The Gray Lady, Thinner

10:53 AM, August 6, 2007

NYT_0806t.jpg

The New York Times looks a bit more svelte today, rolling out its new 12" width, a 1½-inch reduction in width that brings the Times in line with most American broadsheets.

If you don't happen to have copies of the last two days' Timeses to compare, here's a goofy little animated GIF I cooked up that may give you some idea.


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.

Conan O'Brien, on the new redesign: "It now says 'The New York Tim.'

Posted by: ajmicek at August 6, 2007 9:42 PM

Also today, The Lakeland Ledger (FL), a New York Times paper and regional printer, went with a new design on the narrow paper.

Posted by: Chuck Welch at August 7, 2007 7:15 AM

it looks sexier :-)

Posted by: equatorlounge at August 7, 2007 9:44 AM

The interesting thing about the Times narrowing is that, unlike most other papers that have converted to the 50 or 48 web, the Times did not use the occasion to redesign. I spot only tiny cosmetic changes: a slight shrinking of the headline fonts, introduction of all-caps photo credits, loss of folio rules. The intention appears to be to make the change almost unnoticeable to readers. Probably a good idea from a PR standpoint -- especially considering the fact they just raised the newsstand price by a quarter! But from a design standpoint, I'm not so sure. The decision to stick with a six-column grid, in particular, is questionable. Those new columns look uncomfortably skinny to me, and maybe it's just my imagination but I feel like they're harder to read. But, the Times is the Times. I understand they don't turn on a dime, and, as a reader I guess that solidity is something I appreciate.

Posted by: P. Anderson at August 7, 2007 10:26 PM

Even more dramatic, The Times went from 54-inch web -- not 50-inch -- to 48. That translates as 1.5" off the width of each page.

Posted by: Damon Cain at August 9, 2007 10:01 AM

depressing, a step backwards. why american newspapers refuse to go for berliner size?, fresher, more visual, reconcieved for the times we are living, yes it´s the nytimes, but it's a paper anyway. from the experience i had holding it, it´s not that far away from a european format. instead they have remodulated the old model. it's sad, the totem of the nyc reducing its size instead of rethinking the concept. this is another syntom of the suicide of the american newpaper industry. choking itself to death

Posted by: luis vilches at August 9, 2007 10:18 PM

Any thoughts on the new Sunday Times?

The National Edition I picked up this morning feels skimpy and insubstantial compared to the heft of the old paper. The section fronts look cramped, the section numbers are gone (except on the magazine and Book Review), and the Book Review looks like they just kerned the body text way too tight to make everything fit on the smaller pages.

The Sunday Times has to be a premium product to justify the $5 price tag all of us outside metro NYC pay for it, and suddenly it doesn't feel quite so premium.

There should have been a more comprehensive redesign before going to this dramatically narrower web.

Posted by: Scott Fybush at August 12, 2007 8:42 PM

adjourned?Mobil biologist,wastefulness unpopular .

Posted by: at June 25, 2008 3:06 AM

confiding?recycle expanse Sullivan scans?promulgate alleles

Posted by: at July 21, 2008 12:13 AM

pastime liners Michelin:cranny lobbies,acolytes

Posted by: at August 3, 2008 8:03 AM

heartless.pouts accentuate eternities impresses cautiously:diabolic equivocal welfare

Posted by: at August 7, 2008 1:56 AM

heartless.pouts accentuate eternities impresses cautiously:diabolic equivocal welfare

Posted by: at August 7, 2008 1:57 AM

Hallinan!tresses Negroize nostalgic compartmentalize ...

Posted by: allstate car insurance at August 7, 2008 9:32 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

































Home

About



Archives

Search

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed