The Tribune of Tampa, Fla. — circulation 152,568 — launched a redesign today.
On the right is today’s front page. On the left is a Tuesday front from last spring:
Here’s a closer look at that new front:
A column by managing editor Richard Maas across the bottom of the front lists features of the redesign:
- Local news moves to the first section.
- Wire news moves to the second section, renamed Trib2. Also in that section: Obits and weather.
Here’s the new Trib2 section:
- Page 2 now contains a “quick, lively read” with TV and entertainment news.
- The opinion page expands and is renamed “Views.”
- The Wednesday food section returns.
- “Refocused” Sunday features section.
Metro news starts on page 3 of the A section:
Here’s the new biz page…
…and the new sports front:
Plus, today, there was a bonus section on the Tampa Bay Rays’ playoff game:
The last redesign of the Tampa paper launched almost exactly two years ago. Read about that here.
The redesign was facilitated by consultant Ron Reason as part of an effort to consolidate design resources among Media General’s three largest dailies. Ron writes in his blog today:
Tampa is the first of Media General’s three metro newspapers to adopt a refined new look that will share many (but not all) elements, in advance of the creation of two consolidated editing and design centers. In December, those centers will go live, and the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch and Winston-Salem (NC) Journal will adopt many elements of the new format.
On the left is the Richmond Times-Dispatch, circulation 133,161. On the right is the Winston-Salem Journal, circulation 64,750.
Will this make the three papers look the same?
Not really, Ron says:
The major brand elements for each paper are different. Richmond will retain its horizontal black letter nameplate, and its promo strategy is totally different. There are options within story structures and page architecture (dog-legging the lead story, for example) that will allow each paper to project the day’s news in ways that are appropriate in each market, and with consideration to the importance of rack presence. Editors in each city will still make content and design decisions for their pages, communicating with colleagues in the editing centers.
Read all about the entire Media General redesign and consolidation project in Ron’s blog.
Is this a limited-template design that standardizes all ad sizes and layouts — like the system used by Tribune Co newspapers?
Redesigning every two years is an extremely poor use of time and resources. Pick a format and stick with it. There are already way too many designer taboos that mean nothing to readers; no need to keep coming up with “brighter starts to the day.”
How many substantive issues faced by real journalists are swept under the rug as these deck chairs are rearranged? Short of the “reversing the nameplate in blue” fad that already has grown tired, there isn’t a single thing that’s changed on the front that readers might notice.
Consultants get to make money, and AMEs of presentation get to justify their presence, but there is nothing else of accomplishment to note from these changes.
Well. No offence, but i think the new design lacks something or other. Though i have not gone through the whole paper, but if i point out certain thingson the front page itself like the ladding of intro looks little more than required. And then the column width violates the basic principle of smooth and easy reading.
Robert,
I agree with you that it’s foolhardy to redesign time and time again when, ultimately, it usually does little in the way of practical aids to the reader. However in this case, it’s explicitly stated—and further detailed on Reason’s blog—that this redesign was done to bring Tampa in line with the designs of Richmond and Winston-Salem for the consolidated editing and design centers. A redesign to streamline operations is antithetical to your comment about “an extremely poor use of time and resources.”
I’m just not sure you read the whole thing.
The reversed nameplate out of a blue field strikes again.
Bill:
As a rule, I don’t spend much time reading the explanations of design consultants whose sole goal is to profit from repeated redesigns. Ron Reason falls squarely into that category.
At your behest, I did skim his blog entry. It was more down-to-earth than I expected, although it does have the designspeak references to things like “navigation” that are simply chatter at this point. We have heard these things for years and years, yet readers still flee in droves. Either these are not the right approaches, or page designers have not implemented them properly.
I did read the small portion here that covered the reasons, but it spends most of its time on the superficial page aspects. Mindy McAdams’ question has gone unanswered from what I can see, and there are few to no details about the substantive changes common to the three papers. I assume that one thing being ignored here is that the wire sections will be shared among the three papers. But I can only guess.
The point here is still the same: It’s the second redesign in the span of two years, probably less if we figure in the time to pant over mock-ups; debate endlessly with high-paid consultants; etc. One has to wonder how many staffers have their pay frozen while these processes occur.
Also, I remember when the Tampa paper unveiled its new-and-improved philosophy of July 2008. There was a lot of attacking from within of various staffers who had done nothing other than try to follow the paper’s past plans. People were called “curmudgeons” on a daily basis. So I think there should be some sighing and shaking of heads when two years later, we get another redesign trumpeted with the “brighter start to your day” stuff that means nothing to readers.
Finally, as I am responding to a blunt criticism, let me respond in kind. A site that purports to be about all things copy “editing” should do a little digging. I shouldn’t have to speculate in the dark as to whether these papers are going to share a wire section and potentially cut desk personnel to do so. These shallow analyses that look only at typography and other details that few readers care about miss some of the major points. Maybe some other journalism site can address those.
I wanted to respond separately to the post of Surajit Patro.
I assume page widths have continued to shrink, but I recall a time years ago when going with three “sticks” on the front would have resulted in a coronary attack, lots of memos, and a good deal of hand-wringing. And it wouldn’t have been primarily because of making the reader work; it would have been a defense of yet another design taboo that apparently has failed the test of time.
Robert,
I don’t have numbers on how many folks are going to be supplanted and I don’t expect to ever see those numbers, for the same reason we won’t see hard numbers for similar efforts by other companies. That’s closely-guarded information. Should someone care to leak it, I may consider running it. Or I may not.
If you don’t like the news you get on this site, feel free to take your eyeballs — and your caustic attitude — elsewhere.
Now, I’ve enjoyed letting you have your say here in the blog. You’ve sometimes been interesting and — yes — occasionally, your comments have been downright brilliant. Only occasionally have I had to kill something you wrote here. Since I moved the blog, I only kill your comments when I find them unfair or uncalled for. Or off-topic.
I’m approving THIS reply of yours, Robert, but only because most of your venom here was spat at me (and a little at Ron, but mostly at me).
If you’re not happy with the quality of this blog, I’ll be glad to refund every penny you’ve paid to read it here.
I just think you should try a little harder to get additional info. If you don’t want to do that, fine. But if I’m getting blasted for “not reading,” then I think the lack of information that’s provided is a relevant point.
Media General wants to centralize operations. I get that. But Media General owned these same papers in 2008, right? It decided then to redesign, and now it’s turning around and doing it again. Like I said, poor use of resources.
There’s more ground to cover here, particularly about the repeated use of these consultants, but I think we’re starting to hit the wall.
(Speaking of hitting the wall, don’t ever let a non-tame cat into your house. It reacts poorly.)
Ha! We took in a stray cat that was caught in the backwoods of Georgia, near my Dad’s house last year. It’s been 16 months and that cat STILL makes a mess around the house. Lately, he’s been making a flying leap in our dining room and ripping wallpaper off the wall. Seriously.
Thanks for the reasoned reply, Robert. And please allow me to add: I’m quite serious when I say I’m enjoying your contributions.