell/Michaels/Abrams strategy to save Tribune gets a huge and enthusiastic thumbs down.
I'm sorry to say I kinda like it. Looks Orlando-ish to me, something competitive in a crowded Florida market.
Readers aren't flocking to the Web because of the way it looks. They're flocking to the Web because the content is FREE! If the two products look the same, guess which one loses.
Where is the news? I see a cutbacks at the University of Florida, but the rest is fluff. And is that box on the bottom right of the front page an Advertisement? Looks like a front-page ad to me.
It reminds me of the Bakersfield Californian.
How has their circulation been since the redesign?
As a former page designer or newsroom tech guy at three newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, I'll repeat what I've been saying for 22 years:
1. New managers/owners always want to redesign because they think it will somehow fundamentally change the industry. They are wrong. (USA Today was a new design, but it was the abbreviated content that interested weary business travelers.)
2. Redesigns will get a consumer to pick up the paper a couple of times. If it's the same old content, all the benefits of the redesign are lost and now you've alienated the consumer even more.
3. NEVER redesign until after your content changes are in place.
4. Redesigns do not inject the work place with creativity. They inject it with tired, grousing employees who already had too much work to do. (Though employees would be happy to redesign the paper if the content really did change.)
A couple of clarifications about the Web side of things. My Trib friends tell me that the Web platform referred to in the conference call is one they're considering for the TV stations only -- not print. Second, one perhaps unavoidable consequence of print design changes that jazz up the paper is it's hard technically to take 'charticles' and turn them into text for Web. That is a consequence of a highly-designed format that includes rich breakout boxes, label heads, photos, bulleted lists etc. Computers have a tough time assembling the bits and pieces of an article into your Web template, and worse, even when they do, it still doesn't work as well because the print design is lost.
Hey Zell----
If it looks like a newspaper....and it smells like a newspaper....it IS a
fu**ing newspaper!
Jeff Prescott, La Jolla, Ca
The problem with redesigns like this is that they look good on CERTAIN days when you have cool items to fill all the little colored boxes and refers. But when you have to do this sort of layout every day, even on Dec. 26, then it starts becoming too much of a stretch. Not enough redesigns are focused on the everyday, sometimes-mundane design days.
It's the designers job to take "mundane" days and make them worth reading.
Change is good. For newspapers a lot of change would be great.
I've been working in newspapers for 11 years (page design, news and sports writing, photography, copy editor, managing editor, circulation, you name it).
This stodgy old white-haired guys in suits business needs a serious overhaul or we're all going belly up. We're following AP and other newspapers off the cliff like lemmings.
Jesus, guys (and gals), except for Brett @ June 16, 2008 7:35 AM, about all I'm reading are the same old predictable run of snarky, knee-jerk comments to any big change.
OK, so it's got flaws, it needs some tweaking, and as Brett put it so well, you gotta upgrade/change the content, not just the form.
But for god's sake, step back and appreciate that, 1. things NEED to change, and 2. someone is thinking and ACTING on some ideas to figure out what that change needs to be.
What are you doing?
Yeah, Randy, American radio is SO much better after your tenure at Jacor.
How are the ratings lately? Still sinking?
the change that needs to happen is DROP THE DEAD TREES. PERIOD, FULL STOP. save a ton of money. reach your core audience exclusively. yeah, there are a few people who don't have net access. so what? they need to get with the times. and The Times.
One of my mentors, David Levinson of the dear departed Long Beach Press Telegram, always said that redesigns were the death knell of a paper. We shall see. I mostly read papers online, but I would hate to lose the print option. BTW, I find that many older folks simply can't read online--they get nauseated.
About the "Budwesier" story you called an ad then realized it was a story and dismissed offhand... you should know, that TV station is in St. Louis, home to Anheuser-Busch, which was the target of a takeover bid. That counts as big news in St. Louis. Your comment costs you credibility points on a website critical of a journalistic endeavor. By the way, that logo is Anheuser-Busch's, not Budweiser's.
Ouch. Right on both counts. It is an important local story. And I've been exposed as an ignorant beer drinker.
Still, I can't help but wonder about the choice of a BIG GIANT logo to illustrate the story. Why not b-roll of the headquarters building? Or interviews with workers? Seems awfully corporate to just splash up the commercial logo, no?
ep and fdd,
The problem is that not only is what they're showing not new, it's not particularly good design. As for making every page into some kind of extravaganza, that is not only unrealistic it is sensationalism. I spent 25 years in newspapers, nearly 12 of them at the LAT.
It's the content first, presented in an engaging way. Presenting it like a supermarket tabloid isn't original or they way keep people reading.
I someone had only asked, I'd have shared the full set of prototyopes - all Tribune employees have had access to them for weeks. It may not change your opinions, but at least those opinions will be informed. See them here: www.visualeditors.com/apple
As a former Sentinel designer, I'm surprisingly not opposed to this effort because I haven't been a fan of the product of late. However, I am mystified once again by how companies always rush to label new design as the panacea as what will fix the ailing white elephant in the room -- bad, boring and stifling content.
That said, Bonita, I was wondering if you could share a bit more about feedback -- pros and cons -- from the focus groups you surely have conducted? What have Zell-Michaels said directly?
Will designers and artists have greater editorial content control over the pages?
Do photographers believe their work is being diminished? What is Red's take?
Will intricate pages be done farther in advance?
And how will you handle huge breaking news?
Sincere congratulations on the effort!
Please continue to share your ongoing certainties and fears with the rest of those of us who comprise this judgmental lot.
Thanks!
As for a former designer at the Sentinel myself who went on to bigger and better things, I'll admit: I love the new look of the inside pages but not feeling the covers too much. Here's why: Maintaining that kind of visual creativity day after day is going to prove nearly impossible, no doubt. Unless you've changed the culture of the newsroom: writer egos, editor deadlines, press deadlines and hours your designers work...
These comments are painfully illogical.
No redesign has ever boosted circulation for a significant length of time. To summarize for those who still don't follow: They. All. Have. Failed.
This last bit about giving the designers and artists more editorial control is truly, absolutely frightening.
The real solution is to end the design-based approach. Fire the pseudoeditors and the pinheads. Get real editors back into the newsrooms and start moving forward again.
While the design always left something to be desired, the real problem at the sentinel is the editorial staff and the writers.
There is no on on the staff under 40 and most of the writers shouldn't be allowed even handle crayons, nevertheless write for a newspaper. They believe in quantity over quality; maybe that's why there's 4 home sections on Sunday! But the truth of the matter is that when you shove 10 lbs. of shit in a 5 lb. bag, you're still left with shit.
Change makes people uncomfortable. Hell, it is uncomfortable, but reading the Sentinel is much more uncomfortable. I think it's time to get rid of the old blood and find some different voices. Really, Orlando will survive without the mind-numbing wit of Commander Coconut and the Depends-esque style maven Jean Patteson.
Well, the cover pages for the real thing were posted today.
Outside of the NASA article and a couple of feature stories that were pushed back to the J section, there's little to interest any readers. They'd better start getting some better stories to put the bells and whistles on.
I'll start out by admitting I'm one of this 'white-haired' veterans who have been in the business since the days of hot type. I shuffled out of my chair at the old editors home and decided to take a break from sitting on the porch and shaking my fist at the future.
Of couse, change is good. If it wasn't, we'd still be using hand presses to print the news, or carving word pictures into stone.
But the heart of news doesn't change -- solid reporting, crisp editing, a dedication to craft. That's what is flooding out of newsrooms with these massive cuts from the Tribune Co. [Word has it that The Orlando Sentinel will cut 60 people from the newsroom, for example. Some volluntary buyouts - some not].
I still believe innovation does not have to come at the expense of talent. While pumping up web sites, why aren't papers exploring a DIGITAL delivery system for their product?
So by all means, you young stallions of journalism, have at it. It's your turn. Let's see what you can do.
About the only thing that the redsign has done in Orlando is get people talking and they are saying "what the hell are they doing to the paper and can I get my money back on my pre paid subscription". It's all ads and no substance. This is not going to boost revenue. How many more layoffs will this cause?
Post a Comment