Newsdesigner.com | The New “Bright One”

The New “Bright One”

9:55 AM, April 4, 2007

The Chicago Sun-Times launched a redesigned, more locally focused paper today.

As evidenced by the emphasized "Chicago" in the flag, they're beefing up their local orientation and adding more features such as
"Chicagopedia," a dictionary of Chicago words; "This Much I Know" where "interesting people tell you their secrets to a good life;" and "24/7," a 24-hour crime and mayhem roundup. The Sun-Times has been struggling in the Chicago market. Sun-Times Media's revenue fell 8.6% last year compared with the Tribune's 1.3% drop.

As far as the design, it will "make it more accessible, more modern and more readable for you, the reader. Because it's all about you."

Here's a guide to the new features. (Same thing here in a one-page PDF.)

Sun-Times advertising/marketing columnist Lewis Lazare writes:

Unexpected and uniquely local news stories will get top priority in the refreshed newspaper, which some ads in the rebranding campaign will reference as reflecting the "real Chicago."

Reflecting the increasing importance of the Web as a news resource, many stories will encourage readers to jump to the Web for additional specific content that might be tightly focused on Chicago — such as highly localized neighborhood guides — or links to the Web's best content on a range of topics.

Former Sun-Timeser Robb Montgomery's got a podcast interview with Editor Michael Cooke and Kenney Marlatt at SND posts a link to a video by Publisher John Cruickshank.

Outside reaction is starting to come in. Alan Jacobson says it's "one of the best redesigns seen in years."

With all the vim and vigor of Bakersfield, KC and Norfolk, the redesigned Sun-Times is bound to get some eyeballs, making the Chicago Tribune or award-winning Mercury News look like your father's Oldsmobile.

But my old friend Steve Rhodes, a veteran Chicago media observer and proprieter of the excellent Beachwood Reporter, is less taken with it:

Ho-hum. While there are some decent elements, it still looks like a dowdy newspaper. And those full-length photos of columnists are nothing but a distraction. But the real problem is one that every redesign faces — that old lipstick on a pig thing. Unfortunately, nobody wants to improve the pig. It's not that hard to understand. Campbell's can change the label all they want, but if their soup still sucks, their soup still sucks. If the Sun-Times — or any paper — wants more readers, you have to make a better newspaper (website not only included, but emphasized). And making a better, must-read newspaper means quality journalism, not "Chicagopedia" entries that purport to explain what words such as "buddy" mean in to people who live here. Redesigns always work around the edges, and in areas like packaging health and shopping news, but never seem to spark better ways to actually report on the city — and that's the guts of any newspaper. Just once I'd like to see a redesign that also gamed out an investment and redeployment of reporters throughout the city, instructed reporters to always wonder during an interview why they're being lied to, and, say, mandated that each reporter file at least one Freedom of Information request a month. That would be a newspaper that would show readership gains.

Also, a couple weeks ago, Rhodes reported:

When asked why the paper didn't invest more in the paper's website, Editor-in-Chief Michael Cooke was heard to say that nobody believes what they read on the Internet.

Yeah, that's the spirit!

Here are more pages from today's paper:

Comments

Heads up: After you hit "post" things may be slow and you may get an error. Most likely, your comment did post. Apologies. I'm looking for a fix.

Who are the designers involved?

Posted by: Christian at April 4, 2007 10:55 AM

Content. Content. Content. But that involves investing in people. Actual reports who know their beats backward and forward. And who are actually smarter than the reader. (But who take the time to explain the hard stuff.) That's why the Wall Street Journal is still a fantastic paper. They've got the best reporters. But investing in people in expensive. And no one seems to want to do that. It's all opinion pieces along AP feeds from sea to shining sea. A sad state of affairs, and no redesign is going to fix that.

Posted by: DC1974 at April 4, 2007 11:02 AM

Michael Cooke told me that the work was led by Jim Emerson, the creative services director for the Vancouver Sun.

Posted by: Robb Montgomery - CEO at April 4, 2007 11:57 AM

The paper looks ten times better, but I'm with Rhodes. Chicago newspapers are embarrassingly shallow (just look at what makes front-page news: A coyote in a Quizno's!). The focus on entertaining readers, rather than informing them, is a horrid business and editorial mistake.

I think it's hilarious that anyone in publishing still thinks the internet won't eclipse print. I work in print and I don't think it'll go away, but the idea of "For more, go online!" is tired. Smart publishing companies will realize the potential of the Web and staff/spend accordingly. And on that note, suntimes.com? Way overdue for a redesign.

Posted by: Annie at April 4, 2007 1:27 PM

Looks like the Sun-Times plans top challenge the Tribune's Red Eye for pun-headline dominance.

"Hello, Dalai"?

Zero points for originality.

Posted by: mike at April 4, 2007 1:40 PM

Agreeing with others. On their pat-on-the-back page three, they announce their commitment to local stories of local interest. And what do they lead this grand push off with? A story of a christian group that has 150 members nationwide with plans to convert Buddhists. That affects, whatt? 1 out of ever 150 Chicago? and a coyote in a fast food joint? Yeah, that's news you can use! Oh, and check out their top Chicago TV/film moments. Apparently nothing happened between 1949 and 1973. Seems that whole 1968 Democratic convention melee thing didn't make the cut, but Jimmy Stewart's Northside 777 or whatever the hell it is did.

Style over substance... that's why they're losing readers, not the internet.

Posted by: Ken at April 4, 2007 7:58 PM

1) "Get em while they're hot" - nice that the marketing intern showed up for this one. (Also shows the inverted "L" just ain't gonna die anytime soon - sigh). Check out the publisher's video online for a hoot, too.

2) "Coyote in Quiznos" - actually kind of a quirky local news blip - front page? not sure - but timely, or EXCLUSIVE? no way. Virtually the same photo was on local web pages (see Time Out's blog, or GapersBlock.com, among others) by 2 pm the day before. Sure not everyone is online all day, but this certainly had to be all over TV as well. People, stop putting old shit on your front pages and especially trumping it as new. Readers see this (especially on Day 1 of a ballyhooed new design!!!) and think, ho-hum, there's not gonna be anything new/unique/relevant inside either. They really missed the boat on this one.

3) "Hello Dalai" - YES!!! cliche headlines, and stock/wire lead photos of people of marginal interest to most of your readers, are gonna save this ship from sinking. Right.

4) The sorry truth: readers don't give a hoot about fonts, decreasingly want information printed on news pulp (at least don't want to pay for it), and publications like Red Eye (free but filled with "news you can use") and Time Out ($3 weekly but extremely smart and helpful) are eating the ST's lunch.

5) Check out Jim Cramer's recent comments about the guys who are running our newspapers. Right on target.

Posted by: EbertFan at April 5, 2007 7:46 AM

Mark - do you have pdf's of the pages you posted?

Posted by: Khushroo at April 7, 2007 3:46 PM

Wasn't the old-look Sun Times good enough? The paper just went through a redesign a few years ago, when the presses were upgraded. If anything, the big bold boxy nameplate makes the paper look more desperate to grab local readers.

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 8:20 PM

I agree with the last comment - the most recent redesign of the Sun-Times which this replaced was much more cohesive, and seemed sleek and active. This new serif font and large "Chicago" make it look like a small town weekly.

Posted by: Dolores at April 19, 2007 11:53 AM

In reply to EbertFan, after reading this, would you agree Jim Cramer sucks? - http://www.stocktagger.com/2007/05/jim-cramer-takeover-targets-performance.html

Posted by: John Singer at July 30, 2007 2:10 AM

Open this post and read what I think about that:,

Posted by: Aepiklxb at June 24, 2008 9:50 PM

Open this post and read what I think about that:,

Posted by: Aepiklxb at June 24, 2008 9:51 PM

Open this post and read what I think about that:,

Posted by: Aepiklxb at June 24, 2008 9:52 PM