Content is King?
I don’t read a lot of magazines. This is a fact based less on my third grade reading skills than the fact that I simply don’t have time in my schedule to read very much. So, I have to select what I spend my precious time reading with great precision and deep thought. In the end, the winners are usually Communication Arts, Fast Company and Wired. (And sometimes Scuba Diving, but that’s usually for the pretty pictures.)
Anyway, as my coworkers can attest, I’ve spent a lot of time complaining about just how bad the design is on the covers of Wired. Not just recent covers, but throughout the history of Wired. I’ve been reading the magazine for 10+ years, and can’t remember even one cover that made me think “that is really well crafted design.” I can remember any number of the covers that caused me to think “not another crappy cover design!”
So, here’s the interesting part. I’m a designer, right? (That’s rhetorical, so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t answer.) We’re supposed to be drawn to things that are well-designed. We all want iPods, VW Jettas, and Michael Graves teapots. You listen to all of us talk, and it’s obvious we’d buy a 10-pound bag of horse manure if we thought it was creatively packaged. It’s likely we pick out wines based on the labels, and books based on the cover art. We most certainly select magazines based on the design of the cover. And we’re not about to read a magazine that’s not well designed.
And there’s the problem. Here I am reading Wired cover to cover every month, even as I have to leave it face down on the bedside table to avoid seeing the cover again. Of course, I read it because I’m fascinated and inspired by the content. (I am aware that this makes me a little geeky.) But I’m reading it in spite of the horrible cover.
It’s certainly not the year’s biggest revelation that most any designer will still interact with something that is poorly designed, so long as the content/product is really strong. But it leaves me with this question for the masses: can the best of products really be helped significantly by good graphic design?
Can putting the world’s best carrot peeler in a better-designed box actually create notably more sales? Or are people primarily buying it because of the quality of the product, regardless of the packaging? This may seem like an easy answer, but I assure you it is at least worth discussing. I have seen plenty of examples of situations where I became (uncomfortably) aware that better graphic design may not have translated into more business value. My father-in-law did quite well for himself selling B2B a product that he invented. Customers loved the product, and couldn’t have cared less whether it came packaged in a plastic bag or a plain cardboard box. I can almost guarantee that a creative, differentiated, well-designed package would not have ever gained him a single extra sale. I read Wired every month, despite being repulsed by most of their covers. Would their sales be any stronger with better-designed covers?
Is it possible that we can’t help everyone? Discuss.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Maybe I am just blinded by my love for that magazine, but I have never thought of the design as bad. It seems like they have been doing a big face on the cover lately. The faces they choose are usually interesting and somewhat non-traditional. I think the cover with Jon Stewart on it was fantastic with the remote in his mouth. I also enjoy the metallic inks and spot colors they have been using on the covers and throughout the mag. Althought the guts of the mag aren’t beautiful in an elegant way, they are well organized and clean. The illustrations are usually good. The photography is usually excellent. I guess, I just don’t have any complaints about it. I read it cover to cover every issue, unlike Print, HOW. STEP, etc which sit on my desk for a week or two.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I think the saving grace of Wired covers are that the headlines are engaging. Compared to other magazines, anyway. Just look at the samples you’ve used. They are attention getting, and not in a gimmicky way, but in a meaningful way. When it comes to the magazine canon (as opposed to music albums, website splash pages, etc.), people scan the cover for the copy before even digesting the imagery. I do, anyway. This is, of course, with the exception of various art mags like Flaunt.
Although I don’t disagree with you. Better designed covers could do nothing but help Wired. If anything, only to serve the purpose of legibility and giving the headlines better heirarchy. It’s just that they’re already doing pretty well.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I think that this discussion between designers will always (and should) turn into a debate about what constitutes “Good Design”.
I think there are several categories that every design touches on, which could be termed as follows: aesthetics, communication, relevance, longevity (or memorability), and economy.
Perhaps, in this case, the Wired covers look pretty weak in some ways, but they’re strong in several of the other categories – relevance, communication, and economy. These strengths outweigh the modest score in the aesthetics or memorability categories and give the overall visual solution a positive net score.
And I would say that a positive net score can help sales; the aesthetic is only a fraction of the functionality of design.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I think good cover/package design may help make a sale if the consumer is blind, confused, or ignorant.
We’ve all done it, I’m sure. I need a whatsit. Which whatsit? Well, let’s read the product claims on the box. Huh. No product claims. Does one look better than the other (the product itself)? Not really — a whatsit is a whatsit. Well, this one has the nicer package. I’ll take this one.
Why? Because someone put a tad more attention to detail. Because someone cared not to hurt my eyes. Because someone could afford a higher-paid design firm, thus they must be doing better than the others — which implies customer loyalty due to a quality product.
Does it mean these things? No. But it’s what we infer. Both whatsit companies could be start-ups, but one is better at begging for investment capital, or has an uncle who is a pro designer working pro-bono. But we take that extra oomph as meaning something.
And it really does mean nothing. What happens is a marketing ploy where we prey on that inference, we make a false implication that somehow what the package (cover) contains is better than it is — because it can’t stand up on its own.
Fun, eh?
Then again, perhaps we are wrapping a gift to someone. Presenting the customer with an enjoyable experience in presentation (think the iPod boxes!!) and creating an experience in the revelation of a highly anticipated gadget. It’s the difference in throwing all the cookware directly on the table, or tranferring the catered meal into serving platters and adding the finishing garnish to present the food as a delight for the eyes. Other fields do it, there’s no reason to deny the world that experience.
The difference is that when we do it, we should really regard it as an experience or a gift. Put ourselves into the shoes of the recipient. Will there be anticipation? Will the package set a level of expectation for the contents? Will the contents stand up to the delivery?
In the case of WIRED — which I haven’t read (but I am a geek!) — if the contents are so good as to stand up for themselves, there would be no disappointment in a more creative presentation, and it might have gotten me to read it
June 30th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Am I the only designer who doesn’t consider myself a complete sucker for a lousy product in well designed packaging? It kind of makes me feel like a fraud.
And VW Jetta? I’ve always thought it was funny how everyone seems to have strong and widely differing opinions of what cars look good or bad. (For the record, I think the latest Jetta model is pretty sharp, just not outstanding.)
July 1st, 2006 at 12:23 am
Products that are inherently innovative and creative, filling a particular ‘need’ in the consumer market, will probably not require good design.
If there’s a product that makes the lives of people better and easier, I really believe in the end, it will become popular moreso through viral marketing.
I really think the only products that are improved by good design are those that are not necessities. I mean, most toilet paper packagings are terribly plain. Yet most people simply look for something that does the job. The product is a necessity for human living and as such, the exterior doesn’t really increase the sales of the product.
So in essence, things that we don’t really need (but we still want) are really the only things that really do seem to benefit from good design. Our world is littered with indistinguishable products that are really all the same. For these kinds of products, good design is that extra oomph that help the products stand out from the rest.
For an ordinary product, that extra oomph determines whether that consumer will try it. For every increase in consumer trials, you essentially increase your chances of getting that consumer hooked on your product instead of brand XYZ.
A great idea makes a great product.
A mediocre idea makes a mediocre product.
BUT great design can make a mediocre product close to good (but not great lol).
July 1st, 2006 at 7:15 am
I think it’s important to think of were dose content start and form end.
it’s form’s responsiblity to communicate the content to it’s intended audience. But i would agrue that it’s more than just the visuals.
the inherent logic of the content also plays a huge role in the success of a form in my oppion. my ponit is dealing with copy lanuage.
At design school this area hasn’t been talked about all that much, however as I am working I’m coming to the realization that lanuage and copy plays an equally important role in communicate as the visuals and typography I do.
I can design the most kickass brochure for my company, but if the lanuage is indirect, vague and not apporate for that audience, the design will be lose its effect.
People will be drawn to look, but then confused as to what they are being told and what we want them to do ( which is the actually buisness reason for the brochure in the frist place)
my point is that while form folllows content, the divison between the two isn’t as clear cut as it seems, and thus the two have to work together to achieve the best sucess.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:04 am
Wow, I think I disagree with all these comments. *”Can the best of products really be helped significantly by good graphic design?”* Absolutely, yes! Design is more than just a candy shell. **Design is inseperable from the product.** Good design is a *part* of a good product. Bad design is *part* of a bad product. This is especially true in magazine design. You access the content through the design! Yes, it matters! Yes, it will help the magazine in many more ways than just sales! I am amazed by the comments that are so willing to downplay the importance of design. Until designers can understand that their design is of vital importance to the success of a product, that low self-image is going to keep us from impacting the world. The rest of the world already thinks we just make things pretty. Why are some of us agreeing with them?
July 1st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Adrian,
I was downplaying design?
I was commenting that effectiviness of a object of communcation design requires content and form to work together.
have a object too much on form, you get a candy coated gig poster- all flash no substance- and end up not communciating anything worthwhile.
have a object that’s too much on content and ignores form, you lost the ability to communcate your content to the audience. Wired is case and point. the design alone made me for years not want to read it. Also there are numerious examples i’ve run into that the content is interesting and nice, but the design of the object royally sucked and I merely skimmed it, if that.
how is that statement a downplaying of design?
I would agrue that’s a agruement for why EVERY business and product should employ communcation deisgn. And more importantly create a equal partnership with deisgn to create the best soultions to promblems, instead of being a mere vendor.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 am
What I’m getting tired of is the concept of “good” and “bad” in design. I realize I’m contradicting my earlier post that the wired designs could be “better”, but what I should have said was that they could address the need better.
Although it’s against everything we’ve ever learned in school, and against our own tastes and logic, those aspects really don’t exist except in our own individual perspectives. What exists is the evidence of whether the design is working or not.
Simple, sleek, and singular is not always better. Sometimes floral cornacopia is the answer. Hell, I’m sure even Comic Sans has its place somewhere. The point is that there is no one solution or technique to solve every problem, which ultimately means that “good” and “bad” must be attributed on a case-by-case, using the target as your guide. Since Wired sales aren’t exactly suffering, one must assume that the design of the covers serves their audience well.
The world is full of thousands of different kinds of people, yet the design community is repeating the same 5 or 6 solutions endlessly.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 am
I’ve always loved Wired’s design (and who remembers its precursor, Omni?). But recently they rescaled the physical size of the publication. It used to be wider across the page. They trimmed it back to standard magazine size, which is unfortunate. I assume the change was driven by economics and probably pissed off long-time collectors of the publication who keep them in customized storage boxes (which Wired at one time offered for sale).
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 am
Bobby (and others),
I hope you’re not misinterpreting my comments. I believe there is “good” and “bad” design, but I most certainly do not believe that aesthetics = design. I think that design has to be measured by effectiveness, not by whether I happen to think it’s pretty. Sure, my personal opinion is that design is typically more effective when it’s simple, clear and aesthetically pleasing. But I do not think those things make for effective design in all cases. Good design, by nature, must be different depending on the audience and the goals.
And I should note here that I think the interior of Wired is much more effective design than the covers. Presents information well, with just the right touch of “mod” and “techy” that feels perfectly in tune with the content of the magazine.
Lastly, it’s to my main point that Wired’s sales are not exactly suffering. (Although I might attribute a lot of this to their “low subscription price, high ad revenue” business model.) My question is whether or not “better” cover designs could boost sales any higher, or if their content and business models would sell their magazines even with all black covers. But, an additional question raised by these comments could certainly be “Is there even room for improvement in the cover designs of Wired magazine?”
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Focusing solely on the cover is a mistake. The comments above are definitely in a unanimous agreement, but are using different terminology in respect to ‘design’. Without design there is no cover on the most basic level. The covers use a common method for displaying the focus article’s title in very large type while revealing a few choice titles of other featured topics/articles in a less prominent type size and style. This is an optimal method for communicating content for a periodical. To go away from that structure would go away from the cover’s main function. At the same time the cover should be attention getting while not interfering with the above function. Now, there are infinite solutions to the design of the covers even with these restrictions. Perhaps that aspect could be completed differently. As we saw in BEADESIGN’s own cover design, the limitations of the publisher’s understanding of its readers and the publisher’s own interest in the appearance of the document greatly diminish the chance of using something (I guess I’ll use this ambiguous term to mean what’s yet to come in popular culture) avant garde. All working designers are well aware of this aspect of their careers. So, Drew, what exactly would you do differently besides some intangible sort of ‘different’? Unless you have some structural difference which would completely improve how the cover functions (like having an ‘up a level’ button in the Finder in OSX). Being critical is easy, fun and, most importantly, a passive exercise. Offering real alternatives is true action. Instead of waxing over whether or not an as yet nonexistent design could improve a periodical we should discuss more specific solutions or improvements. Unless Graphic Design really is as subjective and irrelevant as its critics say. Perhaps that is the case.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:10 am
I believe it’s hard to quantify these things. There are a large number of factors that affect something’s success – design being an important part of them, but not the only one.
Design really impacts credibility. As someone mentioned, without other cues most gravitate towards the better looking whatsit package becuase it appears more reliable. Really bad design can kill success. If it looks cheap or communicates nothing, few will stop to look. Mediocre design prevents people from a bad initial impression, but may not be helping either – the mediocre packaged whatsit may be in every way equal to the better packaged whatsit, but it lost out due to the impression it gave (or didn’t)
In the case of WIRED, it’s possible that it succeeds mainly due other factors aside from design – the content and it’s reputation. Factors like those can gurantee the success of something – it just takes more work in those areas.
Still, great design always helps – so there is no really good reason not to take it seriously in the process.
I don’t belive however that we can help everyone. Simply because other market factors can be the death toll for something regardless of design. Betamax was well designed – but died because of pricing and other business factors. The best design can’t cover up significant weakness in other areas for long.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:06 am
I used to think I was the only designer that read Wired more avidly than any design pub. Now I don’t feel guilty any more.
The cover designs never bothered me enough to change my mind about anything. Now that you bring it up, I did wince when I saw “The Plot to Kill Evolution” cover–it’s much busier and has less white space than most of their covers. I think I liked the flashiness of Wired covers, like the one that responded to warmth/touch a few years ago. However, there’s one thing that still perplexes me. About 2-3 issues a year, I don’t read more than 2 pages in the whole magazine. I’m usually busy, and it takes some really compelling topics to make me open the magazine at that time. In those cases, the design may have been working fine, it was just promoting uninteresting content.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Simanek,
I apologize for getting sidetracked, but this post was not meant to be a “how can we redesign Wired” or “Wired’s covers suck, so there” topic. While I’ve been using Wired as an example, my intent is not to spend my time and energy making useless criticisms. The intent of this post was to get at the core of which situations graphic design can improve, and which it cannot. This is why I have not been waxing eloquent on my suggestions for how to specifically improve Wired magazine. The basis of my question is whether or not it can even be “improved.”
That said, Oxide Design Co. would be happy to collaborate with either you or Conde Nast Publishing on ways in which the cover designs of Wired might be evolved to make them even more effective. Send me an e-mail and we can discuss rates and terms.
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Good design can actually kill a bad product.
We produced a new chair direct mail campaign for a furniture manufacturer several years ago. The campaign generated trackable responses of over 600%. Only one problem, no orders for the chair were placed. Why? It may have been that the chair was ugly and badly designed. The chair was retired from the manufacturer’s product line.
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
First off, I don’t understand Jan’s point (directly above) – Good design killed the product? It doesn’t sound like it from your description – it sounds like it was a BAD PRODUCT and that the design (i’m guessing you mean graphic design) didn’t make a bit of difference. Crap is crap, even if it comes in a pretty wrapper.
As for Wired, I have a subscription and love the content too.
However, what’s the question here? Are you asking if design makes a difference, or are you asking if COVER design makes a difference? Because I think the design inside the magazine is pretty good.
Wired may not be flashy or award-winningly risk-taking (like a Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly, but the magazine does what it should – it conveys its content in a clear and understandable manner.
After all, isn’t that really what graphic design is supposed to be?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Drew,
I’ve reviewed your initial post and I agree that my comment was a little off target. It was perhaps focused on the preceding comments. Most people were just stating opinions about your example rather than discussing your question. I apologize for the scathing tone. I have respect for you and your work.
It would be nice to see your question discussed rather than the merits of your example, Wired Magazine.
I think going from a poor design to a good design can have an immense effect on the performance of a product. In many ways this has to do with what I mentioned above: how the design improves the function of the object or the customer’s understanding of the product it is related to.
Going from a good design to what we might call a great design will have little or no effect on the success of a product. If two media-player companies are competing for a common market and their products are more or less equal, a redesign by Oxide Design is not going to convince a customer that has already purchased item A to go and buy item B also. Now, less expensive items that may or may not be items that get used up and have to be replenished will be a different situation. There’s less at stake for the consumer. Magazines being one of these ephemeral items. Regardless, it would be difficult to gain any real world understanding due to the great number of variables involved.
My two cents say that the general public doesn’t perceive the difference between good and great. Including Graphic Designers. How many of you buy your groceries at WalMart?
July 6th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Remember also that Wired was born in the San Francisco of the mid-1990s — which, like a lot of California, was experimenting with what was and wasn’t “good taste.” It’s initial designs were an anti-aesthetic. Influenced by early computer art and SF rave culture. Although Wired has certainly “gone corporate” it began as a somewhat as an F.U. to East Coast notions of what is and was “proper.” Much like the ‘zines that were ubiquitous in SF in the mid-1990s. There are certainly people, Bob Aufuldish comes to mine, that have taken the anti-aesthetic to exciting and unique places. The magazine “Nest” has also used this as not only its guiding art direction principle, but also what drives it’s content of unique interiors.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Simanek,
You are echoing what has been in my head for a few years now, and that is that there is a certain level of design (good design) required for a successful product, but going beyond that (great design) is largely lost on the general public. Other designers will know but the average consumer…maybe not. We should still strive for great design, but not beat ourselves up if it just turns out good.
That said, I do like to see great design mass marketed as in Target’s overhaul, as it helps educate the public on the potential of design to shape a brand.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Ugly but great? One word: Ebay.
July 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Does anyone recall the cover from several years ago (maybe five?) that was made out of a heat-sensitive material. When you touched it, it changed colors. Intrigued by the cover, I picked up my first copy and have been a subscriber ever since. Effective design? You decide.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:03 am
I used to do graphic design for a real estate office with like 200+ agents. A couple of the ‘top producers’ would make their own art, it usually looked horrible and pixelated. The people who went into my office would receive a professional portrait with proper lighting and basically brochures, business cards, flyers, and such designed from basic templates I set up. I allowed the agents to have some flexibility, b/c I believe that a personal touch is important.
Most of the agents who used me got good results, and would sell homes quicker with their nice flyers and photography. And for some things didn’t change. Basically, a good agent with good materials can make more money, a good agent with bad materials can make some money, and a bad agent is bad either way (considering they might not be able to stand up to the image they portray).
I think good design helps. WIRED is a great magazine, but if they had a better looking cover I think it would sell a lot more subscriptions. But I’m into graphic design. Perhaps to a common person, if it looks too clean they might think that the magazine might be too good for them.
Check out Song airlines, neat idea, but without a stable and proper bottom line, it failed.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
NICE!!! Can’t wait to get home and read!!! OH ! and you read 3 out of 5 that I read. BLAMMO!