T4: You did not just use Rosewood on your cover. I know I did not just see you do that.

Having struggled with this same problem for the Sept/Oct Web Issue (I think my partner Adam, who led this project, is still making design refinements in his head 5 months after we delivered it), I feel your pain. We went through this same process and I don’t think we quite succeeded in the end. Sorry for popping in late in the process, but any help is help, right?

Effective magazine covers are a lot like logos in my mind—they must be bold, sport a clear compelling idea appropriately rendered, and strip away all that is unnecessary. This is what makes the AdamsMorioka cover (and Number 17 cover—I’m a believer in that one!) so good, and makes the problem so difficult. Growing up as designer in the age of post modernism, my tendency is to add rather than subtract when I design, so to bury any ambivalence or lazy thinking in a sea of layers and overdesign. My friend Jean gave me this little tip about anything you design: the piece should work in hits of 3 seconds, 3 minutes, and 3 hours.

If we use this criteria to evaluate your covers the only one that come close is Number 1—it’s bold, plus a pretty clear, engaging and humorous idea. I can’t call it original, but I’m amused by the goofy dog enough to (almost) forgive this shortcoming. (Original is a tough accomplishment in any design endeavor anyway.)

Number 2 seems arbitrary and avoiding the major idea of the cover brief. The number 100 is secondary to the main thrust here which is that these are the best designs of the year. Does the idea change if it is 50 or 25? No, and that’s my point. Formally it also doesn’t grab you right away, but if I did choose to peruse it, I might be distracted for a few minutes appreciating the creativity of where you found all the 100s. Ultimately, though, the idea doesn’t resonate so I’ve forgotten it soon after.

Number 3 and 4 suffer from similar problems. If this is supposed to be an issue about trendsetting/ending designs, the very overused woodcut drawing, wood type styles seem way out of place here, unless it is some kind of intentional joke (which I am not getting). Style aside, the number 3 idea doesn’t make a lot of sense to me—is that a clock? a scale? a keepsake chest? Maybe it’s too early in the morning, and I’ll to look at it again in the afternoon and get it. Idea 4 is a bit of a disconnect—is this commenting on the Design 100 or there a separate article about Trends is this issue? And is connecting the idea of trends and the Design 100 a good one? The concept of trend often implies hegemony, yet we’re honoring the 100 best designs that are hopefully showing us something new and different.

Hope this helps.

E

Eric, The connection has already been made by STEP. Each year they have an article on trends that Nancy Bernard sees in the winning entries. I think the idea of trends is fascinating, but hopefully the winners are being rewarded for great ideas and flat out good design. The trends of the time will be evident, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t original or ground breaking. Hence, “Trend is not a dirty word”.

By the way. It is only Round Three. We still have three rounds to go (I’m not sure that we have mentioned that yet), so you are not getting in on this too late. Thanks for your insight.

Pardon me for just jumping in (I have not had the time to keep up and have only read a fraction of the posts), but I can definitely see possibilities with design number 2.

Instead of the letters “STEP” I’d consider working with the number “100” for the abstract shapes - then you could use actual artwork from the issue within the shapes. You could also play with more dynamics in the sizing, colors, lights/darks, etc. to create an even stronger, more compelling composition. Maybe this has already been suggested?

Can’t believe you’ve still got three more rounds to go, so good luck to everyone involved.

Team one jumps ahead this round. Plump that pig up (so it doesn’t get confused as a dog) and dig a little deeper on the background, and you might be on to something.

For team two I second Kyle’s comments above.

Team three could realy add some punch if they could tone their design down. Maybe one big Master Lock or a vault with some dynamite taped to it. I appreciate your idea, but its too much work for the casual browser.

Team four seems like they’ve lost their direction. Its good to throw everything away and start over sometimes, but this time it kinda falls flat. Give your first design a second chance.

Team 4, Member 1: I respectfully disagree. There are many ways to solve the problem, and the solution does not need to be in any way similar to a CA cover.

The “100” idea is only about the cover design, I think the cover is better when it represents what’s inside.

If I was designing the cover, I would highlight the fact that this is the only publication (currently) that interviews all the entrants. So far, none of the covers are addressing this important aspect.

Team #1… you need to check out

http://www.2x4.org/

case studies prada 8/13 to 11/13

They have an interesting in using an obvious cg character within a photographic environment. It might be good reference for you.

My vote breaks down like this 2, 4 then 1 and 3 tied. I like the kick back to the curves on the previous looks on team 4, team 2 has came a long way and is really growing on me. 1 isnt too bad, better than the previous covers.

Chad

Team 1: I like the pig, and the fact that you’ve incorporated cover/sell lines in your design. this works better for me than the pie and meat, but still not sure this is a winner … It’s simple and clear—that I like, but not sure if it’s too whimsical … Mike Ulrich will be a better judge of this …

Team 2: Now I’m starting to have my doubts about this concept as I think it’s getting too complicated and too hard to decipher what’s going on. Even if you used actual images from inside the magazine, as Robynned suggested, it would be so abstract I don’t think the newsstand browser would “get it.”

Team 3: You lost me on this one. I really liked the dial on the last version—it communicated “unlocking” and it had a mysterioius quality to it, like a secret code was being revealed. I’m not fond of the old, traditional-looking clock and dials—doesn’t have the same impact.

Team 4: This is just my personal opinion, but the old woodblock looking letters aren’t doing it for me and they really detract from the message of “Trends.” Perhaps a different focus/concept is in order here. I think the Trends concept that you’ve been trying to illustrate just isn’t resonating in any of iterations, so perhaps it’s not a good direction. It seems like you’re trying too hard to defend your position, when really the design should be doing that.

I appreciate all the effort going into this from all teams—it’s not easy, is it?

despite the other’s comments, i love the team 4’s cover… i do agree with the type comment…it may work even better if the word “trend” appeared in a different typeface.

Emily, I don’t want to sound contrary to what you are saying, I just want to throw a few other thoughts into the discussion.

I don’t think what we are doing here is really “design by committee”. We are only taking complete direction from you and Michael. Everyone else’s comments are suggestions and observations. They are fascinating and very helpful, but obviously we can’t follow the direction of every commenter. You are the client and we are the “design firm”.

“People always pay more attention to what is different than what is the same.” This seems contrary to everything people say about magazine cover designs. I want the above statement to be true, because different is good.

We will keep “provocative” and “unexpected” in our minds. With that said, those two words should be a goal in almost any design. It shouldn’t have to be in the design brief.

Thanks for the comments.

Emily, Forgive me for finding humor in your last comment. It seems ironic for a group of editorial advisors to be worried about design by committee. I don’t know exactly what you mean by editorial advisor, but it sounds awfully “committee” like to me. Obviously the STEP Off is a different process than how covers are usually designed, but I think it is unfair for someone to expect “bland, predictable results” just because they are uncomfortable with a new format.

As for being “provocative” and “unexpected,” I think that whoever is giving you this advice doesn’t understand design. A well designed cover is going to be appropriate for the content of the magazine. If the content calls for a provocative cover, then that is the correct design solution. But to make the goal of your cover is simply to be provocative for the sake of being provocative, I don’t know if that is necessarily a healthy starting point. It ties into your “Is someone going to buy the magazine because of the cover” concern. Maybe I am being overly simplistic, but I am not sure if STEP’s criteria for their covers is quite right. The question should be, “is this a well designed cover.” Criticism like, “it isn’t provocative enough,” or “I am not sure if it will sell,” seems to be motivated by something other than a goal for good design. Perhaps Michael’s comment that people who have designed past STEP covers have found the process “frustrating and less than fulfilling” is the result of accepting criticism with a goal other than good design. Just a thought. Now that I have gone off the theoretical deep end, I will go back to being anonymous

I’m actually going to debate Adrian on this one for a second: Our goal with this project IS to sell magazines. Our responsibility to STEP is to move their product, or this whole exercise is in vain. You could certainly suggest that, with a readership comprised mainly of designers, a beautiful cover would be a selling point in and of itself, but that is not honestly the case.

Our job on the news stand is to compel. Provocative is certainly one way to do that. Intrigue would be another. Humor could be a third, and so on. But at the end of the day people need to look at our cover and say, “yeah, I need that.”

With that being said, I would like to announce the official reminder of the Half-Way Point. As this was round 3 of 6, I am not surprised at all that these aren’t firing on all cylinders yet. They’re only half finished. Hopefully after next round we can all stop spit-balling ideas and hone-in on our refinements.

Provocative means to provoke, excite, stimulate—it’s not trickery. Design SHOULD be provocative and compelling.

Tabloids exploit not provoke.

Maybe we are taking provocative in different ways. It don’t see it in a negative or irritating way. To me it means engaging the viewer visually or conceptually. Dictionary.com says “Tending to provoke or stimulate.” I think we can stimulate the audience without “tricking them”.

Side Note: There are a few different names on the current advisory board: The list is … John Bielenberg, Stefan Bucher, Paul Drohan, Michael Hodgson, Noreen Morioka, Steven Morris, Paul Sahre, Scott Thares, Alice Twemlow.

They are all welcome to share their insight here as well. Most, if not all, have more experience than any of us and their input would be taken to heart.

Come on. You think they are talking about provocative in the sense of simply engaging the viewer? If that were their definition, it wouldn’t be an issue because our cover designs do that. They mean provocative in the “sex sells,” “shock the viewer into buying the magazine” sense. Like I said, a provocative cover can be appropriate and thus a good design. If you slap a dildo on the cover of a magazine about sex, there is a certain amount of appropriateness to it. It becomes trickery and exploitation if there isn’t a reason to be provocative. If you slap the same dildo on a design annual just because that formula worked before, it is trickery and exploitation. That is the direction it seems we are being pushed. Maybe my perception is wrong, but that is the feeling I get.

Adrian—I think it’s “bare” you meant, but it’s a nice Freudian typo.

I sense that you feel under attack by this process. I can imagine that it’s hard not to take the flood of comments personally. If you truly believe in your designs any criticism of the piece feels like a criticism of you. I often feel the same way in my practice and it takes real concentration not to let your mind go there. Hold fast!

I just stumbled upon a pod cast, went to the web site where I discovered this rather interesting design collaborative. I just want to take a moment and get back to basics, good visual design specifically because this is a design magazine. What will the consumer of this product pick up and purchase. As a designer I will look at all the design magazines to see who is doing what but as a consumer typically wont pick up it up unless I like the cover.

I copied all the covers and put them in Indesign side by side to get a better understanding of where the designs had come from. I hate to say this but at first glance, without reading any of the project comments, or any of the feedback I was a little disappointed in what I saw. Of all the covers there were only two that I liked, Team 1’s cover 1 and cover 3. Then I went back and read though the project comments and feed back. I made small comments on all covers because sometimes it is good to go back and look at what you’ve done.

Team 1 Cover 1 – Visually I understood what the content would be about without having to read anything or open it up. I however don’t like the idea of meat being the representation of the designer and the actual design was a bit boring.

Cover 2 – Even if it weren’t drawn in a crude pencil I would still not like this piece because it gives the feeling that the reader or consumer would be too stupid to figure it out. Cover 3 – Again it is about the visual image. As a design magazine there is a responsibility to convey all you need on the front cover. Instantly I understood that there would be a design competition inside to look at. Note: Design Chops, as a tag is much better than the actual pictures of meat and I am glad that you stayed with your original concept.

Team 2 Cover 1 – Looked like a printer ad in a CA magazine, which aside from Cougar doesn’t say much. Cover 2 – Looks pretty but doesn’t convey any particular message. Cover 3 – The black takes away from the clean design.

Team 3 Cover 1 – Inviting. Anyone who is a designer will understand immediately what that image is. It was suggested that there was too much content and back about the cleverness of the text and too much of it, I agree. Cover 2 – Too refined, what was the message again? Cover 3 – This cover provoked the “Ok I’m completely lost now” feeling.

Team 4 Cover 1 - Looks like a type book cover I own. The colors were bland and I didn’t bother reading all the text. Just too much info.

Cover 2 - Looks like Eon Flux’s hair. Again I did not like the colors. Teal to me is the “we think we are cool but really we’re stuck in the past”.

Cover 3 - I actually really like the trendy font. It gives humor and a little more insight as to what we should or maybe should not expect inside the magazine. I however would probably never use it myself.

zharrison, While others have had problems with this cover, I’m not sure we want to get into it again … at least not on this post. If you want to try and re-ignite that discussion, you can leave yours comments here.

Armin also wrote a post about our discussion and the kitten cover on Speak Up.

I’m just hoping we can get back on the topic of the four covers at hand. Round 4 goes live tomorrow.

Normally, with the cover-selection process, I get involved very early and very late. I try to let the creative team (led by Mike Ullrich and Emily Potts) do their thing.

So it’s kind of like going into a candy store to have all of these ideas, fully fleshed-out, to choose from.

I should say that my job is not to pick something that I like. My role is to push the team to create a magazine that is going to number 1, sell the most at the newsstand to the target audience. And, number 2, fit the overall mission of the magazine.

The newsstand environment is extremely difficult and important. When I first got involved with magazines in the early ’80s, it was much easier. You could take bigger risks because the rewards were greater and the faillures were not as painful. Today, thanks to the Internet, it’s much harder to get people to buy a magazine. Unfortunately, that means you have to be careful you don’t risk losing a clearance (whether a store is willing to put your magazine on its shelves); once you lose a clearance, it’s possibly lost forever. And, frankly, people are more likely to complain to a store owner if they see something they don’t like these days. That didn’t happen back then.

If you read Emily’s column about the recent “women in design” cover, you know that I had to nix what was probably the most original and beautiful concept (two shapley stones). It can be hard to be the bad guy, but it’s a necessary part of the process.

Since I have just come in and reviewed all of these, I’m seeing them all as a group. Here’s what I like and why I like it.

I love the “raw meat all in a row” — it has the impact that I’m always telling Emily and Mike is so important. Having said that, I also know that it would probably offend more than a few prospective readers who probably don’t share my excitement at the sight of a well-marbled piece of meat. Beautifully conceived and executed, but potentially a problem on the newsstand.

Design chops with the toy pig — very cute and clever. Appealing but maybe not strong enough to get someone to buy it. Same for “your photos here” —- makes you look but then what?

I’m fascinated by the curving timeline in round 2. It really draws me in. The initial shape is beautiful and graceful and then, as you look more closely, you are engaged. This is exactly what a great magazine cover should strive to do. Grab you from afar and pull you in. It does put a burden on the text; once readers start looking at it, you want them to feel they can’t put it down (and, hopefully, they’ll be standing in a store, feel the need to rush off and feel conmpelled to buy it — bingo!)

I have similar feelings about the de-coder ring. It doesn’t have the elgance but it does have a raw feeling of metal and mystery. Once again, the text really matters. Once you have someone’s attention, you don’t want them to feel disappointed.

So in both cases, a lot is riding on the text and whether it pulls in the reader.

It’s a fascinating collection. I know Emily and Mike are going to spend some time with all of these and I’m curious to hear which final candidates they select.

Thanks to everyone who has participated.

• Gus Venditto — editor-in-chief, Jupitermedia Corp.

I think the new covers do what they should with each issue. Change visually! Usually with me, if I see one cover in a magazine I really love, then I will stick with that particular mag for a while, regardless if I dislike some of the other covers, as long as the content is still interesting. You can’t please everybody. So, please several here and then move on to the next several, and so on, so you can grab hold of as many subscribers as possible for the survival of your magazine. Does this mean your a “sell out”? Are you as a graphic designer capable of “letting go” of your own artistic desires in order to sell, sell, sell?