CR Blog

Feedback

Posted by Creative Review, 26 May 2010, 15:25    Permalink    Comments (9)

We've now done three issues with the redesign – time to take stock...

Now that the shock of the new has died down and we have had time to make some of the minor adjustments that all redesigns need as they are bedding in, we wanted to check back and see how readers are feeling about the magazine.

In the original blog post announcing the redesign, a lot of people were responding to images rather than the magazine itself which, at that point, they hadn't yet seen. Nevertheless, we were very encouraged by the reaction – especially given the somewhat, shall we say, feisty nature of blog comments generally and blog comments about anything involving new logos in particular.

What was also interesting was the divergence between the blog comments – which were about a third wholly positive, third positive with some reservations and third negative – with the comments that began to come in the next day via Twitter. Possibly because Twitter is not anonymous, but more because those Tweeting had actually got a copy of the magazine in front of them, the Twitter comments were far more positive – 90% so.

We've now had the full gamut, from that old favourite "epic fail' to calls for the May cover to get a Black Pencil at D&AD next year, from "that's fucking horrible" to "I love it. It feels intelligent and like something of value. It no longer feels like an industry magazine, it feels like a serious (but playful) arts journal rich with commentary and critique." (We liked that last one, of course).

With redesigns, and especially rebrands, it's very rare to hear anything of the goals of the project. Commenters are left with nothing but form, which invites simplistic responses, whether positive or negative. Here then, briefly, is some of what we were hoping to do with the CR redesign:

1, Make the magazine a better physical product. Make the most of it being in print, better paper, a better format. Make it something of value, something worth keeping. Give print a chance. And if we could do that it would help us...

2, Turn the spotlight back on to the magazine. The website is fantastic and helps us in all kinds of ways. Traffic has gone up fourfold in a year. We wanted to reclaim some of the enthusiasm with which the site is received for the printed magazine which was feeling overshadowed. We wanted to get it talked about again.

3, Signal the change at CR editorially. Some 18 months ago we changed the focus of the magazine to be more opinionated and less of a showcase, to be less just 'here's a new piece of work' (which the website can do far better) to 'what do you think of this work and what it means?' To be more challenging. We needed to make people realise that there had been a change of direction and get those who hadn't picked up the magazine for a while to do so.

Finally, a word about the logo which, of course, was always going to be the most contentious issue. As stated above, we needed to signal that change had taken place and to express a new stance, which would have been difficult if we hadn't changed the logo. In fact, I'm sure we would have been slammed for wasting an opportunity if we hadn't changed.

We wanted to write the name out, we wanted newsstand presence, we wanted to be distinctive and invite a response and not be yet another bit of polite sans serif with nothing to say, and we wanted something that, on the website, reminded visitors that there is a printed magazine at the heart of all we do. And, no, we don't expect it to last 30 years - we've had six changes of logo in the past 30, so I expect we'll have a few more in the next three decades.

Of course we wanted to make a magazine that looks good, but this redesign is about addressing some very significant issues for the magazine, some of which are outined above. We won't know if it has 'worked' or not for 6, even 12 months, if then. The May issue sold out in some stores (the first time that has happened in about four years) so it seems that we may be on the right track, but there's a long way to go.

Add to that the fact that we just had a new record month for traffic online and the Illustration Annual attracted way more entries than we budgeted for and it seems people like what we are doing.

The redesign has created an opportunity for us, now it's up to all of us at CR to make the most of it.

 

9 Comments

I still think that typeface only works when it's big...
Charlotte
2010-05-27 12:03:46


Re. 'polite sans serifs with nothing to say' - HEAR HEAR. Very happy to see a publication with so much at stake (designing for designers, nightmare) putting its proverbial balls on the line with a gutsy and memorable design decision. And what's wrong with being contentious - especially as it's reflective of a more argumentative editorial direction. I was just glad to see it worked in the flesh as much as what could have been artfully flattering photos on the website.



But then I've always liked the 2012 logo...
jonny
2010-05-27 12:23:00


I like the layouts but think the new font, while nice in layouts as headers, doesn't quite sit right as the new brand. To use that typeface seems to make the covers look antiquated. I agree that a 'polite sans serif' may not be the way to mark a new direction for CR but I don't think this new solution does either. It seems like a regurgitation of something U&LC would have done but wierded up by adding gaps and making it almost stencil-like. I think it takes it back instead of taking it forward. Soreee
Sofia
2010-05-27 14:17:00


I love it. Particularly the last issue. It feels really solid and considered.



Great stuff!
Patrick
2010-05-28 10:27:00


I rarely buy Creative Review but always pick up the annual. I'll admit to being a bit shocked at first but I've actually subscribed since. The new design is great and the new direction of opinions over a showcase is much better. Good job.
Sam Morris
2010-05-28 13:31:04


Since the redesign I have been buying the magazine every month, whereas I used to buy CR sporadically if something had peaked my interest. I love that it indeed feels much more like an object now, rather than a magazine (if that makes sense).
Tom Muller
2010-05-28 17:15:24


Very awkward design, the font is unproportional especially the lowercase e. Was it a free download? Can't see why you have gone for a retro 70s magazine feel, the headlines and column grid make me want to grow a beard and smoke a pipe.
mr funk
2010-05-31 17:02:37


i feel the magazine has a new collectability and has taken positive and decisive moves to adress the real issues in the print and publishing industry at the moment.

100% with the new format
80% with the logo...could see it changing a few times before that issue is settled.

A
A
2010-05-31 18:41:51


@CR

Okay, this is beside the point, so sorry, but it does bug me. I really like the redesign, but I think someone at CR Towers should take a short course in photography/Photoshop, discover where Filter>Distort>Lens Correction is (love it!) and maybe use a few adjustment layers.

I just don't think the in-house photography on this blog does justice to the wonderful work that lands on your desk. It's all a bit wonky and muddy.

Sorry!
Ed Wright
2010-06-01 15:32:24


Tell us what you think

What happens with my feedback?

We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

Share This — Social Bookmarking

Get the RSS Feed
NULL