Thanks for all the feedback
Julia Wallace, Editor
For all of you who took the time to post here or write or call or otherwise contact us about the redesign, thanks for all the feedback.
We got some cheers and more than a few complaints. That’s not unexpected when you change something as personal and habitual as a newspaper. And it’s certainly not unexpected that our request for feedback would draw far more negative comments than positive. We don’t expect to hear as much from folks who like the changes or approve of the newspaper; those who are satisfied are often less vocal.
Specific criticism is most helpful to us. For example, many readers had concerns about readability and typography that we think can be addressed. The main body type is not actually smaller; it appears the same size as before and larger than many American newspapers. But the font is more dense and we’re looking at the weight and inking and factors that may improve readability.
We’ll be making adjustments as appropriate in the days ahead. Feel free to continue giving us feedback — the more specific the better. We’ll keep commenting open for a while. If you would prefer to e-mail, the address is tellus@ajc.com.
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
130 comments Add your comment
Betty Tribble
April 28th, 2009
6:42 pm
I am afraid you will be the ones to read this paper.
I refuse to pay for something this poorly designed. We have a free
paper in Cherokee County that puts this to shame.
Alex Bender
April 28th, 2009
6:49 pm
I can not believe what you just wrote. You just don’t get it…please go back and READ the 331 blogs, You guys blew it and it looks like you are still not ready to see or admit the mess you made with this change.
O Evans
April 28th, 2009
7:01 pm
We now have a city tabloid!! Looks like a tabloid, reads like a tabloid… it is a tabloid.
Maybe the city of Sandy Springs could produce a real “news”paper that is real.
As native Atlantans and always a subscriber because we believed. We now believe we need to relinquish our subscriptions. Maybe I’ll just read the tabloid headlines in the grocery store line.
Soon To Be A Former Subscriber
April 28th, 2009
7:05 pm
If killing the print edition of the AJC is the intent with this redesign, mission accomplished.
Marc
April 28th, 2009
7:08 pm
Since this is the newest thread, I thought I would comment here. This is a sentence used by the Managing Editor in a comment on the previous thread.
“To be balanced does not me being namby pamby.”
I am not making this up! If they ‘correct’ it without clear notification, they have lost all integrity.
Mr. Touchdown
April 28th, 2009
7:24 pm
People, take two aspirin and call me in the morning. The new AJC pages are the same length as before and about one inch narrower. All the main stuff that was there before is still there.
The main problem is that Mike Luckovich still gets a free unopposed shot which is pure and simple unbalanced journalism.
Horace Greeley
April 28th, 2009
7:27 pm
Fire Cynthia Tucker, Jay Bookman and the other flower children, and I’ll start subscribing again !
Russell Slider
April 28th, 2009
7:35 pm
You write that it is “not unexpected” that you would receive more negative feedback than positive, and I would agree but not for the reason you suggest. It is not change, itself, that readers dislike; it is this particular change that the majority of readers object to; that is the real reason the negative outweighs the positive. You seek specifics so here are several:
1. The design looks like a bad knock off of USA Today. Your designers should keep their eyes on their own paper…literally.
2. The change in size and design make reading more difficult; there is too much on the page.
3. The paper quality feels different…cheaper and more flimsy.
The reality is you cannot do a wrong thing well enough to make it right; and this new look, clearly, is a wrong thing. It is time to rethink and not a time to try to justify and to explain away a bad decision and an unpopular change.
concerned
April 28th, 2009
7:40 pm
sorry, if the 2 year effort on this redesign is accurate, you needn’t have taken so long. the layout on the section fronts is difficult to follow. the weather page is worse than before, the sports standings are poor, the colors unnecessary etc etc. I understand the newsprint savings from the web reduction and won’t throw a brick your way for that. As far as folks hurling insults at your writers, phooey on them. I don’t want to agree with everything I read. If I did, I could write myself and always agree. A number of your columnists piss me off from time to time and they also get me to think about another side of an issue. That’s one of the reasons I like reading a newspaper.
I am disappointed in the short shriff that weekday’s appear to be getting. I enjoy the newspaper all 7 days, why make me unhappy 6 out of 7? You may need to add a paper-weight to the bag during the week…very light indeed.
as far as reader feedback/input on this redesign, you might have been better off asking a different group. These folks did you no favors.
jdawg
April 28th, 2009
7:46 pm
I really have just marked off the print edition…because when I travel around I cannot purchase outside Metro…so you have done well in limiting access….internet will just have to do…jdawg
Ian Latham
April 28th, 2009
7:46 pm
Congratulations, the paper is totally unreadable. I was a typographer for over 30 years. The narrow column measure, extremely large x-height of the typeface, its globular letter shape, lack of any stress in the letterform, and the flush left setting combine to make reading impossible. Too many globular letters, too few words per line, and an unjustified setting make scanning impossible. The overall effect is disorienting. Readers won’t sit still for this.
And isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with blind headlines that take two subheads to decipher?
Time for Plan B.
Go to Plan B.
lt. dad
April 28th, 2009
7:48 pm
wow. only 8 comments in response to the editor’s defense. maybe no one cares. ajc has successfully dumbed itself down. clearly your goal was to imitate usa today.—specifically, complaints are: complete mimicing of usa today; ultra left reporting, w/ cynthia tucker at the helm (out of step, not constructive, blahblah blah, our time w/ obama, etc) why do you set such a low bar? do you simply think you reflect metro atlanta? why not provide some leadership and TAKE people where they should go? 25 yr subscriber, very sad. this and shirley franklin’s complete abdication at the end to me signal a glacial decline in the atlanta that we have all tried to build over the last two decades. yeah yeah i know, recession, etc, but that doesnt excuse not at all trying to take the high road. thought you all were better than this.
Paul
April 28th, 2009
7:52 pm
What is most disappointing is the employees within the AJC believe their customers are intellectually challenged and are unable to decipher the fact we are being played. With all the money that was at stake with new equipment, paper, and soy ink wouldn’t it have been more prudent to be totally honest with your loyal daily readers and state the business and economic environment requires these types of drastic change to survive? Instead you are taking the approach to insult your loyal readers by attempting to “hard sell” them a product that they are advising has little to no value… complete disconnect
By making the changes your cost per paper will only go down if you maintain subscribers. Based on the 331 blogs earlier today my guess is you will lose 40% of your daily subscribers which will drive your cost per subscriber much higher.. most organizations choose to maintain current customer and grow the business…
Do the right thing by admitting your mistake and quickly find ways to satisfy your loyal readers
Specific feedback — You could solve a majority of the complaints by going back to the original size of the paper and making the font readable to anyone 40 + years of age….
Allan Brown
April 28th, 2009
8:04 pm
I just returned from a 4 month vacation and restarted by AJC subscription. I thought it was a joke when the first (redesigned) issue arrived today. Narrow columns with little spacing between news items (with small, blurry captions) make the paper virtually unreadable. You have to SEARCH for each and every item that you may want to read. Paper is flimsey, print is small and blurry and it reminds me of a crowded USA Today with no headlines. How anyone could stand up and justify this “change” as something better gives credance to legalizing the sale of Medical marijuana! Loved the old paper. Junk the new version and start over or I’m outta here.
A. Mess
April 28th, 2009
8:10 pm
I have purchased your paper for 67 years. I can not read this paper. We have a county paper that I also subscribe to and it is excellent. When my subscription runs out on your paper, I will not renew. It is such a shame. Henry Grady is turning over in his grave today.
sarah g.
April 28th, 2009
8:28 pm
To everyone who says the AJC is doing it for financial reasons – of course they are. If any company out there was losing 20% of their customers for a specific product (in this case the paper version of the AJC)you would try to make changes to the product to attract more buyers – there may be some initial missteps with customers who liked the old version but in order to thrive and survive the AJC has to take some chances. Thanks Julia for taking a chance to ensure that Atlanta still has a viable newspaper. I hope that readers provide constructive feedback that you can use to improve. It’s always easier to tear down than build new.
David of Marietta
April 28th, 2009
8:37 pm
The goal of redesigning a product is to improve the product. Can anyone at the AJC honestly think the new design of the paper is an improvement? It is horrible and makes the paper almost unreadable. You have truly taken the joy out of reading the paper. I am a newspaper junky, but I am going to have to give up the home delivery, and just read the AJC online where at least it is readable.
Donna Murphy
April 28th, 2009
8:39 pm
Would love to comment but Athens, GA was ditched from AJC delivery routes effective 2 days ago. We subscribed since the first day we moved here, 16 years ago. I guess not getting the paper is the lesser of the two evils; getting it and hating it. Oh well!
Scott Byrnes
April 28th, 2009
8:59 pm
Until the editorial content is fair and balanced, all the layout changes you make will not make a difference.
Roger
April 28th, 2009
9:10 pm
Some good feedback…I think..
I’ve subscribed to NYT, WSJ and othe regional papers in GA and AJC for 10 years now. Actually, I like your changes. Worldclass? Keep finetuning what you got going. You have to adapt and change with the times…you have to.
THis morning when I picked up the paper in my driveway I was shocked by the size..but did not get time to read until now. It almost feels like I am surfing a website, in fact, size of paper is same as my laptop folded. Stories are easy to follow. The font is sharp and I have bad vision.
A negative? THe main mast does not seem to go with the rest of the paper. Make it black or similar to other sections.
I like overall size. It is easier to maneuver which helps since I tend to read it in bed. As an engineer I focus on practicality and I get it with this design. Looks good too.
Anne Teddlie
April 28th, 2009
9:12 pm
Overall I guess it is okay. As with the loss of so many good writers/critics (and of the bookclub column on Sundays) we will get used to it.
I do have four specific comments:
– on the weather page, the weather for today is huge, and the weather for the rest of the week needs a magnifying glass
– the type of the Vent is so light
– I occasionally read the AJC live on the air for the Georgia Radio Reading Service. One of our services is to read the Deaths/Funerals. The mice type here is nearly unreadable for me, let alone a person with vision difficulties
– it seems impossible that there is not a single item of note for DeKalb County in the Community News.
cynthia
April 28th, 2009
9:14 pm
I understand the need to cut costs. I could get accustomed to what appears to be fainter ink. The font is readable. I am not concerned with the narrower page (it is wider than the Arizona Republic). But all the redesign in the world will not mask the fact that the paper is becoming more right-leaning; a ploy that I believe is undertaken at this time of visual change to minimize the effect of the philosophical change.
CC
April 28th, 2009
9:16 pm
So I like the look of the paper. The font is a tad small for my 43 year old eyes, and I’m assuming it will continue to get smaller as I age. The thing that really irritated me was that the paper was so skinny width wise and content wise and still cost 75 cents. I know USA Today is 75 cents, but it has lots more heft to it. Good Luck.
Chris
April 28th, 2009
9:21 pm
Julia, I ALSO can’t believe what you wrote. Negative comments were not unexpected??! I’m sure the expert surveys you commissioned said to expect __% of negative feedback, but not 95% negative (if not more). I’ll ask again; why can’t you acknowledge that you blew it. Admit it. We’ll think so much more of you professionally if you and staff take responsibility for the next 10-25% decline in subscriptions that you are clearly going to see over the next two subscription cycles. And don’t blame it on the economy, or the internet, etc. It’s content!
Elaine DerGarabedian
April 28th, 2009
9:35 pm
When the powers that be dropped the slogan “covers Dixie like the dew”…that was the beginning of the END.
The AJC is now a cheap,sleazy,poor imitation of USA Today.
If going back can not be done…then shut it down.
We can read our small city or county newspapers and get a far superior paper. Aren’t you ashamed to even put your names on it?
Katharine Ruse
April 28th, 2009
9:37 pm
I am writing this constructively, I hope. I subscribe to both the AJC and the Gwinnett Daily Post. I enjoy reading the papers in the morning before I go to school. It is relaxing and gives me articles to bring to school for my fourth and fifth grade classes. I realize the financial concerns newspapers face these days, but I have to admit that I was more than a bit shocked by your debut redesign issue. I found it very difficult to read; unattractive and the pictures were very poor. The larger ones were blurry and the front page had one so small it may as well have been left off. No one really cares about whether you have colors on your section headlines. I took both newspapers to school today and let my fifth graders read the papers. When they finished, I asked them which paper they would buy and they all said Gwinnett Post. When I asked them why, they said the pictures were better, the articles were easier to read. They said the AJC had the print too small and close together and they said the Post looked better. I am sorry, I have to agree. The two papers are the same size, but the look of the other is very much more appealing. As for subscription advice, a lot of teachers say they quit taking the AJC when you stopped having our Gwinnett section. Younger people would buy the paper if it held pictures and articles about high school sports. People want to see their own kid in print. For all you have removed, you should have reinstated the county sections. It was a great loss. Your new size is fine. The lay-out is atrocious. It is the ugliest paper I have ever seen. Even the banner is hideous. Get today’s Post and lay the two papers side by side and see the difference.
GG
April 28th, 2009
10:07 pm
Wish I could give you an opinion but you stopped delivering to Columbus.
Contessa
April 28th, 2009
10:14 pm
I have to agree with the others who say that the AJC now looks like USA Today (aka newspaper-lite). I could not care less about all the added color on the pages and can only wonder how much extra all the color is adding to the daily cost. The pictures? Very poor quality, blurry and hard to see. I’d rather have one nice clear photo on a page instead of a bunch of small, indistinct ones. The new type? Very hard to read, all the letters seem squashed together and the really thin typeface used (for example) in today’s “Tuesday Fast Read” and “Redesign FAQs” is even harder to read. I could barely read “The Vent” at all it was so thin and light, sort of watery grey, not even black at all!! I know space is at a premium, so I won’t even mention that now one needs to use a magnifying glass to read most of the comics. Oops, I just did…Oh, and again, I do not particulary see the need for the weekday comics to be in color. I understand the need for change and that the AJC has to evolve in today’s economy, but reading the paper today was not anywhere near the pleasurable experience it has been in the past.
Jane Tolleson
April 28th, 2009
10:32 pm
Two reasons I subscribe to the paper both found in the metro section: the vent and the obits. I do not like the new font size. The vent has been reduced which is not a good thing and is too hard to read. same for the obits. Too hard to read and the printface looks lighter.
Henry Grady
April 28th, 2009
10:37 pm
What has become of a once great newspaper ? ! ? !
Try representing the people of Georgia and not the inside of the perimeter !
Ernest
April 28th, 2009
10:53 pm
I’m extremely curious of the feedback/suggestions you received from focus groups and businesses. There has been a LOT of thoughful feedback provided, mostly against the new format. I’d be interested to hear from those recommending the change along with their rationale behind it.
At the end of the day, it will be the content that will determine whether I renew my subsciption. It was interesting that the Community News section did not have anything for DeKalb County.
Someone earlier made the suggestion that the AJC consider using ‘citizen reporters’ to help provide local content that might appeal to a broader audience. While we look to our community newspapers for that type of information, it could prove to be a means to help connect communities together through the major newspaper.
bob motley
April 28th, 2009
11:12 pm
I have been a subscriber for 40 years. I will give you my opinion. Cancel my subscription. As hard as you try to convince us this is a newspaer it isn’t a newspaper. It’s a pamphlet. I will get my news on line for free. You have destroyed the people like me who enjoy being a regular reader by being a one sided propaganda organ with people like Mike lukovich, Cynthia Tucker and Jay Booker. We understand you and Ms. Cox has every right to publish her newspaper but we don’t have to pay for being offended. Cancel my 40 year subscription. This new edition is a joke considering what I enjoyed until I was abused and neglected by a political agenda that has killed any idea of news. You created your own demise with us regulars. Sorry but that is how I feel after a lifetime of enjoyment and abuse by your newspaper. Let me repeat……Cancel my 40 year subscription. I will read real news not propaganda.
s wells
April 28th, 2009
11:14 pm
I am really disappointed with the redesign, but perhaps more with the loss of content. I feel like there has been a real compromise in coverage in recent months and a further loss of readability with today’s makeover. I have long been a newspaper reader and choose to acquire my news in this way for what i perceive to be a greater depth of coverage. I’m afraid that the AJC is moving away from real reporting into a succession of small bites which I can easily find online. The current incarnation does not compare with the really fine newspapers still around. It’s a sad loss.
Zach
April 28th, 2009
11:25 pm
I always thought the ajc was a good-looking paper when compared to many other American cities’. I wouldn’t call this new look “good looking” by any means, but if the content is improved and more sophisticated, then I think I’m going to like it once I get used to it. I like the idea of gearing it towards traditional newspaper readers instead of trying to attract non- readers.
One thing I would fix right away though is the main mast. How about a traditional script in black??? The new blue font just doesn’t look sophisticated at all. Actually it looks like a website, and that does not appeal to this “traditional” newspaper reader. Not a big fan of the color-coded sections either.
Thanks for taking our feedback.
Tim
April 28th, 2009
11:26 pm
When I saw the paper today, I was like this is a little late for an April fools joke. The size isn’t the issue. The layout and design is the issue. The main page was a jumble and not very easy on the eye. The best page in the whole paper was A2. It looks The stories are hard to pick out, the layout looks like you having different people do each page separately. The main page today, the tiny photo looks like an after thought. The headers on each section looks like something created by a High School paper 20 minutes before deadline.
I don’t know what focus group you used, but I think you cut a lot of what made people read the paper. The Vent, the Metro section, TV Week. The one thing that I noticed is hard to read are the movie listings and I have to say one thing about that, thank goodness for Fandango.
I think you need to go back and hire some layout professionals to redo this, so its easier to follow and easier on the eye. I”m just sayin’
Scoop
April 28th, 2009
11:31 pm
My comment to my husband this morning while we were reading the “new” AJC was, gosh, looks like an old USA Today. That’s not a good thing. Intersting to see that a few others noticed the same thing. From now on, we will rely on the Wall Street Journal and our local county newspaper. Good-bye AJC. We’re tired of the old liberal slant, Luckovich and Tucker have insulted us for the last time, and the USA Today type format doesn’t even begin to interest us. There are so many other news outlets to choose from.
Ethel Sugarman
April 28th, 2009
11:45 pm
I like how the photo accompanying Julia Wallace’s patronizing drivel has changed throughout the day to reflect various airbrushed glamour shots and hairstyles.
A perfect reflection of the new AJC: mask the lack of substance with superficiality. Which describes Julia with pinpoint accuracy.
She’s the Sarah Palin of journalism.
Jimmy Espy
April 29th, 2009
1:02 am
Reminds me of the Hindenberg crashing.
Always Here
April 29th, 2009
2:57 am
I will not leave the AJC even though I grumble at this failed attempt to attract more people. Despite the fact that the new look is off putting I think what the AJC provides is invaluable. I put the old paper next to the new paper today and it is obvious to the untrained eye that the old paper is more classy and professional looking.
It would be a mistake for the AJC brass to think that all these negative comments are from a vocal minority. Really, this is your audience speaking AJC. The best move, no matter how hard it is to do, is to cut your losses and bring the old paper back.
To prolong this just to save face could hurt the paper’s circulation even more.
A concerned reader.
mark
April 29th, 2009
4:50 am
This is as ill conceived as the ATL promotion.
Is it not possible to prvide Atlanta with a quality product and no gimmicks?
I agree with the pamphlet analogy in these comments…I enjoy reading the pamphlets in my doctor’s and dentist’s office more than this crap you call a newspaper…even with this new layout.
Peter Tinkham
April 29th, 2009
5:08 am
Same old style of editorials! Photos poor (color) … the over all layout looks like the editor’s hair style! It’ll be RIP within 12 months!
Michael
April 29th, 2009
6:22 am
I didnt see the papers change becuase you stopped delivering any where in my whole county !
Roscoe
April 29th, 2009
7:44 am
Ok, day two and I can pretty much deal with the redesign, except:
1 Color – washed out, pictures out of register. You’re using paper that is gray. The contrast is tough. Your yellows look muddy and mustardy, banners look like stuff an ink-jet printer running out of ink produces.
2. Consider improving the leading and kerning – the type is tight and, as others have mentioned, hard to read – especially the serifed font.
3. Editorial comment – please, please, please let your sports department stay up late. If we’re lucky we get a Braves or Hawks score from a game that ends after 10:00 p.m. Forget it for any other team. Make sports section D, wait for the midnight AP sports wire, drop the scores and summaries in, print that puppy and insert it last. What are you going to do when college football starts in the fall? Run the stories Monday instead of Sunday?
4. Another editorial comment: The Gwinnett Braves deserve some coverage. At least pay some high school or college kid to write six inches for every game. Run it prominently. Do the same for other teams besides the Braves, Hawks, Thrashers, Falcons, Dogs and Yellow Jackets.
5. Yet another editorial comment: Please have the decency to have the print paper stories run on the website prominently. It’s very frustrating to see a headline in print, then go to the website to check the story and not be able to find it because print and web folks at the AJC can’t/won’t/don’t bother to talk to each other and the print story is relegated to the Print Edition link buried in tiny type at the bottom the web page – and then half the time it’s not there anyway.
Finally – it’s time for Cox to start talking with Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and all the other tech folks. Print isn’t going to survive – the model isn’t making a lot of financial sense. Find an electronic delivery system/device that is easily portable (less than a pound), has a long (5 hours +) battery life, is incredibly rugged (can survive being dropped and having stuff spilled on it), can have content pushed to it wirelessly, and is affordable. Think Kindle at about quarter to a third of the current price. Give it away with a year’s subscription.
Good luck -
Long-time subscriber
April 29th, 2009
8:03 am
I understand the need for change in the newspaper industry given the growth of the internet, reduction of advertising dollars, and the weak economy. I regularly check ajc.com and the ajc.com mobile during the day, but I was thankful that the AJC was not going online only like some city newspapers have done. In reading that the AJC was going to make some changes, I was actually excited . . . until I got the product in my hands yesterday. The good: smaller size is easier to handle, quick-view of headlines to allow scanning, more color. The bad: sans serif fonts are very thin and small (even for a 43 year-old), Weather page is difficult to follow (e.g., no state outlines?), color seems to be added just for color’s sake.
Thinking about cancelling my subscription and just reading the online version everyday. (Thanks for listening.)
uhoh
April 29th, 2009
8:06 am
day two, the in brief columns are in a tough position at least for this reader. weather page still bad…why list temp in atlanta and the same at the airport, even I can figure that one out. sports standings still bad.
you sure are setting some high expectations for sunday. I believe you may be setting yourself up to fail. do you want to be a sunday only newspaper?
Atlanta twin
April 29th, 2009
8:09 am
I know everyone needs a new look. But certain looks are not good ones. The new look for the Ajc is not a good choice. The words are too small and the coloring of the pictures doesn’t catch the people eye. The new look makes the paper boring and unapproachable. You wants something that is going to jump right at you and this look doesn’t do that.
Bert Roughton, managing editor
April 29th, 2009
8:13 am
Good morning, all.
Thanks Roscoe for the useful feedback. Although I disagree with your view the printed newspaper is doomed, your comments give us something specific at which to look. To the contrary, I think there is a bright future for the newspaper if we can get the business equation right and maintain a high journalistic standard.
I hope everyone will take a look at the Wednesday newspaper, which has been tweaked some. I like it better, and I’m a longtime reader who had some issues with Tuesday’s debut edition.
The feedback has been interesting. It’s important to us, so please keep it coming. On Tuesday, a lot came from people who hadn’t bothered to look at the newspaper but nevertheless took the time to remind us that they hate the AJC. That’s fine, and some of your comments were a hoot. But we’ve decided not to worry much about people who hate us.
Another thread came from folks who no longer see the newspaper because we reduced the delivery footprint. Each one kills me. This was a hard decision for us and accounted for much of the recent circulation decline. But it no longer made business sense for us to deliver to such a large area. In some cases, it was costing us $5 to deliver a copy of the newspaper. You do the math. Yet, we lost a lot of very loyal readers and that’s tough. Let’s all hope for better times.
And we heard from a lot of readers who expressed sincere concern about what we had done to their newspaper. These are the folks to whom we are listening quite closely. We are making adjustments as we go to address the concerns that we can.
Obviously we can’t abandon the new design or reverse course on decisions we’ve made on the basis of a day’s worth of blog postings. This design was guided every step of the way by readers who were very clear with what they wanted from a newspaper. Be patient, keep reading and commenting and let’s see where this takes us.
I have one question: A lot of you are throwing the USA Today bomb at us. I’m not sure what that means to you? Some folks love USA Today, others hate it. It would be helpful to understand more precisely what you mean when you say that.
Bonnie K.
April 29th, 2009
8:19 am
My eyes are bleeding from this “New” AJC. Why did you have to change the old design. I saw the new version at my parents house and all three of us hated it. Booooooooooooooo….
livininatl
April 29th, 2009
8:23 am
The new design looks very much like USA Today and I don’t read USA Today even when it is free and waiting outside my door when I travel…thinking hard about switching from 7days to weekends…ugh!
Andy Miller
April 29th, 2009
8:30 am
Wow! The negative comments are absolutely amazing! Lots about the new format, but a few about the liberal bias and lack of attention to the huge market north of the perimeter. Bert, you need to be careful that the liberal bias stays solely on the editorial page and doesn’t creep into the news sections. One example: Last month you ran an article about Karen Handel’s announcement of her candidacy for governor. She got around 6 column inches. A few days later, you ran an article about Roy Barnes just THINKING about a run for governor. Barnes’ THOUGHTS got half a page. It’s way too early for me to support a candidate for governor, but bias like this is hard to ignore. The sad part is the writers and editors probably don’t even realize they’re biased. That makes the AJC really scary.
Matt G. Leger
April 29th, 2009
8:38 am
As a full-week subscriber for six years now, I have enjoyed reading the AJC every day. After one day of the new design, I can tell you one thing that needs fixing right off the bat: The weather forecast box is one of the first things I look for when your paper hits my door. I want to see what weather and temperatures will be like today, so that I can dress and plan my day accordingly.
You need to put the weather box back on top, above the fold, and make it stand out like it used to. This is a key service for most of your readers to start their day.
PJ
April 29th, 2009
8:40 am
“…we’ve decided not to worry much about people who hate us.”
Of course. Why bother to find out why and make changes that might actually result in increased readership? That’s just foolish.
THIS is why the business model is struggling, not digital competition. WSJ provides proof that print media is still viable… if you’re actually willing to be responsive to your customers.
PGore
April 29th, 2009
8:46 am
I would like to have you reconsider the success of this new design, and its appeal to your longtime print readers.
Over-40-eyes can’t read the new print as well. The color and size make it look wimpy. Unfortunately it now has the look and feel of the neighborhood free advertizers you pick up at the door of the pizza joint.
Black headlines and section headings are a must. I went through each page, and was not interested in reading any of the articles. Even the vent had no appeal. The font is too weak for my over-40-eyes. Or something. I feel like an old friend has died.
Can you poll your readership to see the number or percentage of readers who would rather go back to the old design (or something similar to it without the needless color), BUT AT AN INCREASED PRICE. In my opinion, to receive home delivery of last week’s version is worth at least a dollar a day, which would be $30/month and not $18/month.
I asked my husband what he thought the paper costs us per month. I said “Here is the paper. They have a staff of hardworking people. They research the news, write the articles, typeset or format it, print it, deliver it to our door on time every morning. What do you think it costs? Do you think they can do this for a dollar a day?” His reply? “Oh no, it is worth a lot more than that.” He was shocked that it was coming to us at not $40 or $50 a month, but at a mere $18 a month.
Let’s see how many of our readers would rather pay $30+ a month for the old version vs. the current rate for this color advertizer.
And now for a little story. A couple of months ago I went to the grocery store for Tropicana orange juice. I couldn’t find it. They had redesigned the package to something without the old logo. I had to ask the produce manager where it was. I did not like the design because I did not recognize it. I went home, ran the new design by my family. My teenage daughter said that whoever redesigned the packaging should be fired. I wrote to them and explained to them that the look of the packaging was important, and that people wanted the look of the packaging that they were used to. The old logo and design had a lot of consumer loyalty. Apparently a lot of people complained. Earlier this month I received a letter that they had decided to go back to the old logo and package design. The change was not worth the ill will of the consumer.
I think there is a lesson in that.
Clark Kent
April 29th, 2009
9:01 am
Let Cynthia Tucker & Jay Bookman get their old jobs back at Pravda, and start catering to all Georgians, not the inner perimeter crowd ! Its news and balanced journalism that sells copy, not pretty colors and socialist gibberish.
Tim S
April 29th, 2009
9:03 am
I agree with many of the comments. I noticed that the paper has become thinner which means to me that I’m getting less for my money (it’s the same scam that cereal companies have perpetuated on the buying public; do you ever find a 16 oz box of cereal any more). I thought I had picked up a copy of USA Today where the ink catridges were runnng low. The paper font and script size is visually annoying and difficult to follow. I’ve been a subscriber for over 25 years but I tire of just reading about inside the perimeter and the left leaning rants of Cynthia Tucker and her colleagues.
Ya’ll need to do a better job. The older reader will have difficulty reading the paper with its new lay out,and, personally I will not go to the “net to get my news from the AJC.
E R Oberholtzer
April 29th, 2009
9:06 am
“Welcome” indeeed? The ink is too, too light in most articles, making them difficult to read comfortably. I noticed, Julia Wallace, your column on A3 Tuesday was in readable, dark ink. If only the valuable news content columns were as easy to read! The print in most of the grayed columns is so light and hard to read, why bother? The paper is so thin, ads and content on one page can be seen through the page and add to the difficulty of reading an article on the other side of the page. My experience is not totally negative – I like the short, quick-read articles……but it looks crowded. There are so many articles to a page, I am reminded why I do not subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. However, at least the WSJ ink is dark.
Two “new AJC” papers later, I put it down within 15 minutes, my eyes too tired from trying to read the morning news to continue. I turned on the TV. As a formerly avid AJC subscriber and reader, I am considering canceling my subscription. You need to fix it quick!
M. Tootle
April 29th, 2009
9:07 am
So far, I don’t like the redesigned AJC. It appears much busier due to the decreased paper size and there seem to be less pictures. The worst thing is the tiny, tiny font size of the stock tables, sports standings, weather information, etc. We baby boomers already have enough trouble seeing and this incredibly small type has taken away some of the pleasure of reviewing info in the AJC. Please reconsider some of the font sizes!!
Edna Jennings
April 29th, 2009
9:08 am
What were you thinking? If I wanted USA Today I would get it. Page One was such a jumble I didn’t want to read it. If the blue/green/red banners are costing more than black, save the money. . At least move the jumbled up blue/gray center strip over to the left. You don’t look like a serious presenter of the news with the little snippets here and there. I read for information and depth on the issues not a quick surface skim. For surface coverage, I can get that on TV
Roscoe
April 29th, 2009
9:19 am
Bert, if you can make reporting with a reasonable amount of journalistic excellence, writing, printing and delivering a newspaper to my front door by 5:30 a.m. throughout a metropolitan area for $20 or so a month a profitable business more power to you. I’ve been eagerly picking up a morning paper for longer than 40 years and don’t look forward to having to find and pick up and load my “newspaper reading device” every morning instead. But with the cost of paper, ink, gas and printing and delivery personnel, as well as editors and reporters and ad sales folks, etc. inexorably going up it’s going to be difficult.
The USA Today comments should be pretty clear – your new look is similar to theirs. Big, trying to be bright colors, ads on the front page and first page of sections, shorter stories with sidebars trying to fill in some details. Decent national and international coverage with lots of AP filler, weak local.
Once upon a time there were several reporters covering just transportation issues – now it seems like there’s only Ariel Hart trying to cover overlapping meetings and issues at GDOT, GRTA, MARTA, SRTA, General Assembly, Clean Air Campaign, TMA, C-TRAN, CCT, GCT and all the others weighing in on the issues. And it stretches into other areas as well – like the sports section getting smaller and smaller and not covering anything that happens after 10 pm. Same with the lottery reporting – a minor but very revealing issue about the value the Coxopoly is placing on the print paper – the last lottery drawing of the day is at 11 pm and you only report the drawings up to 6 pm in the print paper. New happens in the evening – and it’s not unreasonable to expect that if it’s on the 11:00 news that it would be in the morning print paper.
The redesign isn’t earth-shattering. Yes, it looks like USA Today and if that is good or bad is mostly a matter of personal taste. You’ll fix the typography and the color, well, color on your paper stock is always going to be an issue – ask the Detroit News who tried it on similarly colored paper stock starting in 1976 and is still having problems with it – when they can print a paper anymore.
And, again, more power to you if you can make a printed paper profitable without significantly increasing the purchase price.
Bert Roughton, managing editor
April 29th, 2009
9:25 am
All:
It really would be helpful for you all to be more specific about the USA Today complaints. I also still urge you to take a harder look on the content side of our newspaper. We carried many more hard news stories on our front page than USA Today, so I’m not sure that we can be accused of being light – the complaint usually lodged against USA Today. Compare yesterday’s editions and you’ll see what I mean. This design does nothing to reduce content, even if it makes the paper easier to scan.
Andy: On the Karen Handel/Roy Barnes story. The story on Handel was about her announcement – which is the exact way we present all announcement stories. Each candidate will get a much deeper look by the newspaper, probably on Sunday. We profiled Barnes – and Sam Olens, as well – because they were getting a lot of attention behind the scenes and seemed to be interested to write about in the pre-announcement period. And you your bigger point, we work pretty hard at keeping our news sections in check for bias, of any kind. We’re not perfect and make mistakes, but the principle is very important to us. Having said that, I’m always eager to hear about specific cases when they believe our news pages contain bias.
Alex: I read each and every posting. Surely you wouldn’t expect us to throw out everything we’ve done on the basis of these blog postings. Wouldn’t that be a bit hasty? We are mining them for smart suggestions and are considering seriously the ones that raise legitimate concerns.
Brad Nelson
April 29th, 2009
9:29 am
“And it’s certainly not unexpected that our request for feedback would draw far more negative comments than positive. We don’t expect to hear as much from folks who like the changes or approve of the newspaper; those who are satisfied are often less vocal.”
ARROGANCE.
Did you ever even consider that maybe YOU put out a bad, ugly product??? Oh no, no way, it’s we, the readers, who are wrong, not you. Why, that newspaper is gorgeous, because Julia’s big-dollar designer told us it is, and we are just idiots who couldn’t recognize quality if it bit us in the a**.
ARROGANCE.
You want a specific, start with America’s newly-crowned Queen of the ugly flag/nameplate competition. It is pathetic. You cannot screw with a brand this way. It is no longer the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it is now something unrecognizeable. The ajc/sunday flag actually looks good, I’ll give you that. But that weekday flag is among the most hideous I’ve seen of any newspaper in the country. It’s cheap, childish, doesn’t match the rest of the paper, and is unbefitting a major daily. There, Julia, that’s my specific, among the hundred that I (and we) have.
Like I said, the AJC leadership will ride this pony into the sunset because they will refuse to change out of stubbornness, an unwillingness to admit a mistake, and more than just a little stupidity. And that is the height of arrogance.
Bert Roughton, managing editor
April 29th, 2009
9:30 am
Roscoe: This kind of posting is useful. I’ve got to run to meetings – the Thursday and Sunday papers beckon – but will pick up the discussion later.
Ernest
April 29th, 2009
9:31 am
Bert said:
>>I have one question: A lot of you are throwing the USA Today bomb at us. I’m not sure what that means to you? Some folks love USA Today, others hate it. It would be helpful to understand more precisely what you mean when you say that.<<
Perhaps I’m simply more of a traditionalists but I liked to old format of the AJC. It had a ‘professional’ look at feel. That’s why I made the comment regarding the new format looking like a USA Today ‘lite’.
I also like the USA Today however it was defined by its layout with colors. If it went to a format like to AJC once was, I’m sure its loyal readers would complain also. Again, I believe this falls along the lines of tradition.
FWIW, I also don’t like the designated hitter in baseball either.
PGore
April 29th, 2009
9:37 am
Take the blue/gray column off the front page and section pages.
Take the ads off the bottom of the front page and section pages.
Make the masthead black. Make the date on the front page smaller and black, not white. Get rid of Living and Sports “summary” on top of front page.
Remove the cutesy rows of vertical lines and chevrons
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Annoying, isn’t it?
Put the big pictures back in the middle of the front page, not down on the lower right side.
Headings like Q & A and the Vent need to be bolder font and not this different font. Get rid of the GRAY fonts on the editorial page. Are you running out of black ink?
I miss the black and white comics. The color ones are not as interesting.
firecynthia
April 29th, 2009
9:45 am
the content was a little better today, but I am still not liking the look. to be honest, as long as I can read it and the content is there, i really dont care if its written in crayons. but, i still do not like the fact that tucker is still here. I know she is in the opinion pages, but its still part of the newspaper. I like reading opposing viewpoints, but she is nothing but a race baiting, bigoted, Obama-excusing, anti-white (I am not white, btw) writer. when she goes on national TV (as she did recently), she is an embarrasment to this city and to this paper.
I hate that any of my money paying for the paper is going to her. Move her out and make bookman the lefty. Even though I dont agree with much of what he says, at least he tries to back his opinion up and leaves himself open to criticism.
take cynthias latest article about mexico and her need for gun control. even though weeks before the 90% data was completely dispelled (where 90% of the guns come from the US), she STILL USED THAT DATA. She doesnt care where she gets her information, doesnt care that it is right or wrong, as long as she can spout it off, she will use it.
To have her on staff is the real embarrassment. Again, ditch her, bring bookman up and things will get better.
Marion G. Webb
April 29th, 2009
9:50 am
I came to Marietta, GA in June 1966; and one of the first friends I had was the Atlanta Constitution. I remember Ralph McGill and his battles with critics and detractors; he always landed on his feet–just like his newspaper.
Others came along after Mr. McGill’s passing; and although each successor made changes, it was mainly journalistic philosophy. Now, we the readers need help with going back to a high quality of readability like we had before April 28. April 28: a day of journalistic infamy.
I am already transitioning to the your online version, beginning with The Vent. Now, if I can only find Judge Parker online.
Our newspaper has landed on its feet many times before. May it do so again–by favoring the many readers who have kept it upright for all these many years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jared Shope
April 29th, 2009
9:56 am
I also have found the new font harder to read. Not sure why.
Just wondering
April 29th, 2009
9:59 am
Brad, I totally agree with your comment. They are letting us know that even though they invited up to comment, if it is a complaint, they are going to ignore it. Thanks, AJC.
m molloy
April 29th, 2009
10:20 am
I find the new format much harder to read. The font may be the same size, but is much harder on the eyes to process. Also, move the “Todays News” bar back to the left side. Get rid of the silly IIIIIIIIIII lines at teh top that are being used to fill blank space, and move the front page weather forecast for the day back to the top. Also, on the back of the B section, the “rest of the week” forecast has a font so small my 28 year old eyes can barely see it, yet alone the senior citizens who I’m sure look at that every morning. I understand trying to save on production costs, but this seems like an unnecessary reformatting in order to appeal to the “non-news” crowd who has no attention span. Afte trying to read this garbage the last two mornings, my attention spanning is waning as well! Get it right or lose a long time subscriber here!
martin rink
April 29th, 2009
10:21 am
Ms. Wallace.
short and sweet.
1- New version is not visually inviting. It looks very cluttered. IE. todays cover story. swine flu main story and sub story / related story the Delta inpact. Cluttered. Chunky.
2- Bad Idea. The ‘In Brief ‘ bar in the middle of each section. It belongs on the left most side. NOT MIDDLE. Adds to level of clutter.
3- Weather. I agree with Ann. the week ahead temperatures are not readable. The font is mice type. Come on; the puffy cloud is almost a 1/2 inch tall.
HOW SMART DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO THINK OF THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR READERS ARE OVER 40.??
4- Can we have a conservative editorial cartoonist once in a while? Please? Lubkovich or what ever his name is so passe. So tired. How about a Ramirez once in a while for balance>? And not the 1 inch by one inch unreadable one in the corner.
5- font. Not the most readable.
6- you overpaid your special consultant from Motreal. even if it was $1000.
Overall grade D minus. A STEP BACKWARD. (See above)
PS. Sports guy. there is a hockey championship going on. AND ATLANTA has a pro team. So, there might be folks interested in it. OK>? BAck off on the 3-4 pages of basketball and high school sport and give us, i dont know, HALF PAGE ON HOCKEY. OK?
Been a 10 year subcriber. Just about had enough.
Carl Wilson
April 29th, 2009
10:22 am
It looks like your major cost savings will be in the ink costs. Headlines are supposed to be attention grabbing. Gray is not!
The typeface is too thin in spite of what you say. There is entirely too much white space. When you impose a gray background over your typeface it almost disappears.
The additional color on some pages is practically worthless. It does nothing to add to the paper.
The weather page is flat out ugly. Again there is far too much white space surrounding the faint typeface. I never did understand why you dropped the previous days rainfall when reporting the other cities weather. Since we have been in a drought condition for the past many years that was a way to see how other areas were doing. How do you differentiate the various hues of red from one another on the temperature map?
Please reassure us that Cynthia Tucker will be leaving soon. Her unbalanced and mean spirited writing will not be missed and will go a long way toward balancing your left leaning editorial page.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0
martin rink
April 29th, 2009
10:35 am
BTW
Ms. Tucker and ( insert the name of your favorite lefty)
Stop Distorting the news. Please. Recent example.
US Guns go into Mexico.
I drive into mexico (by car) 6-8 times a year. Mexico has none, ZERO customs controls on car coming into Mexico.
Oh – yes. when you hit the border. you stop at a unmanned toll booth. Push a button on a random number generator connected to a Go – no go light. If you get the no -go light, you have to pull over for secondary inspection. This consists of a customs officer opening your trunk. looking at your suitcases for – say – 3 seconds – and proptly closing the trunk.
In my most recent 60 crossings in to mexico. I ve gotten the no go light once.
So, if i had guns in the trunk?????…..
And this is an american problem??
I could almost puke at your level of intellectual dishosnesty.
Marjorie Economopoulos
April 29th, 2009
10:39 am
Why is everyone so negative? The new format is fine. I like the narrower page. One suggestion, bring back the graphs on the financial page. The DOW and Nasdaq. I’d be happy with only graphs. The other detail is online. Just need highlights in the morning.
Fidel Castro
April 29th, 2009
10:49 am
I love the new format ! Continue the wonderful editorials by comrades Cynthia Tucker and Jay Bookman. Their support of El Presidente Obama and his agenda of change will seduce the ignorant masses and make our two countries friends and allies once again.
Viva, Che ! Viva, Revolution ! Viva, change ! Healthcare for all !
Andrea
April 29th, 2009
11:02 am
Why change the weather format? I liked the way I could glance at the old format and see the week’s hi’s and low’s. Now that information is squished down at the bottom of each day and I really have to look close to read it.
I couldn’t even bear to take the paper out of the plastic today. Between the new look and the acquiescence to those who believe the AJC should be a print version of FOX news, I just don’t see the need any more.
From reading various comments here and elsewhere, I’m beginning to wonder if Hannity, Boortz or Limbaugh (or all 3) have targeted Cynthia Tucker. I mean obviously she’d never be someone a conservative would agree with, but why so much vitriol against her now?
Looks like my print paper will be the weekend editions of NY Times from now on. Thank God I can get most of my news from NPR on my morning and evening commutes.
Steve
April 29th, 2009
11:13 am
Not a fan of the new layout . . . It’s too jumbled … Not enough seperation between stories … I found myself reading two stories at once. Not because I couldn’t differenciant between them, but because I the stories are so close together … Frustrating . . .
.
Jeff
April 29th, 2009
11:33 am
The truth is, It is all about content. If the paper had any substance people would read it no matter the layout, font size or colors. I can paint my kitchen any color I want, it won’t change the fact that the appliances are outdated. Give us substance with good, interesting articles that we won’t get anywhere else and you won’t have any problem attacting subscribers.
newspaper lover
April 29th, 2009
11:49 am
As a former employee and a lover of the printed word, I have only one question for you: What were you thinking?
The new colors and layout are insulting. It is as if you are trying to trick a child into buying a bad-tasting treat. “This candy still tastes really bad, but, hey, we put it in a bright, new, shiny wrapper!”
You say you want constructive and pointed criticism? Here goes…
1. Look at the corrections. When I worked for the AJC, a correction rarely ran. You just did not make mistakes, and woe to you if you did. Now, routinely, there are two, three, even four corrections a day. This represents a sloppy product, and people won’t buy it any more than they will pay for a machine that is poorly constructed and routinely breaks down.
2. Offer the type of coverage we want. I refuse to believe that I am the only person who wants to sit down, pull out a paper, and read in-depth news coverage. I can scan the headlines online or watch the first five minutes of the evening news if I want a sound bite. I read the paper for in-depth coverage, and the AJC has completely stopped providing this. Bring back the deeper coverage of breaking news, multi-part series looking at major issues, etc. To sell a product, you must offer something that no one else is offering. That is where the newspaper comes in, because a paper is now the only place you can get news offered in a way that is intelligent and insightful and well-dissected.
3. Stop talking down to me and other readers. The powers-to-be at Cox better rein Julia Wallace in or get a new “voice” for the AJC. Her comments make me cringe. Newspaper readers tend to be well-educated, professional people, and I don’t imagine any of them appreciate the condescending and nasty tone she takes. Contrition and kindness go a long way, and people are usually willing to overlook a multitude of sin when a person says, “We goofed. We’re sorry. Give us a chance to make it right.”
4. Stop hitting us over the head with this “balanced, unbiased” stuff. Reading your editorial page is now about as exciting as watching paint dry. People did not stop reading the AJC because Cynthia Tucker was liberal or because an editorial cartoon rubbed them the wrong way. People love to disagree, and probably more people read the paper just to see what editorial content would irritate them each morning. Put some bit back into the editorial staff, and stop turning out bland, vanilla op-ed pieces.
5. Cover my neighborhood. I don’t need to read countless AP stories about drivel from across the country. I want to know what is going on in my backyard and how it will impact my life. Case in point–one round of recent storms rated only a stand-alone picture and short cutline. This is the kind of story that the paper can take and run with. You can follow a family as they deal with rebuilding. Talk about how the loss of trees will change the flavor of a neighborhood. Write about how residents are mourning the loss of a favorite hangout that was demolished. I could care less about what society matron is throwing a party, but I would love to read about interesting people in our city. I read the WSJ for national news. Give me more coverage about local people and issues.
I have ranted and raved too much, but I dearly love the AJC. For years, I was so proud to see my byline in your paper. We put out such a good, solid product, and I feel we put out a newspaper this whole state appreciated and enjoyed. Please, please, please work hard to restore the paper to its former position. I can promise if you listen to your faithful readers, they will reward you with readership and loyality.
Helyn
April 29th, 2009
11:50 am
I was shocked when I opened my paper yesterday! I hate the changes – in fact there are so many changes that I can’t list them all here. The Atlanta paper (which I have subscribed to for over 30 years) now looks & feels like a cheap newsletter or USA Today imitation. Why is that loyal longtime subscribers were not asked for their input? What group of people is it that you are trying to appeal to? Personally I would think you would want to please your longtime customers rather than the ones that you are trying to lure away from the internet. I have found that this was true already when it have had to play what I call the “newspaper game” at renewal time. I have to threaten to cancel before I get the $100 less “new customer” rate. Guess what? It’s renewal time again. I’m going to have to think long & hard about it this time. I’m not sure what I’ll do without my paper, but I may have to learn. Shame on you AJC!!!
Kat
April 29th, 2009
12:32 pm
Julia, your second paragraph could have just read, “We can’t admit we made a mistake, we spent too much money designing this monstrosity, so at this point we have to blame the readers for not ‘getting’ our vision.”
Ernest
April 29th, 2009
12:50 pm
I noticed the most recent blog comments now go to the bottom. At least that is consistent with the rest of the paper….
Bert Roughton, managing editor
April 29th, 2009
12:55 pm
Marc: Yes, I had a typo yesterday. How kind of you to notice. Sadly, no one is editing me on the blog, and I’m human. Shocking, I know. I do stand by the point – being balanced doesn’t mean being namby pamby.
Roscoe: I owed you some answers:
1. On the paper/color quality: This is heavily recycled paper, which never has the weight of brand new paper. We want to be good citizens, but I’m not sure we’re crazy about it either.
2. We are looking at the fonts pretty intensely. We made some changes today – take a look at the box on the far right of Page One today and compare to the type in a box in a similar location Tuesday.
3. We have some serious issues with deadlines for our earlier edition, which sometimes doesn’t have all the scores we’d like to have. This is a topic we discuss daily. Our late edition generally does provide scores for local teams.
4. I agree on the Gwinnett Braves and we’re working on it.
5. Is there a particular story you sought but couldn’t find on the website? I can track down what happened.
And we are thinking about life after print and smart changes we can make during the next 100 years while we still have a printed newspaper.
L.H. Hiers
April 29th, 2009
1:09 pm
I was skeptical at first but I actually like the changes. Very readable and concise.
Bert Roughton, managing editor
April 29th, 2009
1:17 pm
I see a thread in the postings that suggest frustration over the fact that we didn’t revert back to the former design after receiving our mandate yesterday from the blog. And some suggested we aren’t listening. This is silly. We’re reading the postings carefully and looking for serious suggestions on ways to improve the design. We haven’t, however, decided to abandon ship because people are expressing concerns about what we’re up to. Once again, we didn’t just wake up Monday and decide to remake the paper on a whim, we’ve spent a lot of time, money and research on this and you will forgive us if we’d like to stick to our guns for a while.
A couple of other responses:
To the newspaper lover: We run more corrections because we are much more aggressive about addressing errors than we used to be. As you probably know, I’ve been here a long time and remember the deep reluctance we all had about admitting an error in public. The fact that we used to run fewer corrections in no way suggests we used to be more accurate. I know, I was here.
I’m not sure why you believe we’ve given up on depth. Read the newspaper this coming Sunday and then come back to argue that we are no more than sound bites. How many stories jumped off Page One today? Do you remember the days when we weren’t allowed to jump ANY stories off the front page? I do. Are those the halcyon days of which you speak? I’ve been here 28 years and I never recall having so many reporters – even in this smaller staff – dedicated to writing watchdog/investigative stories and cover-quality enterprise pieces. It is true we have become more selective about when we allow reporters to write 80-inch stories, but I’m not convinced that we didn’t need more focus and discipline in those old days. You raise a lot of good issues and please continue to raise them, but I invite you to read us carefully over the next few weeks before you form a longer-lasting opinion. We will listen to faithful readers; we must.
Just wondering
April 29th, 2009
1:27 pm
“I read each and every posting. Surely you wouldn’t expect us to throw out everything we’ve done on the basis of these blog postings.” No, we do not expect you to throw out everything. We are just expressing what we like and don’t like. Isn’t that what you wanted when you started the blog yesterday?
Jack Reacher
April 29th, 2009
1:47 pm
The AJC squandered whatever credibility it may have had long ago. Mizz Wallace admits to a perception among SOME readers that the paper has a liberal bias, but never goes so far as to actually entertain the fact that the perception is the reality, no, no mea culpa from her. And Mr. Roughton appears to suffer from a fortress mentality.
I go to the Huffington Post every day, and I am seldom annoyed by it. The difference between the Huffington Post and the AJC? The Huffington Post is unabashedly liberal, they celebrate it, they do not deny it. The AJC, on the other hand, has been trying for years to convince us that it has no bias, that it is objective and that it reports the news straight up, no slant, no filter. Fish can’t see the water syndrome.
I have no problem with the editorial pages containing opinion, except for the beyond the pale cartoons. Cynthia Tucker, for instance, she is intelligent, can be thought provoking, and can write, even though I seldom agree with her. (I have not read Bookman in years, he is not worth further comment.) Why do you continue to print editorial cartoons that are mean, vicious and in poor taste?
Bert Roughton, managing editor
April 29th, 2009
2:06 pm
Just Wondering:
Yes, we want feedback, and comments that are specific and constructive are great. Even some of the snarky ones contain important messages for us. But we never said this was a referendum. Certainly, we must listen to readers – including the hundreds we listened to as we redesigned the newspaper. We must listen beyond the blog, and it’s interesting to me that readers generally seem willing to give it a try.
I’ve never seen a newspaper listen as deeply and sincerely to its readers. When I’ve described what we’ve done to folks at other newspapers, they’ve been surprised at how much reader input went into the design. But in the end, we must decide what to do with what we hear from readers. And we’ll be accountable for that.
Roscoe
April 29th, 2009
2:36 pm
Bert,
The last one and I’ll shut up and give you enough time to digest all of these comments, decide if and how to adjust, and move forward.
In today’s print edition, below the fold is a story headlined ‘09 to be zoo’s year of rebuilding. Go to the Metro page of the website at http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/index.html?cxntlid=nav_mtr_mtr I go to the metro page because it’s a metro story in the print paper. Not there. Well, maybe it’s on the home page. Nope. Click on the print edition link – finally there it is. This is at 2:30 – that may change later because the web pages are dynamic – which is a good thing.
Bert, if it’s important enough to be on the front of a section page in the print paper it’s important enough to stay on the corresponding web page in a prominent position all day. Granted, this isn’t the most important story that ran today. But until you go all electronic, all the time, people are going to expect to be able to find the same story that ran in that day’s paper – or at least an updated version of it – in the corresponding place on the web page.
Off my soapbox. You want to make me really happy? Run twice as many comics – or more.
I understand about the paper, its color and the quality of printing you can get from it. Just have the color guys keep working on it and remind the designers that the background on this new stuff isn’t even close to white.
Just Wondering
April 29th, 2009
2:53 pm
Nor did I say it was a referendum. Thank you for answering my question.
Sue
April 29th, 2009
3:24 pm
I agree…lots of complaints and justifiably so! My weekly neighborhood paper is more readable than this. I’ve always said that the Food Section was the poorest I’ve seen and now with the change I fear it will be even worse. Yes it’s hard to read!!!! You say the font is just different not smaller….well trust me….get with the program as I would be the majority of the readers are bifocal wearers and having difficulty adjusting to this new type. While we’re on it….making the comics in color was just plain stupid…no one needs them in color…I’d rather have you spend the money on improving the readibility factor! The local weather area is a joke…it’s so faded looking it looks like you forgot to finish it.
You don’t like the comments…well too bad…you asked for feedback…I would bet that there will be alot of folks cancelling their subscriptions if things don’t improve.
Honestly, the AJC now looks like my home town paper – for a town of about 100,000 people….not what I’d expect from a big town newspaper.
Right now the paper is only good for lining a litter box, use as a piddle pad or smacking the bigwigs of the AJC upside the head!
HSThompson
April 29th, 2009
3:37 pm
I’m not qualified to provide feedback laden with typography-specific jargon nor can I provide much insight on issues of design and layout. But as a subscriber to the AJC for 20+ years and as a regular reader of the big national dailies and as an intelligent, computer-literate, adult business professional, I can provide my qualitative opinion of the redesigned AJC: I don’t like it. I don’t enjoy reading it. The pages are hard for me to look at. Crammed, overloaded, confusing. I now have great difficulty scanning to find articles I want to read. It’s sad to see what’s happened to the AJC. My routine is reading the AJC with breakfast before leaving for work. So far, since the change, this has not been an enjoyable experience. I suspect that when subscription renewal comes around, I won’t renew. And that will be a sad day at my house
Newspaper enthusiast
April 29th, 2009
4:58 pm
You know, there have been lots of references to the AJC now looking like a hometown paper. I don’t think that’s all bad. I take the New York Times on weekends, but I also receive a nice potpourri of hometown weeklies via the mail. County newspapers are destined to survive the economy, complemented I’m sure by digital media — folks want cut out the school photos and stick on the fridge or share the paper with friends at the local diner over a cup of coffee. If we’re talking content, hometown is good. If we’re talking layout and design, Georgia’s weeklies are among the best in the nation. And, the AJC is taking a lead in listening to its readers.
There are layout decisions that debuted on Tuesday that I don’t like, but overall a genuine effort to make this city’s hometown paper a better product.
Susan King
April 29th, 2009
5:23 pm
You say that you “talked” to thousands of readers, and “they” guided you to the new product we have now in the New AJC? I find that hard to believe!!!! What I see now looks as if it was done by nonprofessionals!! Smaller, light print with everything jammed together, blurry pictures, flimsy paper quality, unattractive throughout,…….the list goes on!! Whoever is the main person responsible for these changes should be ashamed!! It’s like that person or persons who decided to do this was/ were on some kind of drug when they decided to go along with this!!!! Why spend all that money on colored comics every day….or colors everywhere! It’s so unnecessary in a good newspaper! It’s a shame you “spent millions in press upgrades, MORE color, and a MORE newsy, sophisticated look”!!! You failed to accomplish what you wanted to achieve!!!! What a waste of money!!! Your market research failed miserably!! It’s really embarrassing to see the AJC turned into what it is now.
Danielle
April 29th, 2009
5:49 pm
I dont’t like AJC newspaper anymore. It’s just to confusing. It’s hurting my eyes.
Business 101
April 29th, 2009
6:10 pm
Bert,
The AJC is in the business of selling advertising but you don’t know how to sell your newspaper. As a business owner the first rule is not to offend your customer. You have done that and now many of us (subscribers) do not read your paper which means not enough of us(business customers) want to buy your advertising since no one reads your paper. You have set in motion a downwarded spiral by publishing editorials that offend a large group of your subscribers/readers. No business can survive that kind of bad service. Here is a novel idea….the AJC would have no editorial content in the paper. Just cover the news and entertain your customers. Give them what they want and get out of the opinion business. You will always lose cutomers by disagreeing with them. You are in business and it requires giving value for other people’s money. Political statements get you nothing except lost revenue since people will always disagree. Editorials are for you not us. Like I said I am in business and so are you first and foremost.
Lynn T.Ziglar
April 29th, 2009
6:30 pm
Do you need subscribers or are you on the planet alone? 2nd day dawned and we are as dissatisfied as we were on Monday. What a strange thing to do to the newspaper.
Wall St. Journal is one that made changes for the better not worse. Who advised you so miserably?
Lynn T.Ziglar, subscriber not to renew
Sal
April 29th, 2009
7:44 pm
Without even saying how I feel about the new paper, I’m not sure what the commenters here expect. For the AJC to go back to their old design? To take a poll of readers? From what I’ve read above, they did that for two years. Let’s say they take a poll again … what’s the threshold for going back? 20% of all readers complain? 5%? With a couple hundred posts, I’m sure that’s still an insignificant number in a city as large as Atlanta.
Some people have brought up redesigns and changes on Facebook. After what was viewed as “massive outcry” about their changes and Terms of Service, they put it to a vote. After all the complaining and all the outrage and all the negativity, less than 0.3% even voted — hardly a representation of the 200 million users.
The editors say they spoke with thousands of readers, that sounds like a bigger voice to me. My neighbor was in a focus group several months ago for the paper. From what she told me and from what I’ve read here, the newspaper isn’t trying to win over people who’ve hated the AJC for years. My neighbors and some friends like the new look. Some don’t. But it’s the news that matters, right? I, for one, won’t ever give up my subscription by choice and look forward to seeing the paper in my front yard each morning, right next to the Wall Street Journal. I want to be able to find the stories I want to read and then be able to read them. I’ve been able to do both so far. I do think the printing has been a little light and harder to read in spots, but I’ve noticed that before.
Richard Owens
April 29th, 2009
9:23 pm
STOP THE PRESSES — I have chilled from yesterday’s negative response, I only commented on the masthead — but I think you have done remarkably well to create what you needed to do. I am strongly conservative, and our house still cares to get the paper so we can keep up with our town, and as Maynard told us years ago, Atlanta your town, Atlanta my town, Atlanta good town.
Ian Latham
April 29th, 2009
9:48 pm
The USAToday thing.
Most people think USAToday is a generic, national newspaper for business travelers who read it in hotels, in airports, and on airplanes. That’s the USAToday we all know.
As a newspaper, it happens to be a very strong visual brand.
For whatever reason, your designers created an adaptation of that design model. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the AJC. It was focused on a new narrow format, flimsy paper, and the need to pack significant editorial volume into a smaller space. Contemporary newspaper designers know that’s what USAToday perfected.
Which is fine.
But your readers aren’t expecting to pick up a generic, national newspaper in their driveways.
Yes, they want a paper they can enjoy and continue to subscribe to. But they don’t want USAToday. If they wanted USAToday, they’d buy it. You transformed AJC into an ersatz USAToday.
Isn’t that what readers are telling you?
If you truly wanted to to re-build the visual brand of your paper, wouldn’t you first remember who you are, how you should be, and how you should behave? Given the expectations people have? After all, the New York Times completed a dramatic redesign of the paper, not so long ago, to accommodate similar goals, including a narrower format. Yet the paper still looks and feels like The New York Times.
Wall Street Journal accomplished an even more radical re-design; yet still looks like The Wall Street Journal. In fact, even better.
But nothing about AJC remains, except the name, and perhaps the editorial page layouts, which came out best in all of this. Why? Because you didn’t change them much.
Moving forward you want your readers to ‘be specific’. But your readers can’t be specific and tell you what troubles them — they don’t have the experience or the language to do that. Apparently you don’t, either. But they can tell you what they know and what they feel. And they did.
What you did is take their paper away from them, and in return, give them what looks alarmingly like a generic national rag. What is astonishing, is that these are the people who are most loyal to you.
Of course, this is only partly about newspaper design; it’s more about the management of a visual brand.
Publication designers say, people get over change. Don’t worry about it. Give them time. But I work in a different world. Brands are stronger than page layouts.
There’s only one authentic way to re-design the AJC: You must decide-define-identify-understand-and-accept the enduring DNA of AJC — reaching back into its heritage if you have to — and then re-purpose what you discover for a new world. This is a world where readership is declining, pages are narrowing, and online competitors are stealing news out from under from you.
There is probably a fabulous, exciting newspaper ready to be re-invented in there somewhere. You have to find it.
You can be pretty sure that aping an aging airport newspaper that has nothing to do with Atlanta isn’t the way to go about it.
Ken Leebow
April 29th, 2009
10:00 pm
I recommend that you take Marc Andreseen’s advice to newspapers: “Kill it.”
You and all the newspapers are dying a slow death and candidly, it’s sad to watch.
Go online exclusively, take the revenue hit and hope for the best. The good old days are over.
I’ll be waiting for your announcement that the print edition will not be printed any more.