Page Critiques and Comment

“Design is fine, but not at the expense of content.”

That was a comment from a reader after last week’s introduction of the newly-redesigned Los Angeles Times. About 80 percent of the 300 or so reader comments were negative, which is partly to be expected.

With my own redesign projects, I have found that about half the readers don’t want a thing changed in their newspaper, no matter what it is. Ever.  So finding readers who don’t like your design changes is not unusual, though I think 80 percent is a little high.

One of the most telling  comments came from a reader who said that each design change were sold as design “improvements,” such as more white space, larger photos and headlines and simply fewer pages. But they all basically meant less content.

Readers notice these things, and many are not happy. I have been railing against cutting back on content as a way to save money for years. It is like a race car driver deciding to make the engine smaller as a way to reduce weight. Uh, won’t that make you go slower? With newspapers: uh, won’t that make your paper less attractive to your core readers?

A number of readers said they were going to cancel their subscriptions, the ultimate measure of success or failure.

Design IS important, but we must never forget it is CONTENT that sells paper. Make sure your design changes improve your content, not just make your paper look better. Do your research. How do you do that? Next post!

Everywhere we turn we see stories about the coming death of newspapers. Just in the past few weeks we’ve read about job cuts at the Palm Beach Post, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere.

At the same time, we see that the Orlando Sentinel has gone through a major redesign. This is even after research has shown that redesigns don’t do much to stanch the losses in circulation.

Nonetheless, design remains an important, maybe even critical, component of a successful newspaper. This is not because it is important to “look good,” but because of what computer interface designers refer to as the “user experience.” I also like to toss in “branding” as well.

Several years back, Peter Morville listed seven aspects that comprise the user’s experience with your web site www.semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php). You would be well served to pay attention to each as you create the design and content of your print product and your web site.

Valuable: This should be obvious, but often isn’t. Are you providing content that is valuable to your customers, or are you providing content YOU think they ought/need to know? Your customers will pay for value.

Useful: This is tied to value, which is more of an “idea” issue. Being useful means that you are providing content and design that your customers can actually use to improve their lives quickly and easily.

Usable: Do the navigation bars make sense and do the buttons on your web site appear in the proper order or do you make your web visitors think? (Don’t ever make your readers think about navigation!) This is where good, user-centered design comes in.

Desirable: This where the look and feel of your products elicit positive emotional reactions in your customers. Again, this involves creating good designs. Apple understands this very well.

Findable: Can your readers find their way easily through your content, whether in print or pixels? Do you anchor recurring features in the print product?

Accessible: Are your news products accessible to all?

Credible: Do your presentation of news and information inspire credibility? This can even be affected by design, which is not just a cosmetic add-on. The design and organization of your news products can say a lot about your “brand” of credibility, if done professionally and thoughtfully. This is why I think redesigns done largely with cosmetic goals in mind are the ones most likely not to succeed.

If you are paying attention to these components of how your readers experience your news products, then you are probably doing well.

All this ties into the “branding” and marketing of your paper and its web site. Wouldn’t it be nice if, when people in your area are asked to think of words that describe your paper, their list reads like Morville’s?