Redesigning Print and HOW
This session was a rare look into the process of two different designers on some very similar jobs with totally different outcomes. It is fascinating that both *Print* and *HOW* independently decided that they needed a redesign of their magazine and that they both chose a different Pentagram partner to do it. I guess that kind of proves that Pentagram is the designer’s design firm. I think the most interesting part of this session was not seeing the beginning and end result but to see the interaction between the designers and the respective magazine staff.
Both Abbott Miller and DJ Stout didn’t waltz in and get exactly what they wanted when they redesigned each magazine. In fact, they seemed to hold on to some design elements long after they should have let it go (they admitted this). Abbott wanted rounded corners on the right side of the cover, but it didn’t happen because of cost. DJ was set on having *HOW* in gigantic letters, going from top to bottom. I think this just ended up breaking too many rules for publication design. The main reason the vertical “HOW” didn’t fly was its appearance on the ever-important news stand. Even Pentagram partners have to compromise. When asked about budgets, neither editor, for obvious reasons, didn’t want to divulge much. The Pentagram duo seemed happy to share that it was very low for a magazine redesign.
Both editors stated that it had been about at least five years since they had a major redesign. They said that this was about the longest amount of time a design can stay fresh. Joyce Rutter Kaye, the editor of *Print,* stated that Print was in danger of becoming the “Cosby sweater” of design. Bryn Mooth, editor of *HOW,* stated that many of their design elements were web based and they needed to be updated. I don’t think either redesign is earth shattering in any way, but it wasn’t supposed to be. Both magazines’ design seemed to be too obtrusive as it was. The design needed to be more transparent and let the design that the magazine was highlighting show through. The true test of the redesigns will be evident in how they evolve and last after each partner is completely out of the picture. It was evident that the senior designers at these magazines were struggling with some of the changes that they had to implement. Hopefully they will stick to the templates that were set up with only minor necessary changes.
If you would like to read and see more on the redesign and this session head on over to Speak Up. Debbie Millman has done the research and she was the moderator of the session. A big thank you to Debbie for sending me the “before & after” cover shots.
June 19th, 2005 at 5:12 am
I would like to think that the push towards content is a reflection of a larger trend in design to pursue meaning. This was a fascinating session. It was interesting that both redesigns had the goal of featuring the content rather than the design of the magazine. Assuming they are talking about the words when they say content, that is a big step.I am as guilty as anybody when it comes to this, but I think most people skim past the words in favor of the eye candy.
June 25th, 2005 at 6:25 am
I think they weren’t just talking about the words when they referred to content. I would assume that the design and designers they highlight would also be considered content. I was impressed how Print is valuing their articles more. By having the article appear uninterrupted, (i.e. not shoving half of it on the last page) they are taking a big step in valuing the articles. Now if they could just make the entire magazine the same paper weight that would be great. There has to be an economic way to get rid of the thick paper samples that ruin your magazine experience.
Maybe a paper company could make it their theme. “We respect design, so we don’t put 80lb cover ads in this magazine.” I would certainly take notice. Maybe other paper companies would voluntarily follow suit. I know . . . pipe dreams.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:28 pm
This was the only session which I found to be of little value. I also had the highest regard for Pentagram, but after this session, I would not hire them to do anything. Okay….maybe I did learn, ignoring the client’s needs might not be such a good idea, (clearly the editors were hinting, they were not so happy with the result). And putting design in front of function, (readability of the magazine), might be a bad idea. The funny moments in this session came from the side-by-side comparison of old and new for the HOW magazine. Each time, the “Old” was far superior to the, “New”.
The moderator was so full of herself, listening to her became tiresome quickly. The rest of the sessions were so outstanding, the poor quality of this session made for a sharp contrast. The talk show format for this session, seemed trite, and prevented the speakers having a good discussion.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Steve, Thanks for all of your insight. It is always great to get some different perspectives.
This wasn’t my favorite session but I guess I got more out it than you did. I WAS surprised at how insistent the Pentagram guys were about their turned down ideas. I didn’t get the idea that the editors were disappointed in the design at all. They seemed very pleased with the end result. I also think that the before and after shots were not as obvious as you stated. I think the format is there for some great cover designs and consistency for both magazines. I also really like the idea that when you stack the entire year of HOW Magazine, it will spell out HOW.
If feel like I should come to the defense of the moderator, Debbie Millman. I thought she did a fine job. I’m not sure why you thought she was full of herself. I know she interviewed the designers before this session and had the information she needed. I’m sure she probably knew all of the included designers on a fairly personal level as well. Her camaraderie with the designers and editors might have come across as self absorbed to some people. I felt that she kept the conversation on track and on the topics that needed to be discussed.