A letter from the editor — to our print readers
Julia Wallace, Editor
[Thanks for all the feedback. Commenting on this post is now closed. See what others said by scrolling to the end of the post.]
Print is a powerful medium.
We know that more and more people are getting their information in a digital format. But we also know that many still love and enjoy reading a newspaper.
Nearly two years ago, we set out to chart a course for the future. As information habits changed and more of our print audience shifted to the Internet, we knew the status quo was not an option. A struggling economy only added to the challenge before us.
We thought the best answers would come from our readers. We talked to thousands of them. They guided us to the new product you’re holding in your hands today.
This daily newspaper is one designed for newspaper readers. For years our industry has chased those elusive nonreaders. Our market research led us down a different path. What we’d have to do to win over those nonreaders risked driving away our core readers. We believe we can thrive by increasing the satisfaction of those who already engage with us regularly. So … you see a newspaper that looks and reads very much like a newspaper.
We’ve invested millions in press upgrades, more color and a more newsy, sophisticated look. We hired an award-winning design firm, Lacava Design, from Montreal to help us create a newspaper that is easy to use and filled with information.
Also along the way, we found ways to do things more efficiently. Our reader feedback proved valuable when economic necessities forced us to scale back plans and coverage. It was our readers who helped us set priorities for what to keep and what could be sacrificed.
We’ve already rolled out most of the content changes the last few months. Today’s print redesign is the culmination of a lot of hard, sometimes painful work that at its heart reflects the optimism and dedication to a long and prosperous future in this community.
We’d like to hear what you have to say about our new look. Please join the discussion.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
364 comments Add your comment
Meme
April 28th, 2009
7:02 am
I would love to comment on the new paper. However, it hasn’t been delivered yet. It is always there when I leave for work at 6. I take it with me. This morning, I waited until 6:15 and no paper. I guess the new look is invisible.
Dave Pailthorpe
April 28th, 2009
7:03 am
Your new newspaper format is horrid. It reminds me of the “Weekly Reader” I used to receive in grammar school. The print is small and very light. I will give it some time and try to get used to it. My first opinion is that it is just awful.
Tim
April 28th, 2009
7:04 am
The changes to the print version really don’t make a difference to me. The print version is only used to for the bottom of my daughter’s lizard cage.
Jon
April 28th, 2009
7:12 am
Baseball standings so tiny that I need my glasses to read them and a sports section that qualifies as tiny too (all of 3-and-a-half pages) simply hastens my decision to ditch the AJC in favor of USA Today.
Brent
April 28th, 2009
7:14 am
The new design is too hard to read! It is way too compact. Some pages have 6 columns & are barely legible. Older people read the newspaper, but won’t be able to read this fine print!
Tim Taylor
April 28th, 2009
7:21 am
I also would love to comment on your paper but after being a subscriber for 20 years you no longer deliver to the Toccoa/NE GA area. You people have no idea how you have alienated so many people with your selfish decision. The AJC is not just (well it wasnt) a Atlanta newspaper, it WAS a state icon that everyone could take pride in and enjoy but you took that from us.
Robert Bolton
April 28th, 2009
7:26 am
I’ve been a subscriber since 89′, sorry folks, I know you are struggling, but, it is my opinion that you have finally put the last nail in the coffin lid. It looks like a failed USA Today. Font size too small. What’s with the faded colors and subdued sub-headlines? I hope you didn’t pay someone for this new layout. It is really terrible. Do something fast. I equate the new AJC look to that fiasco of Couric replacing Schieffer at CBS News.
Mark Lefkow
April 28th, 2009
7:28 am
The new design is terrible. It looks like a comic book!
John
April 28th, 2009
7:32 am
Hate the new format, looks like a cheap USA Today. Faded front page is a jumbled mess of columns. This may finally be the end of our 20 year subscription for home delivery because it is no longer worth it.
ralph
April 28th, 2009
7:32 am
I’m a native Atlantan and longtime subscriber, but this is it for me. A gimmicky and cartoonish remake isn’t the way to get more people to subscribe. Perhaps instead you should have tried hiring some writers/reporters who have knowledge about what they’re writing about.
MiltonMan
April 28th, 2009
7:33 am
The AJC has lost almost 20% of subscriptions in the last 6 months. The trend shall continue.
Alex Bender
April 28th, 2009
7:35 am
OMG, it really sucks! If this were April the 1st I would think it was an April fools joke on us. More change we could have done without.
Chris Becker
April 28th, 2009
7:38 am
Not good. I don’t want to be a naysayer, and will give it a few days to get used to, but the new paper feels like the local community paper we already get. Not serious news, just fluff and funnies. Disappointing given how much you have put into the change.
The real problem of note is how the AJC editors have failed to figure out what has caused the decline in readership/subscriptions; that would be the total lean to the left of the reporting, editorials, etc. while the subscribers are much more moderate. Just take a look at which media are seeing increases in viewership/readership and you should have learned: Fox News, WSJ, and other moderate to right leaning organizations are catering to the people who can afford to buy your paper. I was recently asked at my son’s soccer game if I was the only one who still subscribed to “that rag”, when I brought your crossword page to the field. I think that’s close to true. Everyone got so sick of the unbalanced support during the last election that they can’t bring themselves to give the AJC any respect. I even pledged to stop subscribing, but gave it a 6 month extension because I’m an avid reader. But with the changed paper, I guess this is a final run for me as well.
D
April 28th, 2009
7:40 am
I have a great idea – bring back what worked !!!!! The AJC from not that long ago . I have been reading for 32 years and am thoroughly disgusted with the so called ” new and improved “.You lost me.
Buck Henry
April 28th, 2009
7:42 am
No matter what you do to the columns or font sizes, the AJC is still a piece of junk liberal rag. Until that changes, your readership will continue to drop. You are serving a tiny dot of blue constituents (ISP Atlanta) surrounded by a sea of red constituents (the rest of the state). Get a clue, formatting is not your problem!
Tim M
April 28th, 2009
7:42 am
Terrible colors — especially the Sports section. C’mon, is kiwi green really a sports color? And the sports stats are so small I need a magnifying glass to read them! Overall, I am very disappointed in the changes. The paper size is too narrow, the “new” font looks cheap and frivolous. For a major daily, I expect a little more serious tone and appearance. I know this is a cost-cutting move, but if I wanted to read the USA Today I’d go down the street and steal one from the Marriott Courtyard!
Chip Folendore
April 28th, 2009
7:44 am
I would love to tell you what it looks like. However, you decided to stop delivery to Athens so we do not know what it look like.
Nancy Dempsey
April 28th, 2009
7:44 am
I first went to the editorial pages and noticed a welcomed change, one that indicates that you really did listen to all the feedback from subscribers during the last few weeks : NO Lukovitch and Jim Wooten in Cynthia’s old spot. THANK YOU !
Rex T.
April 28th, 2009
7:46 am
Fine. But exactly when will your liberal bias in the selection, wording and page placement of news stories be addressed? You remain starkly at odds politically with too much of your potential paying market here in metro Atlanta.
Is any amount of furniture rearrangement likely to compensate for that?
Lowell
April 28th, 2009
7:49 am
Reading for the first time this morning, I find the new layout confusing. It’s difficult to scan the paper to find articles I want to read. The font used in the Vent and the Obituaries is. The old format of using bold font for the first few words of each Vent made it easy to move from one posting to the next. That’s no longer available and it is hard to scan from one posting to another.
It is difficult to visually separate the obituary listings on a county basis. I’m interested in one or two counties and it’s hard to find them in the list.
So far, this new layout isn’t an improvement for me. Maybe it’s a matter of getting used to it, but im not sure that’s the only reason for finding it difficult to read.
Leslie
April 28th, 2009
7:53 am
I’m sad to see so many great newspapers like the SF Chronicle, Seattle PI and others come to their end. I know the AJC is trying to stay afloat, but I’m not sure this redesign is the answer. The reason I don’t subscribe is that many stories are poorly written, burried leads, and often opinionated. (I’m not saying liberal/conservative, just opinionated.) The number of AP stories seems to be growing while in-depth Atlanta stories are shrinking. Business stories seem to be left to the Atlanta Business Chronicle and in-depth features left to Atlanta Magazine. My suggestion, which is born out somewhat by others who study media, is to increase the depth and bredth of local coverage, leave the national news to AP/Reuters. May I also suggest a kid’s page, similar to the Washington Post’s Kid’s World. May I also suggest that the writers be trained/retrained on how to write a news story. Some of the writing is just awful.
Charles Edwards
April 28th, 2009
7:54 am
I was very, very sad to see the new edition of my beloved Atlanta Journal-Constitution Newspaper.
I understand that these are tough economic times for newspapers but I feel that the AJC could and can do better.
Sunday newspaper had a front page story that said it would continue on Page 10 but was instead it was on Page 5. This is not up to Atlanta readers standards. Even a downsized paper need proofreading and quality control.
I understand that you are shifting your focus to the Internet but there are millions and millions of websites and newspapers on the Internet.
Getting readers to visit and stay on your site with all the other web options available is optimistic. You cannot flip thru the pages of a website and get the same type of intimacy you get with a paper.
I believe that the “Fourth Estate” and the AJC are giving up much, much to quick. America is a country of newspaper readers. Atlanta needs a fresh vibrant newspaper with Atlanta coverage rather than a lot of stories that could have been written weeks ago.
I would also like for the AJC to consider the “blockbuster” idea of lowering the price of the paper to .25 cents on a daily basis. I would much rather have 100,000 people buying the paper with a gross of $25,000 than having 25,000 / 30,000 people buying it at .75 cents. You get the paper in more people hand and attract more advertisers.
When you go in the local convenience store you always see a stack of unsold AJC Newspapers. I suspect that advertisers see this as well.
As a former AJC employee with nearly 10 years of service in the Circulation Sales Department I pray and hope that the AJC will survive and flourish.
GOOD LUCK !!!
Charles Douglas Edwards
Bill Robinson
April 28th, 2009
7:56 am
I understand that first and foremost you are running a business so you have to find a way to make ends meet. Having said that, is turning the AJC into a second or third class newspaper for a city that strives to be first class really a good idea? Sometimes something isn’t really better than nothing.
Julia Wallace, Editor
April 28th, 2009
7:57 am
Good morning all. Is the font hard to read? Our testing found otherwise. We selected a font that was specifically developed for “older” eyes. It is more condensed, and makes for faster and easier reading. Our previous front had a lot of white space that slowed down the reading process. If you have other newspapers nearby, take a look and compare. I have three others on my kitchen counter and think ours is the easiest to read. It may take a bit of adjustment, though, because of the smaller paper size and smaller use of photos. Is our design version of USA Today? In developing the design, we took the best ideas from elsewhere and merged into what seemed right for Atlanta. We heard over and over from readers how much they like the organization and color-coding of USA Today. You see that reflected in the design. We also heard about how much people wanted a lot of information, without wasted white space and large photos. They like the newsiness and density of the Wall Street Journal. You see that reflected as well.
long time reader
April 28th, 2009
7:59 am
I’m really wondering what the purpose of these changes are? The paper is harder to read, the additional color seems to make it more expensive to print. So in times of declining readership and decreasing revenue this seems counterintuitive. I’m not sure at all how this is going to help keep your newspaper alive.
I may get used to it, but I doubt it. This is pushing me further away from the print edition and more to my on-line sources for news. My husband is a big fan of the print edition and he found the new format harder to read and harder to focus on the stories.
long time reader
April 28th, 2009
8:05 am
I didn’t see Julia’s explanation before I posted. One of the things I said to my husband this morning is that it looked like you were trying to look like a cross between USA Today and the WSJ. I’m not a big fan of USA Today – too much fluff. I like the WSJ, but I put up with their multiple columns and crowded look because of the content. For the WSJ this look is their trademark – you recognize it immediately. It’s not necessarily the best format, but it’s immediately identifiable as their brand and the articles are top notch.
This isn’t true for the AJC – it’s not your brand, it’s more difficult to read and the content isn’t worth it. Cosmetic changes aren’t going to keep your readers – you need good, reliable, unbiased reporting that we’ll turn to even if the paper isn’t full of color or gimmicks.
David McKay
April 28th, 2009
8:05 am
Is this a joke? This morning there was a copy of USA Today in my driveway, no AJC! Is this the “New Look” Maybe you guys should have introduced the new paper on April 1st!
Patrick Noonan
April 28th, 2009
8:11 am
Tragic. A once-great paper surrenders, and is forced to walk the streets of Atlanta dressed as a free weekly.
I am appalled as well as saddened, because I now realize it’s over for the AJC. And I know it’s over between me and the AJC – it’s not even worth the less than 5 minutes required to read it. I will miss it.
In journalism schools across the country, the AJC will be held up as a case study of how print is dying.
Seven of Nine
April 28th, 2009
8:11 am
Well, since it’s no longer sold in my area, who knows? Good luck with it. Everyone knows redesigns foisted upon readers all at once creates upset. The correct way to do it is a little at a time and don’t make a scene about it. Then people digest it and don’t even notice they’re taking medicine.
Mark
April 28th, 2009
8:12 am
The paper has been going downhill for a year. I can’t judge your newest debacle because today’s delivery did not happen, also something which is becoming more common. When do you retire?
Larry
April 28th, 2009
8:16 am
It just “feels” thin, and cheap. When you hold the WSJ or even the old AJC, the width of the paper gave it gravitas. The new paper feels thin and cheap.
The fonts are hard to read. Even with “young” eyes.
The colors are cheesy.
The layout is crowded. Yes, the WSJ uses it . This is not the WSJ.
I understand the business model is changing, and that paper costs money. But honestly, this change is “new coke.” Sadly, I enjoy reading papers so much that I will continue my subscription. But just like when I drank “new coke,” I won’t enjoy it as much as I did in the past.
Mugglemikki
April 28th, 2009
8:17 am
I personally love the new design. It’s crisper and I find it easier to read and find the articles I want to read. And I love the font. Don’t mind most of the people on this post. We all now that Georgians don’t welcome change well.
Hele
April 28th, 2009
8:18 am
Forget the color and use the money you save to make the black print bolder. I am a print-oriented person but you have made the AJC so difficult to read that I am not sure it will continue to be worth the struggle.
Don Lawson
April 28th, 2009
8:19 am
TERRIBLE !!! This new format is the worse makeover I have ever seen. Looks like a comic book, too cluttered, too buzy, too confusing to get through. I couyld read the old AJC without having to put on my reading glasses. The new type is too small, too close together and looks like a local bulletin. If you don’t change, I will cancel my subscription.
CJOE
April 28th, 2009
8:19 am
The font style used for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and section headings look amateurish and give that feel to the paper. I don’t think the date on the front page needs to be quite so big. Overall look reminds me of USA Today. I applaud the AJC for doing everything they can to survive. It is tough times for the newspaper industry.
Dick Florin
April 28th, 2009
8:20 am
On Page 2 and the Fast Read, why not make the topic bars the same color as the section (such as Sports/Section C Turf color)?
I did not renew my subscription
April 28th, 2009
8:20 am
After 45 years of reading the local paper daily, I called it quits last month with the AJC. I felt I was aiding and abetting a socialistic agenda by sending money to the AJC. I am a die hard capitalist, and the socialism this country is adopting is scary. The AJC and many other local papers are partly responsible for not uncovering or revealing the truth about some of the candidates on the ballot.When was the last time, if ever, did the AJC endorse a presidential candidate that was not a Democrat?
I will get my news from the Wall St Journal, and get my sports from online sources. I truly miss my daily reading routine, but the AJC dug it’s own grave.
John
April 28th, 2009
8:21 am
Are you kidding me??? Very disappointed in the changes…The redesign is absolutely awful and full of cheap gimmicks.. font is tiny and hard to read for a middle age adult, paper is compact, cheapen the look. If the “new look” is so great why is the AJC going back to the original version on weekend editions when readership is much higher.. been a loyal long time daily reader.. no longer.. please change back to what gave you longevity or your organization risks losing a significant number of daily readers..
Voice of Reason #1
April 28th, 2009
8:21 am
I don’t get the hard copy during the week; only on the weekends. But just don’t get rid of Mike Luckovich–he is awesome. His cartoons are spot-on!!!!
Still looking for a thumbs up
April 28th, 2009
8:25 am
When I logged in there were 32 comments posted. I’m still looking for a single positive one.
Looks like somebody may have goofed. I sure hope not.
coladawg
April 28th, 2009
8:28 am
Mugglemikki, Georgians aren’t welcoming this design change; only Atlantans are.
Avid Intown Reader
April 28th, 2009
8:32 am
I agree with the consensus. I understand Julia Wallace’s defensiveness. But I think she’s made a mistake. I think the colors, EVERYWHERE, instead of for special emphasis, makes the page confusing. What’s wrong with a traditional newspaper look? Is “modern” always better? Look at buildings designed in the 1960’s. Modern. Easily identifiable. Horrible for the most part.
Indeed, it is so thin, it looks like a small town weekly version of USA today, or perhaps an advertising flyer.
When Coca Cola introduced New Coke, it was the marketing flub of the late 20th century. Get a clue. Admit your mistake. Put it back. Seriously, folks, you have some fine writers on your staff. You need to figure out a way to honor the newspaper tradition, keep your focus, and still stay viable. I don’t believe this is it.
S. Kurt Jocoy
April 28th, 2009
8:32 am
Very poor copy of USA Today.
Mugglemikki
April 28th, 2009
8:32 am
I know that coladawg. Most Atlantans know that the world isn’t static and nothing stays the same forever. I think most people on here just want to complain about something.
Robert Holihan
April 28th, 2009
8:32 am
The print might be easy for someone younger than 40 to read, but for those of us whose vision isn’t what it used to be, the change in font is not a helpful one — not by a long shot. At 41, I am not at the point of needing reading glasses just yet, but I can tell you that this morning, I nearly squinted through the first two sections, whereas last week, I had no trouble reading the stories at all. Did you study only young people while doing research for the redesign?
Additionally, I am very disappointed in the similarities of the “new AJC” to USA Today…if I wanted to read tidbits and snippets of stories, I would subscribe to USA Today, not my “local” paper. The most horrible part, though, which has been mentioned previously, is the sports scores — this is where I literally got up from my table and used a magnifying glass to see last night’s Braves score. Why should I have to do this?
The colors are also off-putting. Since when was it all right to fashion a newspaper after the colors on a Trivial Pursuit board? Oh, right — when USA Today did it.
It just seems as though you are trying to attract the lowest-common denominator of reader…the ones who gravitate toward bright colors and funky type. I didn’t think the redesign could possibly be as bad as what passes for acceptability on ajc.com, but management seems to have outdone itself with this terrible print offering.
I long for the days when my “newspaper” didn’t look like the flashing lights of a small-town carnival. Send in the clowns — don’t bother…they’re here.
Dr.R
April 28th, 2009
8:32 am
Your sans-serif face is a bit too hard to read, and I’m not quite that elderly yet. The vent, for instance, is a bit of a strain. I understand the constraints you were under with the new paper size and re-designs are never easy. Hang in there; readers eventually will adjust.
Pat
April 28th, 2009
8:34 am
Sad, very sad. I know that you’re trying desperately to stay in business, but this latest change appears to confirm that the AJC is in it’s death throes.
Phil
April 28th, 2009
8:35 am
Absolutely Horrible!
The new font is Too Small.
Both my wife and I have too much difficulty reading it.
Perhaps your extensive study relative to font style and size should have included some real live testing with some of your local senior citizen customers rather than rely on someone else’s data.
If the font size is not changed soon we will be forced to cancel our subscription.
Albert W Holland
April 28th, 2009
8:39 am
This change just about puts the headstone on your publication. First you up your subscription, then make the print so small we older people have to get a glass to read it. Then you make your cartoons so small they aren’t funny anymore, and the sports page has gone to hell in a hand basket. I give you less than six months, and you’ll be out of business. I know the people in South Georgia are ready for your demise. I’m considering USA today as a paper of choice…
CAR
April 28th, 2009
8:40 am
As a longtime newspaperman, I’m more disturbed by the changes than I could have imagined. Worse, I hear the editorial board is being reshaped toward a more conservative view. Ralph McGill is turning over in his grave.
Marty
April 28th, 2009
8:40 am
It’s terrible. It’s so “rinky Dinky” You have five columns with
4 to five words on each line. I pre-paid my subscription in Jan.
and I’d like to have 7/12’s of my money back.
Dr.R
April 28th, 2009
8:40 am
Just another short thought: Many folks here are comparing the paper unfavorably to USA Today. Do y’all realize that USAT is the only major paper in the country that has GAINED readership in recent years? Whatever they’re doing, it works. Maybe that’s why it has been copied so often.
Ned
April 28th, 2009
8:43 am
As I used to enjoy the AJC I always wished it was USA Today. My dreams have come true. Do you really think font, color, and page layout were your paper’s biggest problems? I am not sure you have a realistic idea who your customers are today – and more importantly who they will be in the future. You seem to have produced a paper designed to appeal to a generation that doesn’t – and likely won’t ever – READ the newspaper (at least in print). Terrible job.
Neil Monroe
April 28th, 2009
8:43 am
I’ll be honest, the paper made me – a bona fide newspaper junkie – a little sad today. Not that the design isn’t great, because it is. It’s doing the most with the evaporating resources available. I like the concept and execution, and I’m confident it will get even better. It is fresher, brighter, more readable. I was somewhat shocked, however, that the Atlanta Hawks playoff game coverage wasn’t in my paper this morning, and the game was on the East Coast.
The tinge of sadness comes from just seeing what print journalism has become. There were only 3 1/2 pages of classifieds; the paid obits may be creating more revenue now. Display ads are almost nonexistent; there were less than 2 pages of ads in a 12-page ‘A’ section. The Living section had only the two pages of movie listings. I know, it’s only Tuesday, traditionally a light advertising day. But in reality, this is a trend that is accelerating.
My sadness comes from the fear that this new approach simply isn’t enough. I’ve read the AJC since 1956; I subscribed to both papers until the Journal died. I remember the Blue Streak…
Best of luck to the whole staff.
Scott
April 28th, 2009
8:44 am
Look – it’s a positive comment!
Much better in print than the description looked like – I was afraid it was going to be even narrower.
It looks much more “texty” – the new font has clearly let you eliminate white space while preserving the readability.
Glad to see that you’re still including box scores in the sports section – I was afraid that would go away.
Hopefully when the economy improves, the amount of content can increase again – it seems pitiful that it’s so thin, but it’s probably just the Macy’s inserts that are missing.
Andy G
April 28th, 2009
8:45 am
This is truly sad. In order to survive due to reduced advertising revenue, the AJC has to shrink both the size and quality of the publication.
Your readers are understanding of your plight – in order to save money given the economy and the lack of demand for advertising in print medium, this needed to be done. However, in my view, there has been a negative impact to the newspaper. It’s so light, I don’t even think I would hear it hit my driveway anymore.
At the end of the day, your readers will need to judge for themselves, but please be honest with us – the change is about business realities, not a new and improved format.
Ruth
April 28th, 2009
8:47 am
Pathetic. The AJC is obviously dying…let it go with dignity. The makeover is horrible. While the AJC is sick it amazes me that print space is given to The Vent, Peach Buzz and other such trivial garbage at the expense of news. This latest example delivered today has made up my mind not to subscribe any longer.
Cindy
April 28th, 2009
8:47 am
It’s very hard to read. I had a copy of an old AJC and compared it to today’s paper — there is no comparison in the readability. I finally gave up and went to an online newspaper. I’m worried even more now about the print version of the paper — I believe we need the newspaper to survive! But your core readership, I’m guessing, has eyesight like mine. Did this “award-winning” design team have your market group actually READ the paper or did the market group only comment on the cosmetics?
Robert Brown
April 28th, 2009
8:48 am
How bad can you make it? You have succeeded in making the AJC print version the worst I have seen. The print is so small I can’t read most of the paper. For many years I have enjoyed reading my paper over breakfast, not now. I guess the TV will have to come on sooner in the morning. At least USA Today uses a font size large enough to read. I will stay until I see the Sunday edition and if it is not improved then goodbye AJC!
allen981
April 28th, 2009
8:49 am
So CAR is afraid the paper is becoming more conservative. Let’s hope CAR is right. Have you seen cable rating lately? Fox, the fair and balanced network liberals love to hate, has double the ratings of any other cable news group. Clearly, the people who are working, who are paying taxes, who are creating the wealth Obama is giving away, support a more conservative approach. These people are also the ones who buy newspapers and support advertisers.
Ralph McGill was first and foremost a businessman. He’d do what he had to do, including kiss George Bush on the mouth if necessary.
C.P. Dotson
April 28th, 2009
8:50 am
Enter your comments here
Marion G. Webb
April 28th, 2009
8:53 am
What a shame. The fonts are now too small, and the ink quality is subdued. I see where AJC had consultants for this new look; I hope you haven’t paid them yet. You have carried economy too far.
John Withers
April 28th, 2009
8:57 am
The new and improved AJC is a joke isn’t it? I mean, you must be kidding!!! I was born at night but not LAST NIGHT. If this is better than what we got 50 years ago from what was then two newspapers for a nickel each, then I am a monkey’s uncle. You must believe we are all idiots if you think the new format is going to drive circulation upward. Your liberal bias was bad enough and the only good that I can see will come from the new and improved AJC is that fewer people will read! You have delivered something you call new and improved that is hardly big enough to use as a fish wrapper. Count me as a former subscriber. With these kinds of continued improvements, you will be out of business soon and we will all be better off. My money can be spent much more wisely, and I plan to do just that. Please cancel my subscription!
yalanda
April 28th, 2009
9:01 am
a picture of the new print edition in the post would have helped find the paper at the newsstand
David Marshall
April 28th, 2009
9:01 am
It’s amazing sometimes how people at the “top” just don’t get it. We canceled our subscription after they raised rates for “less” paper. It was frequently delivered late or not at all. I feel bad for the AJC the struggles most print media have gone through, but bad is bad. Chrysler and GM have the same issues – people at the top just don’t get it.
Walt in Marietta
April 28th, 2009
9:06 am
Why put another nail in your coffin?
Hard to read!
Bland format!
Front page was terrible…no highlights, just a lot of little and dull print. And it’s self inflicted.
I may go online for news that I used to go to AJC for!
I hate to see this loss happen to Atlanta on top of so many other reversals.
Debbie
April 28th, 2009
9:06 am
Atrocious! Your paper was already going downhill with numerous grammatical and typographical errors and erratic headline fonts. Now it’s a scimpy rag with columns pressed together and stacked on the front page so that you can’t even follow a single story to its conclusion. My husband has been pushing to drop it, and I’ve resisted. No longer. Farewell!
Susan Hudson
April 28th, 2009
9:07 am
Both my husband and I are avid newspaper readers. We have had a subscription to the AJC for 10 years and before that thru parents, etc, another 60 years. My father is probably rolling in his grave because of how you’ve butchered his beloved paper. I, too am appalled. I absolutely hate what you’ve done to the paper!
allen981
April 28th, 2009
9:07 am
Based on the consistently horrific tone of these comments, I’m saying a little prayer for Julia and the AJC staff. I know they poured their heart and soul into this, and this is not the reaction they expected.
Give it time, folks. It’s a work in progress.
Samuel Sapp
April 28th, 2009
9:13 am
It looks like it’s not in Macon .
Golden Hand
April 28th, 2009
9:14 am
It really does not look good. The reversed fonts on the pastel backgrounds are weak-looking and hard to read. The long vertical columns are also a dreadful way to organize breefs. Seems to have a lot of color for color’s sake on it. I give it a D; it rates better than an F only because it’s so hard to shave more than an inch off the width of the page without making hideous compromises.
Stacy
April 28th, 2009
9:14 am
I think all the content, font and formatting changes are fine, but I don’t like the new masthead. Looks cheap/generic. Like the recent Tropicana package redesign that bombed. Nevertheless, I appreciate your efforts to keep the AJC alive in this economy – we need you, AJC!
atlanta30309
April 28th, 2009
9:15 am
Just got the new paper–looks great. And reads great. I let my subscription lapse a year or so ago, but count me back in. My favorite paper is the Financial Times Weekend edition, but this may give it a run for its money. Kudos–and continued good luck.
atlanta30309
April 28th, 2009
9:15 am
Enter your comments here
Andrew
April 28th, 2009
9:17 am
Y’all hired the New Coke guy, didn’t you?
Johnin St. Mtn.
April 28th, 2009
9:19 am
Lousy look. And it isn’t even original — it’s just a rehash of USA Today’s “McNews” format — short/no-depth reporting and cluttered pages. There’s also an over-reliance on wire service stories and pickups from other publications, which is evidence of the bloodletting that’s been going on in the AJC’s editorial staff. The cost cutting hasn’t been restricted to just the paper either. I just cancelled my Sunday subscription because the AJC’s circulation department wouldn’t deliver it (and, typically, there are no human beings taking calls from subscribers on Sunday anymore…it’s all voice mail and e-mail). AJC, your days are numbered.
Crystal
April 28th, 2009
9:21 am
It would be great if you’d put a PDF copy of the new front page on your Web site. We can no longer get the AJC up here. I’d love to see it.
Dennis
April 28th, 2009
9:22 am
I think the look is fine. Of course I was not unhappy with the old look. The test will be your efforts and successes in shaping the content.
Balance, real balance, not balance as determined by a Committed Progressive Democrat or Liberal will be difficult. For example: Last week in your OpEd Section you had “Two Views”. One view, the “Yes” view, was clearly on subject and argued the Progressive point well. The Opposing view, the “No” position, that you selected was not on point at all. You may want us to conclude that the Conservative view is therefore less convincing. But the fact is that you chose a poorly written, possibly even edited, column; then presented it as the “No” position.
Also is it possible that you could have written the original question such that the “Yes” position was Conservative and the “No” position was the Progressive?
Balance is hard work. Can you recognize balance? Can you deliver balance? Past experience says no. Time will tell.
Nancy
April 28th, 2009
9:22 am
Will your newspaper come in the LARGE print edition like Reader’s digest and other publications. I can’t read the paper now – even with my glasses on. Very irritating.
dgroy
April 28th, 2009
9:22 am
Sweetheart, I think what everyone is saying is…..”you have a lousy newspaper and no amount of cosmetic changes will help.” Your newspaper is too liberal, your sports pages are absolutely awful and I can’t even find the words to describe your awful coverage of high school sports. Please fire everybody and start over and next time try to be relevant. Political correctness has killed your once great newspaper.
Andie
April 28th, 2009
9:24 am
Pathetic!
Peachtree
April 28th, 2009
9:30 am
Absolutely unreadable! (Not that there’s anything left to read, anyway.) USA Today in a bad font.
Phil cochran
April 28th, 2009
9:30 am
The new print edition is patheic..Goodbye AJC print edition!!
BDS
April 28th, 2009
9:30 am
The new format is a big improvement. BUT continuing front page stories in back pages with completely different, unrelated headlines is confusing and maddening.
Shel Miller
April 28th, 2009
9:30 am
Re: Page 3, Denser Design Gets In More News – “pack in the most content without wearing out your eyes”. Yes – you’re trying to put 10 gallons of syrup into a 5 gallon bucket! Younger readers with good eyesight are getting the news from the internet. Older readers and the aged will have great difficulty. I understand cutting costs, but there must be a better way.
allen981
April 28th, 2009
9:31 am
Anyone remember the Atlanta Times? No, of course not, most of you are carpetbagging Yankees who can’t tell collards from turnip greens.
To enlighten you, it was a competing daily paper many years back that died a fairly rapid death due to the Cox family’s domination of the Atlanta news market (AJC, WSB).
Maybe now it’s time for a new, fresh, approach built from a foundation of balanced online and print excellence.
If someone will front me $20 million, I’m willing to give it a go.
Chris Becker
April 28th, 2009
9:32 am
Enter your comments here
Dennis
April 28th, 2009
9:32 am
I am 65 and have a 3′ diameter magnifying glass on my desk to help me read dificult text. I did not need the glass to read today’s paper.
The font is fine with me.
Grumpy
April 28th, 2009
9:32 am
Way to difficult to read now. The vent is a different font and many of the vents are not even sperated with spaces. Hate the fonts throughout. Columns are too hard to read. I’m the only one that has received a paper in my sub-division today, and that’s because I called to have it delivered after I still had not received it by 8 am.
Donald R. Runnion
April 28th, 2009
9:34 am
I do not care for the new design at all. The articles are too crowded together…and the constant columns….YUK!
Why bother with different sections?, The daily paper is so small now, you can just combine it all together. It’s just a crappy look. I MISS THE “OLD” LOOK!
Brad Nelson
April 28th, 2009
9:35 am
WOW WOW WOW. What an absolute joke. I know that Ms. Wallace must try to put the best face on the new AJC and defend the design changes, but really, this is shockingly pathetic. Do the publishers REALLY believe that THIS is going to save the AJC, a once great newspaper, the voice of the South that “Covered Dixie Like the Dew”??? Jagged-edge columns, poor organization, terrible graphics, and probably THE ugliest flag/nameplate of any large daily newspaper in the nation. No offense to Lacava or any of the designers at AJC, but this must be the most ill-conceived redesign I’ve seen, and I’ve been watching alot of them across the country. Do you people NOT look at other front pages on NEWSEUM.COM???? Hang today’s edition on a wall inside the AJC newsroom under a sign that asks, “Would YOU buy this newspaper?” That would be an embarrassing assessment. Look, I’m only 30, but I used to LOVE to buy the AJC, because it was a NEWSPAPER, just a classic, well-put-together broadsheet. Every newspaper in the country is ruining itself because they (and you) just don’t get it. You just CANNOT figure this out, and yet the answer was so easy. Expect to join the NYT for a 20% decline next quarter. The saddest part of this is that you will stick with this design out of stubbornness and unwillingness to admit a mistake. Until the last dog dies. And this dog is on its last leg. This is a sad, sad day for the AJC. Again, WOW.
WOW, WOW, WOW.
Top Tier Law Firm
April 28th, 2009
9:35 am
The new look is cheap. The classic appeal of the old format was one in which people could recognize and relate. People traveling into Atlanta will now pick up this amateur looking newspaper and make a judgment on our city. It has no “international-city” appeal; it looks very “small town” and is not indicative of the image this city aspires to promote. This new look is not refined and has no character. It looks like a poorly executed attempt at a USA Today knock off. Raise the price if you must, but do not wash away all semblance of pride and sophistication. You have successfully alienated your longtime readers. Internet is always changing and technology keeps everyone on their toes, but the fact remains; there is just something so comforting about the consistency of the paper. Why change something so historic? Lady Editor, you are right, print is a powerful medium; please re-assess this unrecognizable medium make-under.
long time reader
April 28th, 2009
9:36 am
Here’s a suggestion that may keep your current readers and draw new readers to the paper. There is already a USA Today (and, as noted, a successful one) – don’t try to fill a void that isn’t there. Instead, do more indepth local stories with writers that present balanced view points. Give us something we can’t get elsewhere. When I see so many stories in the AJC coming from the newswires, I wonder where our writers are. I can get wire stories anywhere. What I can’t get are the local issues covered in an unbiased way and the Atlanta stories that won’t get covered elsewhere. That’s what I’d pay for – not the same stories I can find elsewhere in a colorized format.
Born on Peachtree
April 28th, 2009
9:36 am
My fourth-grade daughter, who’s been reading the AJC since she was 4, said it this morning: “This looks unprofessional and weird.”
willie
April 28th, 2009
9:36 am
I wanted to like it, but some parts are very difficult to read. I have very good eyesight, and often found myself having to put my eyes very close to the paper to read things like the baseball boxscores and “On the Air” sections of the sports section. Also, “the rest of the week” section of the weather uses a very small font. I can’t begin to imagine how people without very good eyesight will be able to read this comfortably. On the positive side, I do like the extra color.
Chris
April 28th, 2009
9:37 am
Julia,
Hopefully you’ll read all of these. 2, maybe 3 positives out of 90 or so?? And while your response is fine, defending the research on fonts etc., you fail to acknowledge, discuss or even defend the content of the paper and the editorial makeup. If you want to sell a product, you have to design and produce what the user wants. Why do you and the staff, and I assume the owners of the paper ignore this?
Also, I trust you will try to get the Cox’s and Kennedy’s to read all of the comments. But then, that might cost a few their jobs.
offkey
April 28th, 2009
9:37 am
Embarrassing!!! For a city the size of Atlanta to have a daily newspaper that looks like something I’d pick up in Panama City. Total cheese.
Thomas P.
April 28th, 2009
9:38 am
I am a 20 year subscriber who hates to pile on this morning. I truly want the ajc to survive for the long run but you have just hastened your own demise with this trashy new look. Simply stated, my reaction this morning is that I despise the new look. It kind of reminds me of 1985 when another favorite Atlanta icon proudly rolled out New Coke. There is nothing about it that I view as an improvement. When I first picked it up and inspected it, my initial reaction was that this was some kind of cruel joke. Several people have given voice to my exact reaction — this is a poor cross between the old Weekly Reader and USA Today, neither of which I cared for. The format is so uninviting; I don’t even want to read it. It is hard to read, too small (both the size of the paper and the print), lacking in content, and makes ineffective and annoying use of color. Your sales staff should sign up for training from whomever sold you on this “new look” because they can surely sell anything.
Breathe
April 28th, 2009
9:39 am
Julia, like I stated when the “new” online version was released, it is not good practice to ask users how they feel on the FIRST day of change. There are psychological things change does to the mind, and you’re receiving a lot of the effects of this by way of feedback.
JJH Reader since 1996
April 28th, 2009
9:43 am
What a disaster ! As you are aware, your revenues have been falling as well as your subscriptions. Clearly, the vision you have laid out for your paper continues to propel you down that slope again. I have gotten so tired of your editorials, and your sports section especially Terrance Moore tries to provoke editorial comments to drive readership. Sorry, but the inverse is happening. Like so many others, I enjoy USA Today as I can read it and the format is quick and easy. You have missed the ball so much on this new format. Why doesn’t AJC just go out and buy USA Today, and deliver it instead.