NYT LeBron sports front

You know I am stunned. For the first time I have to agree with most of you on the NYT layout. I thought it was awful. I had a disagreement with many of friends who thought it was a genius layout. How did that inform their readers?

 

And they commemorated the event with a damn good looking product. That still counts for something, even if it's just among us.

 

It does make you wonder about the human condition. Perhaps
The Times did get it right in how people should view the event
and what place it should occupy in their lives.

I wondered when Lebron first left why grown adults in Cleveland would be
brought to tears and I wonder now why they are so consumed with the return.
Is their self esteem that shattered? Are their lives so unfulfilled that the return of
a basketball player brings their pride back?

 

hey, not here to argue good or bad, right or wrong, clever or stoooopid. just wanted to point out the public editor's column that someone demanded:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/for-lebron-james-news-a-kardashian-inspired-design/

and say that i was surprised -- and i may have missed this over five pages, apologies if so -- that no one mentioned there was a four-column A-1 story with a three-column pic on lebron that day. ok, i'll go back and sit in the corner and watch some more.

 

Perhaps but based on rack and newsstand sales, a well designed front page or magazine cover will move copies.

That's the whole point.

A well designed website will get return visits, a poorly designed site will not.

So regardless of it being print or digital, design matters.

 

Where is evidence of this?
Even Poynter has conceded design has a negligible effect on newspaper sales.
Jesus Christ, I can't even believe this is being debated at this stage in the game, with the profession in hospice.

 

Based on the way it was described, the PD cover was shared on social media/ESPN/TV early in the day and the ads were being sold through 7 pm as a result. I'm sure if they had just shared a cover with a vertical 5 col file photo and a big headline the ads would have sold the same!

 

How many people in the history of newspapers have pulled out the sports section, considered the artistic merits of the design and purchased the newspaper in full.

 

704, at last count. But that was Friday.

 

The New York Times may have changed the game forever.

 

I'd argue that the Times front is every bit of "look at how clever we are" as those which the Times is trying to mock. Plus, the news (as presented) is factually untrue. He hadn't signed (regardless of what the AP moved) - throw in that the only info given is close to 24 hours old, doesn't add anything to the story. A better graphic treatment would have been a lead domino falling to highlight how the news would impact the NBA in the coming days. But it's the NYT, so of course it is "daring" and "clever."
I figure half the people at the NYT are looking for a book deal, the other half want to work at The New Yorker.

 

The same could be said about a feature story on the sports cover.