Charles Apple

Newspaper design consultant Alan Jacobson writes on his web site:

The redesign of the Orlando Sentinel will fail to deliver the results Mr. Zell’s troubled Tribune Company needs – readership and revenue – because those are not the goals of the redesign.

Sure, the Sentinel’s editors and designers will serve up the short stories, snappy graphics and sizzling color Mr. Zell called for, but these cosmetic changes alone have never delivered bottom-line results.

Ouch!

And there’s a lot more. Find it all here.

—

I think it’s fair to say that Alan’s main complaints about Orlando’s redesign are two-fold. Or, perhaps, it’s one beef with two aspects.

1) He writes:

It’s important to note that the words “readership” and “revenue” are conspicuous by their absence from all the words that have been published about Orlando’s redesign. Instead, much has been made of the cosmetic changes to come.

2) And he writes:

One need only examine the before-and-afters, below, to see that no substantive changes have been made to story selection. In many cases, even headlines and photos remain the same. Experience has proven that merely dressing up the same old content will not attract readers’ eyes or advertisers’ dollars for more than a few days.

That second bit, of course, is accompanied by this side-by-side comparison, which should look quite familiar by now:

Before we go any further, a disclaimer: You’re reading my second attempt tonight at writing this post. My wife suggested — strongly — that I dump my first attempt. She said I got way too riled up.

Yeah. Alan does that to me sometimes.

I’m not quite sure why I feel compelled to rebut Alan’s points. I think it’s because I feel like his complaints about the Sentinel’s redesign are actually complaints about the reporting job I’ve done, rather than the redesign itself.

Or perhaps not about the reporting job I’ve done. But because of it.

—

Take Alan’s first point, for example. He’s absolutely correct in that “readership” should be an important aspect of a redesign. (He’s probably correct about “revenue,” too, but I’ve never felt qualified to address that topic. I’m not going there now, either.)

But I feel strongly that Sentinel AME Bonita Burton has addressed readership and the things that affect how readers perceive the news. For example, I quoted the top of Bonita’s essay about the redesign (I’m adding the bold here for emphasis):

We’ve made cosmetic improvements such as amping up our nameplate and color palette, implementing a new grid structure and re-photographing our columnists. We’ll be updating our typography in August when we launch a second phase. But this effort is really about trying to redefine the art of storytelling. We’ve spent even more time in the newsroom talking about unconventional ways of telling stories, conversational ways of writing headlines and accessible ways of presenting data.

Similarly, I was very impressed with the answer Bo gave to one of my questions about playing up bloggers in print:

One of the things we’ve learned about our readers is that there is very little cross-over between the paper and the web. Their habits are just too different. So telling people “Go to the web! There’s more online!” was really frustrating them. We have a wealth of provocative content online our reporters are already generating that many people don’t even see. So yes, we’re dedicating a home in print to our best bloggers every day.

So I don’t know. If Alan thinks there was too much talk about cosmetics and not enough about readership and content, then perhaps it’s a reflection of my poor interviewing and writing skills. It seems to me that saying the Sentinel isn’t addressing readership — based on what you’re reading right here in the blog — or, God forbid, what you’re reading in the multitude of blogs out there that have indulged in wild speculation about this redesign — well, that’s One Giant Leap to a conclusion.

The simpler, more Occam-like explanation: Maybe I just didn’t ask the right questions.

—

The second thing — in which Alan complains bitterly about the lack of change in the before-and-after samples — really gets me revved up. Because I know damn well this one was covered. Like a Sunday church dinner.

The world’s very first peek at a Sentinel prototype was posted Saturday, June 7, in a story about Nicole Bogdas being hired by the Sentinel. Bonita generously gave me a jpeg to post and I did. Ever so careful, Bo posted a reply here in the blog:

Just to be clear, the prototype above shows the new design with the same content as the current look. But the kinds of stories we tell, and the way we tell them, are radically changing, too.

Again on Wednesday, I presented the very same before-and-after pages. In the caption for the thumbnail jpeg, I wrote:

Keep in mind this page is a quick remake of an existing page. Live, new pages will reflect changes in story selection and construction. Actual mileage will vary.

Is this not clear enough? Yet, Alan makes the charge: Nothing is changing in these samples.

So I think that by attempting to draw a conclusion from this, Alan is off-base this time. Way off-base.

If Alan were to say: I don’t like the new pages. Well, OK. That’s cool. That’s an opinion. And he’s entitled to his. And because I think he’s a pretty smart guy and I love the way he makes a point, I’d love to read his critique.

Or, if Alan were to say: I’ll bet they don’t change a damn thing about the way they edit their paper. Well, gee, Alan. That’s harsh. But, y’know, you might be right. I guess we’ll see.

But the essay Alan posted Friday isn’t a critique. He’s making statements of fact. He says there has been too much emphasis on cosmetics in the coverage of the redesign and that the samples don’t reflect real change. As a result, the project will fail.

I say his first point is a flawed observation of an admittedly flawed report. And while his second point is technically valid — the pages don’t reflect “substantive change” — his point is kind of moot. The lack of difference in the pages was acknowledged up front. We’ve been told that won’t be the case when the design goes live on Sunday.

I won’t say Alan’s conclusion isn’t valid. Hell, for all I know the project could fail. But in order to convince me, he’ll have to base his logic on something more substantive than my own reporting skills.

—

I like the jpegs I’ve seen. I like what I’ve read (Heh, here in my own blog) about the redesign and the logic behind the changes. I’m enthusiastic about the project and I’m eager to see the results.

I’ve made that much clear.

I also like Bonita Burton and her Orlando team very much. I want them to succeed.

So perhaps what’s cheesing me off the most about Alan’s essay is the idea that two days before a redesign hits the streets, based purely on a small handful of tiny jpegs posted by a part-time blogger who can’t even keep his own Goddamned job — we’d pronounce the redesign a failure.

That’s unfair. It’s an unwarranted slap in the face to a large number of visual journalists who are working their asses off to find a way to make this project work.

“Why Orlando will fail” is a cheap shot. And I object.

There are some easier punches I can throw toward the author. And boy, did I in my earlier draft.

But I’m walking out of the ring now. It’s not my intent to battle Alan Jacobson, a man who I respect; a man with whom I often agree.

And it’s not my duty to defend the Orlando Sentinel.

Here’s an idea: Instead of declaring the redesigned paper a failure before it even exists, let it speak up in its own behalf.

I’ve suggested to Alan: Give the Sentinel a week. Or two. Or, better yet, a month. Let’s see what they do with it.

If, by the middle of August or so, the Sentinel is still telling the same kind of stories in the same old way, then let’s critique their redesign. Let’s compare their progress to the goals at which Bonita said they were aiming. And then let’s discuss the possible impact on the other Trib company papers — most of which are redesigning very quickly and watching the Sentinel very closely.

I’d be eager to read something like that.
—

Things Alan says in his essay that I agree with:

* A successful redesign does not consist of cosmetic changes.

* The Sentinel needs to do a better job of providing relevant content to its readers.

* Friday’s Sentinel front was not one of that paper’s strongest.

Most of all, though, I love this closing sentence:

Orlando won’t fail because it goes too far, as [blogger] Alan Mutter contends. It will fail because it didn’t go far enough.

Leaving our comfort zones. Pushing the envelope. Finding new ways to tell our stories. Admirable parts of any redesign, I think.

—
UPDATE

Just got into Atlanta after spending all day on the road. I have a message from Alan telling me he has softened the tone somewhat of his online essay.

I’ll check it out shortly. Thank you, Alan.

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 at 12:16 am and is filed under Industry woes, Innovative ideas, News design, Newspapers, Redesigns, VizEds Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.