Sindy redesign: 16 to 1 against
By Andrew Grant-Adamson • Jun 3rd, 2007 • Category: Blogs, Journalism, NewspapersMore like a suicide note than a newspaper. My first reaction to the redesigned Independent on Sunday was so adverse, I sought a Second Opinion before writing more. If anything, it was more critical than the initial impression. "I thought the front was an ad wrap-around but it is the front," said SO.
"A very different reading experience from the traditional Sunday paper," according to the page two introduction to the redesign. Later we are told: "The IoS has the news values of a traditional Sunday paper, but the production values of a weekly magazines."
Well, the production values are more like those of a not very good freesheet where the ad department rules the roost and editorial struggles to fill the remaining space with anything that will fit the gaps.
SO: "I’ve got the page 20 and I haven’t seen anything I want to read."
The overall impression is grey, dull, retro, a design time left behind with some touches that are meant to show that the Sindy understands the new world of journalism. Supernibs, 75 word stories, have symbols suggesting websites to visit, further reading or an indication that there is more on the papers website.
What is good is that the external links have been added to stories on the website as well, but not all the printed stories with links are on the website.
The paper seems to behaving like a a news aggregation site, without considering whether people want to spend Sunday morning with the paper next to their computer.
Another "we are modern touch" are the numerous infographics. All rather dull with two colours at most, they seem to be there because the editor has said "we must have graphics", rather than someone deciding the graphic will improve the way the story is told.
So what about the second part of the redesign, the new colour mag? Is it any better than the newspaper? "They have this brilliant new columnist who tells us why she loves Marks and Spencer. God help us!" SO responds.
Last week Tristan Davies, the Sindy editor told the Guardian the revamp would appeal to people who do not want "page after page of news". He added:
It’s not about dumbing down, we want to have more readers of every type. There’s no repositioning. People who are not buying papers are the ones we need to reach.
Let’s hope they are there and he can reach them, but don’t put your money on it. That brings me to the New Independent on Sunday blog. Comments on the new design are 16 to 1 against.
Andrew Grant-Adamson is Andrew Grant-Adamson is a journalist who now teaches a new generation of writers, subs and editors at the University of Westminster.
Email this author | All posts by Andrew Grant-Adamson
I’m glad that I’m not alone in hating this re-design.
I normally only read the paper online but the £1 offer tempted me to buy it.
First impression’s bland and uninteresting,the supernibs are awful and the links are a waste of time unless you have a laptop open next to the paper(which defeats the object surely).
But the worst thing and I agree with you here is that there was littel to read.The lead story was uninteresting,the paper missed the main story of the morning about Brown’s comments on security.
Although I hate to say it the best article was Janet Street Porter
It seems that I am not the only person who didnt take to the new IOS. Have a read of Andrew Grant-Adamson. and Andrew Neil I don’t normally buy the paper but the £1 offer tempted me to see what it looked like.First impressions were not good(and not helped by trying to read the massive paper in a light breeze whilst sitting in Manchester’s Albert Square).
Ryan Sholin does a downright brilliant job summing up the “10 obvious things about the future of newspapers you need to get through your head.†I hope he won’t mind my quoting in full. Go to his po… Sindy redesign: 16 to 1 against More like a suicide note than a newspaper. My first reaction to the redesigned Independent on Sunday was so adverse, I sought a Second Opinion before writing more. If anything, it was more critical…
“The paper seems to behaving like a a news aggregation site, without considering whether people want to spend Sunday morning with the paper next to their computer.”
I thought that too. I think it’s a nice idea in theory but won’t work in practice.
And the content didn’t really engage me either. And I was also suckered in by the fact it was only a quid and I’m still effectively a cheapskate student.