Chicago Tribune: We didn't F up, but we're making changes

[steveu]

Wow. Anyone in the Chicago area see what the publishers wrote today? They admitted the redesign was a flop. Personally, I didn't think it looked too bad, but it's definitely not your father's Trib. There will still be tinkering, but business is coming back to its own section and there will be extra local news Wednesday through Friday.

Here's the link to the story at E&P:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003928440

 

[Ace]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up


I'd love to hear Zell's lapdog and Bright Idea Boy explain that bit of creative suckery.

 

[swenk]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

And yet today's front page is still 90% graphics/photos surrounded by maybe 150 words scattered here and there.

Not to mention the innovative jumps between sections.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

I wouldn't say they 100 percent admitted it "flopped." The front still only has one story today. It looks less tabloidish than it did early on, when the Wall Street meltdown received the same dignity as US Weekly gives a Nicole Richie pregnancy rumor, but it's still not your father's Trib by any means.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Wow. Anyone in the Chicago area see what the publishers wrote today? They admitted the redesign was a flop. Personally, I didn't think it looked too bad, but it's definitely not your father's Trib. There will still be tinkering, but business is coming back to its own section and there will be extra local news Wednesday through Friday.

Here's the link to the story at E&P:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003928440

Does this mean the rest of the TribCorp's changed papers will get to ****can those "improvements" as well?

 

[SportsDesigner]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Poorly done E&P story. If you read the actual stuff they printed in the paper on that spadea, it's in support of the redesign. They got rid of the bad jumps and they are not going to use one font so much. Wow.
The editor used most of his ink to explain again why the paper is using visuals. He explained some coverage changes, like the biz section. It WAS NOT a ripping of the redesign.

 

[MGoBlue]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

I hope the South Florida Sun-Sentinel takes note of this letter (hint, hint).

 

[JakeandElwood]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

When people like my parents notice that there are lot less stories and the redesign looks like crap, you know it's been a complete failure.

 

[VJ]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Am I the only one who likes the section covers since the redesign?

 

[Joe Williams]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Would love to see the net loss/gain in circulation since the redesign?

Guaranteed, it was going to turn off X number of longtime readers. Either in direct reaction to the changed look or as a symptom, to them, that the paper again was desperate and circling the bowl, and therefore less valued.

No freaking clue, meanwhile, whether it was going to entice non-readers to suddenly become paying customers.

High risk, low reward from the start. Should have focused energies elsewhere.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

I wish the readers down here had the spine and power the Chicago readers do.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Am I the only one who likes the section covers since the redesign?

I like what Crutchmer's been doing with them. Haven't seen any others.

 

[VJ]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

I look at their A1 on a regular basis — sure there are some days where they go too refer-heavy and could use some more copy, but I'm about 100x more likely to read the Trib now than I was before. Too bad for them I don't live in Chicago.

 

[steveu]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

What I'd like to know are the readers who claimed the paper was too confusing to follow. Chicago is about the only paper I know that included a strip across the top saying "you are here" and pointing out what is ahead.

There are some elements of the redo I didn't care for but overall I didn't think it was too bad. I'll be interested to see where this paper goes in the future.

 

[zebracoy]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Can anyone here show what the spadea looks like?

 

[pallister]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

One too many four-column, two-deck heads, huh?

 

[Kellams]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Our editor, Gerry Kern, responded to Fitzgerald's story. And if any of you had read the spadia, you'd wonder what Fitzgerald was reading.

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13763

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Re: Chicago Tribune: We F'd up

Our editor, Gerry Kern, responded to Fitzgerald's story. And if any of you had read the spadia, you'd wonder what Fitzgerald was reading.

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13763

Well, if he's not apologizing for that cluster**** of a redesign then he certainly should be.

 

[steveu]

The title of this thread has been fixed to reflect Kern's reply back to E&P. Sales up 17 percent?? Hmm.

 

[Fran Curci]

Gerry Kern kills his credibility when he writes in his retort to E&P that "readers are responding well to the new Tribune. In fact, voluntary sales are up 17 percent year over year since the redesign ...."

If he wanted to be taken seriously, he might have included the fact that the last few months have included two of the biggest news stories in the history of Chicago: local resident Barack Obama is elected president and the governor, who lives in Chicago, is arrested at his home.

If Kern hadn't let the cool design kids wreak havoc, circulation would be up more.