Redesigns
06.15.09
The Newsweek Redesign: Hit or Miss?
We all know what the process is like to get out a massive redesign. The meetings... The designs... Presentations... Focus groups... More designs... Launch.Well, it has been four issues for the Newsweek redesign by Number 17--a good number of issues to get your sea-legs.
What do you think?
Kathleen Deveny, Newsweek assistant managing editor, wrote in the magazine (May 18, 2009): "One thing you'll find less of: celebrity news. Our research told us you didn't want it, which is a relief since we were doing it only because we thought we had to." We'll I guess less celebrity, except on the cover.
Deveny goes on to say their new design is, "is meant to be less daunting, more entertaining and easier to navigate."
Bonnie Siegler of Number 17 says, "We tried to maintain the DNA of Newsweek, while bringing it up to date."
In the past, Newsweek has been a successful business, because of its vast reach. Now they say that the model does not work. Now, they will "drop our guaranteed circulation from 2.6 million to 1.5 million by next January. We will focus on a smaller, more devoted, slightly more affluent audience."
Along with the relaunch of the print publication, they have also debuted a new look for Newsweek.com.
Well, we know their thoughts. You've seen Roger's postings on Facebook. Let's hear your thoughts. Are they on target? Is the redesign a hit or a miss?
I haven't seen Roger's comments on Facebook. And I can't find them on his blog. What did he say? Apologies if this is repetitive for some. Thanks.
As a non-Facebooker, I wonder too what Roger said: Josh, could you, ah, paraphrase maybe Roger's comments? And, I'm wondering, does he acknowledge that he was among that broad field of early candidates for the redesign commission? That kinda puts some context in there, at least...
I was not a big reader of Newsweek before the redesign, but I did thumb the magazine enough to gauge its readability and editorial flow. Prior to the relaunch it felt a bit scattered and clumsy, but still well considered.
With the new version, however, I find myself much more attracted to the magazine's overall aesthetic. It feels much more navigable and tight. I say it is a hit and kudos to Number 17.
From Roger Black's Facebook postings:
"Waiting to get the new Newsweek, like a homeowner waiting to be let back up the hill to see if there is anything left after the fire." (May 18 at 6:41am)
"As a defeated incumbent on the Newsweek redesign, I am letting go of my design feelings and starting to read it. It's much better!" (May 19 at 10:37am)
I think this will go down as one of the single worst redesigns—magazine or otherwise—in the last 50 years. As a fan of magazines in general and a reader of Newsweek for more than 20 years, I was deeply saddened and shocked to see these changes. It looks like one large advertorial; no attention seems to have been paid to the most basic fundamentals of publication design, from typography to grid to photography. The river-laden body copy is a disaster (and a foul smirch on Archer, an otherwise beautiful typeface) and the photo-cropping and usage is reprehensible. It's an insult to readers and journalism itself.
The editors and owners of Newsweek ought to be ashamed for greenlighting such a train wreck. I fear this "redesign" will mean a premature demise for one of the most storied brands in American publishing. And that's just plain sad, because it didn't have to be this way.
Sadly, this is the single worst redesign I've ever encountered. And that goes far beyond the design community. I've asked many people their thoughts: terrible seems to be the unanimous decision.
My question is: How did this happen? Was this design by democracy? Was the design team forced to answer to a board or other governing body that let this transpire?
Very sorry this happened. I cannot imagine a world without Newsweek. I fear that conclusion is imminent, however.
I would very much like to hear from the firm/AD/CD who came up with this design. The response would be a very good learning lesson for us all. We can't learn anything by doing everything perfectly.
Please comment.
I'm wondering if Number 17 was given the opportunity to explain their thoughts behind the redesign before this entry was posted? Other creative directors have been able to write about their own redesigns on this blog. It would seem fair to extend them the same courtesy before putting their work up for debate like this. I'm not sure where Bonnie Siegler's quote (above) came from, so if you spoke to her first and that's all she had to say, I stand corrected.
There's a thread of commentary on the Newsweek redesign on magCulture.com here:
http://magculture.com/blog/?p=3776#more-3776
For my part, this conversation opens up a larger issue: was the goal to ignore magazine convention for the purpose of creating the first post-web print magazine?
There are certain design elements and conventions that make magazines 'magazines' and I think users depend on them to understand the intended mission and navigation of a magazine. But as we all experience print publishing teetering on the brink of, well, whatever, we can't dismiss any form of innovation or fresh thinking. I just can't tell if that's what the new Newsweek design is.
Both Bonnie Siegler and Kathleen Deveny's quotes came from the same issue of Newsweek.
Josh, it would be great to get some insight from Number 17 about the process and decisions made. I would be curious to hear their POV.
I did not have a chance to see the mag from the inside, but I do like the cover. Bit sensational and different but I still like them. But as they say: "you cannot judge a book by its cover".
We need to hear from No. 17. I think Patrick Mitchell makes an excellent point.
That said, typographically, there is nothing "modern" about it. Bad use of a beautiful font.
But I respect the conceptual work of the firm, and would like to hear from them.
I would agree to the point we have to hear from Number 17. Quite frankly I am surprised that there has been no defense of their work yet...
Luke Hayman at Pentagram has been setting the bar for redesigns/evolutions. He just completed a redesign of "Tennis" magazine.
http://pentagram.com/en/new/2009/06/new-work-tennis-1.php#more
... notice the explanation...
Time for Number 17 to take a hint.
i like the masthead better than the previous one, but not to sure bout the cover lines style, its too disturbing with the cover potraits, i guess atleast the cover lines could have been a little clean & had a little order.
Since Newsweek's new content structure was launched, I have stopped buying the magazine.
Mariluz Holmes
"Readers, editors and designers all know that design cannot save a magazine from failure. But they also know that an ingredient of its success will be its design: the design that touches off the intangible feeling of rightness, of identification in the reader browsing at the bookstall. But even then the designer should not expect that much credit. The tendency is to give the editor a raise if a magazine with a new design is a success, and to fire the art director if it fails."
- David Hillman
Food for thought
Ugh. It looks even worse in real life. And the inside pages are purposefully undesigned; Top photo, headline and 2 column text box. Ecomist, you have so much to answer for!