First look: L.A. Times redesign launched today
The Los Angeles Times indeed launched its redesign today.
Here’s today’s page one:
Like Tribune company innovation officer Lee Abrams reportedly noted, it’s not nearly as dramatic as the redesigns of Orlando, Hartford, Ft. Lauderdale, Chicago and the others.
Here’s a before-and-after look with Monday’s LAT on the left and today’s front on the right:
The story count dropped by one and the lost the ad, trading it for a graphic and a larger promo patch across the bottom. And the nameplate is bigger, obviously, with a minor splash of color across the top. Very subtle.
—
UPDATE:
Blog reader Daniel Hunt writes:
There’s a video at latimes.com of [AME] Michael Whitley talking about the design. It’s hard to tell if he’s truly happy with the final result.
Hmm. And that’s after I spent a lot of time crawling that web site today, hunting for a page like that. Thanks much, Daniel, for the tip.
—
Today’s sports front:
And a before-and-after look at sports:
A much more dramatic change. Very nice, in fact.
As you can see, the Times has added color to its section front toppers:
These toppers will be even more colorful on Sundays:
Kevin Roderick of LA Observed writes:
Editor Russ Stanton’s note to readers says “signature columnists” will now have a Wall Street Journal-style portrait in their columns, but I guess none of today’s columnists — Patrick Goldstein, Helene Elliott and Jerry Crowe — qualify. The only illustration I found was of Stanton.
Here’s a sample from the video:
—
It was precisely two years ago tomorrow that the LAT redesigned its A section. The reviews were less than sparkling, according to the Times itself. Read what Newsdesigner Mark Friesen had to say about that 2006 change here.
—
UPDATE #2
Read Tyson Evans‘ Q&A with Whit — and see plenty of prototype Sunday pages — over in the SND/Update blog.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The Times also had a semi-wrap with a note from Editor Russ Stanton and a house ad explaining the changes. Among the changes listed: “cleaned up and simplified typefaces” which look amazingly like the same fonts as Monday’s edition (however the “California raisin’” font in Sports is new; “Put a face to the bylines” with “hand-drawn portraits” of columnists which were missing today; and the “Color is quicker” on the section flags, which didn’t really need them since its been the same five basic sections for years.
They also put a “Comics Plus” banner on the first comics pages, like we didn’t know it was a comics page.
I’m interested to see the “hand-drawn portraits” since the one of the Stanton on his note looks like the WSJ line mug shots.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
This redesign looks like it was done at Jiffy Lube.
Outside of the new nameplate (which I like), is anyone outside the media really going to notice?
October 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I thought I had commented on the earlier post, that just showed the thumbnails, but maybe it did not go thru… I personally don’t see too much difference. Yeah maybe us designers can tell the differencess in a few typefaces and pantone colors, but the people who actully buy/advertise, must scratch their head and say “and how much time/money went into these redesigns?”
I am not saying that either old or new is bad, but could anybody actaully indentify most US broadsheets if the flag was removed?
Maybe I am being snippy? If the content or efficiency of production and print quality is better, then great. I am not one for totally redoing a paper every 2 years, so maybe this tiny refresh is the way to go.
As for the portraits of the reporters….uh okay-thats going to get old fast, especially since most papers are cutting staffs so much, that one reporter might do three stories on page….
October 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
To piggy-back on Dennis’ comments, and others … yea, it doesn’t look like much got changed, but what did is completely unimpressive. What is gone is the italicized captions (probably for the best) and the datelines, which is because Lee Abrams doesn’t know how to read a newspaper. It’s so sad to watch one this nation’s best newspapers get dumbed down in an era where readers want more. And tinted boxes? Eek! So many talented designers and editors there, too. There’s a video at latimes.com of Michael Whitney talking about the design. It’s hard to tell if he’s truly happy with the final result. http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/breaking/la-news-rightnow,0,816760.htmlstory
October 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I have just one question, why the one ragged column?
October 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
When will newspaper editors learn that 99 percent of their readers couldn’t care less about cosmetic changes such as this? Instead of devoting countless hours coming up with “changes” such as this, you should’ve put that effort into developing web content that compels readers to visit your site multiple times a day. What a waste of talent. Newspapers are dying because of decisions like this!
October 21st, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Looks like the LA Times fought the changes tooth and nail instead of pitching some good ideas. In the end, they lost out on a chance to make any impression with this redesign. It’s these kinds of imagined changes that make the LA Times look less relevant today.
They said they would change and just are doling out the same thing. It’s like a bad relationship! Lynn is right, it’s these exact decision that are going to kill them. Tribune needs to be pushing them to do the web. And consult companies like Google, Digg and Facebook who know how to do the web right.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Lynn,
Keep in mind that ownership ordered all their papers to redesign. I’m actually impressed that the Times merely polished a great product instead of flailing like so many others.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 am
The column mug shown is Steve Lopez. I tend to read everything he writes. He is a smart journalist and a great writer. He is why people buy newspapers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 am
I am a big fan of the slow reveal or stealth redesign. Readers hate it when you make too many changes at once.
Are you all aware that Yahoo! is completely remaking their home page? Probably not, because the changes are being brought on gradually.
LINK
– http://snurl.com/4lcj3 [www_nytimes_com]
That redesign effort is one that that affects milions more news consumers on a daily basis. (82 million daily visitors in the U.S. alone)
The Sun-Times redesign Eric White and I did in ‘03 was an 18-month reveal.
Somehow LA was able to resist the drama and trauma of a snap-to redux.
Let’s see where Michael’s ‘beginning’ takes the paper. I would assume through his comments that there is a master plan drawn out. (Presumably one with Palettes and not Pallets of new color.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
While today’s sports front is much more dramatic than in the past, it’s helped tremendously by a great photo. I always wonder if a paper can keep up its great redesign when it has the daily grind to keep up with.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Am I nuts, or hasn’t LAT been exhibiting some strong former Chron tendencies (lot s of horizontal rules and bigger-than-usual serif heads toward the bottom of section fronts)? Meantime, color-coded section flags … wow. No wonder Joe Hutchinson left … god knows the amount of yammering, hemming and hawing that went into this latest thoroughly uninspired design in the Zellosphere. So far, of all the “reimagined” Trib properties, Tim Frank’s Sun-Sentinel has done the best job, in my view, with a well-executed in-your-faceness. The Courant’s down-the-side flag is just silly. Chicago’s use of that light slab goth in the flag is rather weak , and the “you-are-here” page indicators in the A section are horrifying (although their poster-like Sports fronts are great). And now LAT weighs in with this. Sure, the Sports cover’s nice … but great art is much easier to come by on those fronts. Try that approach on the cover, ala Fort Lauderdale, and you’re maybe breaking some new ground. All in all, the most telling document that’s going to be coming down the pike will be the Trib’s latest earnings report … and I don’t think this redesign’s going to bolster the numbers much.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Attn. Lynn: Redesigns are not for the readers newspapers already have. Redesigns are mainly about trying to capture new readers — which is why most of the earlier Tribune redesigns (see Orlando and Fort Lauderdale) look like a giant Web page. (Please don’t take offense; none is intended and I like that they are trying to distinguish themselves from other papers.)
If you look at Hartford, Chicago (the mothership) and now L.A., notice how these redesigns were more subtle than earlier Tribune makeovers.
The problem isn’t with how papers look, it’s with how they READ. Fix the content — you know, the writing and reporting. I’ll sit and read a 50-inch story, as long as it’s compelling. If Hemingway were back at the KC Star, he could probably turn a routine council meeting into a 15-inch drama piece. Most papers need better reporters and better local editors/coaches working with them.
Tuesday’s LAT offers an interesting dichotomy. The A-front is clean, organized and USEFUL. I’m not overwhelmed looking at it. I like it better already.
The Sports front, however, is a waste. Why a 6-column photo for USC football (I know they’re the kings, but come on)? Graphically summing up the “five-point plan” would have served the space (and readers and designers) better.
In the end, the bottom three stories get lost — especially the Hamels piece, which looks to be an interesting read. Freeing up some space at the top should have allowed for art with the LAKings column. As a visual journalist and reader, this page does nothing for me except cringe.
I’d be curious to know what the sports designers’ thinking was on this front.
BTW, I see the same huge photo centerpiece treatment for the Ravens at the Baltimore Sun, near where I live, and I’m not thrilled with that either.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I also think Michael has taken the correct and prudent path with his evolutionary approach. The LA Times is a paper of record and has historic basis for its personality and its voice in the community. I believe that voice resonates with authority and confidence based on its past. It seems they should and did design with those elements in mind. I thought from what I read they took the route of IMPROVING the newspaper not CHANGING it.
I am not sure some of the other redesign I have seen can say that.
I think Dennis is right that most readers don’t see the change but perhaps they experience the subtle improvement by not being hurled into a new and in some cases an unfriendly certainly unsettling design voice. It seems that it is more important to provide relevance with content as well as with design
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
It’s soup to me. At least they got rid of the italics.
I think the motto for the Tribune Company papers should be “Keeping more interns busier with cutouts.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Good tweak of a great product. The pages feel fresher and more approachable. I think italics can be overbearing (this coming from the guy who just went ital-crazy in my latest revamp of RedEye).
LAT shouldn’t be anything other than LAT. It has a certain audience and I applaud their clear desire to retain that group rather than to ‘attempt’ to add masses to it. That only goes down the road of chasing loyal customers off. I’m in the camp of adding audience by adding focused, daily niche publications. LA needs a RedEye, it needs a daily Sports publication and it could easily support a daily gossip/celebrity news publication. Launch those and you’ll start attracting people from untapped/underserved segments of the marketplace.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
I’ll echo others who give the thumbs up to just “cleaning up” an already great product. The examples I’ve seen of section fronts are an improvement over what they had been doing – yet they still look and feel like the LAT.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
As a daily reader of the print LAT, the removal of datelines is sheer stupidity. Datelines are an excellent way to quickly determine where a story took place if the headline, lede, photo, etc., don’t provide the geographic reference.
If someone had asked me a week ago if it would matter, I probably would have said no. But once you read the paper for a few days, it’s a glaring problem. One more example of designers and newspapers making arcane decisions that affect their customers.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Our household has subscribed to the LAT for 20+ years. I don’t think the re-design looks good. It makes the paper look cheap, like a knock-off of a news rag that screams headlines. PLEASE restore the look of the front page. The type for “The Los Angeles Times” was classy and iconic; the new font is a cartoon shadow. The “Overheard” section on page 2 doesn’t work for me. It looks like there was extra space that wasn’t sold to advertisers so go to Plan B. “Overheard” works for radio and magazine formats but not as a teaser or lead-in to news stories.
The time and effort being spent on re-design would be better spent on increasing the breadth and depth of reporting and restoring the level of journalism the Los Angeles Times had when it was a Pulitzer prize winner and a Big League newspaper we could brag about.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
The Sports page before and after comparison is a little misleading. There are two great photos on the redesigned front. The old one had three similar busy photos. How will the redesign look on a bad photo day? A redesign is only as good as its content.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I totally agree: Datelines are an excellent way to quickly determine where a story took place if the headline, lede, photo, etc., don’t provide the geographic reference. And Moreover, It seems that it is more important to provide relevance with content as well as with design
January 29th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I do have to say that it is a very Good tweaky of a great product. The internals realy feel fresher and more beautiful. I think italics and bolds can be overbearing (this coming from the guy who just went ital-crazy in my latest revamp of RedEye).