Where Time? Where the Times?

1. Time magazine switched to a Friday publication date this week because as editor Richard Stengel wrote:

"I believe that getting the magazine on newsstands on Friday helps us set the news agenda, not just mirror it."

Yet the January 15 issue Time was not on any newsstands I could find in downtown Chicago on Friday. The two week old Person of the Year Issue was there, but not the issue in which Stengel published those words. Nor was it available in the local 7-11s on Saturday. Since newsstand availability usually precedes mail delivery in Chicago, I wonder if Time subscribers received their copy on Friday or Saturday--or will it come Monday?

2. The New York Times beefed up their Saturday business section last year to compete with the Weekend Wall Street Journal. I like their additions; Nocera is compelling columnnist and the feature material always has some decent content. But Bill Keller crowed about the advantage The Time had over the WSJ in the hard news area, when the Weekend WSJ debuted.

This Saturday those words seemed hollow. Both the Trib (front news page) and the WSJ had lengthy stories on Motorola's weakened earnings. The Times had a short Reuters piece on Friday but did not match the Trib or WSJ with a staff written analysis on Saturday.

First Thoughts of 07--WSJ edition

There are two--2-- publisher letters in the WSJ today, seting a new national record. I did like the headline on the WSJ Readers Guide's Publisher Letter:

Embracing Change to Build
On a Tradition of Excellence

That is not only an evergreen but it deserves a place in the corporate/government Verbiage Hall Of Fame. Worthy of a Annual Report Award too, for lack of clarity.

I'd like to see a WSJ reporter--used to cutting through corporate blather-- do a real story on the redeign:

WSJ cuts space 15-20%
Union Protests Via Times Ad

The first page of the Readers Guide gets the Good Grey Lady award for its three right columns of grey type, broken up by only the corporate headlines and head shots.

At least the redesign has a purpose, saving $18 million in newsprint costs. The smaller WSJ --about a column slimmer than the NY Times and a half inch narrower than the Tribune-- is much easier to handle. That's a plus. The new body type looks good to my aging eyes. I like the bigger headlines. The bolder color palette --which includes salmom--is nowhere in evidence on page one. Don't want to confuse the executives into thinking they have picked up USA Today.I also appreciate the bigger refers on the top of the Personal Journal. In the past I could never tell what was covered on what day of the week.

We will have to hold a contest for the best billboards--or whatver those heads with a color background are called--on national papers.

It will be interesting to see if the WSJ can avoid the large headlines+ smaller page = clutter syndrome that afflicts the Tribune and USA Today's front pages.

Keep in mind the design history of the Trib. When they cut their paper size, they proudly trumpeted their new headline fonts, especially for their ability to signal the imporatnce of a story. A few years later they had them redone and replaced--very quietly. And now they have promoted Bill Adee to improve their design and news presentation.

So the WSJ design is just one step in the process. I still think a tabloid would have been interesting.

Later this week, we'll (I'm adopting corporate speak in honor of the WSJ today) look at the implications for the redesign/slimming of the NYTimes and also compare the Trib, WashPost, USA Today and WSJ 's front page with the "wider than the rest" NYTImes.