Slimmer, Slicker and Redesigned: What Do You Think of the New St. Petersburg Times?

We're expecting lots of complaints.

Employees throughout the building have been coached on how to handle angry callers, with tipsheets indicating all the changes involved so we can all coach readers through the upcoming changes.

Starting today, we have a narrower newspaper, it's true. But we also took the opportunity to redesign it, in hopes of making a more reader-friendly, modern newspaper. But change is always hard, so we expect some upset responses.

I won't lie -- I want this to work, so I can keep working the coolest job in creation. So, to keep things positive, I've come up with the Top Five Reasons Why You Should Love the Times' Redesign:

5) Did I mention keeping my job?

4) Less paper for Bill O'Reilly to hate.

3) Fits snugly in the bottom of most birdcages.

2) Just enough features moved around to keep our older readers guessing.

1) An expanded Sunday employment section called Working, in case the whole keeping my job thing doesn't work out.

I'm probably taking my job in my hands making such stupid jokes about something so serious. But it's a landmark step for the St. Petersburg Times at a point when newspapers have to start innovating or get left behind.

I'm sure you'll let us know where we fall on that scale before too long.   

Comments

[Mark]

My wife stormed into my home office to tell me she thinks the Time's new colorless weather map is an "abomination." And she hates the fact that they pared down the number of cities they cover, since she likes to find out what's happening in Buffalo and elsewhere. This could indicate stormy customer relations.

And, now that she mentions it, it does seem strange to have a colorless weather map in suncoast publication. Such a downer. Now, Seattle I might be able to understand... Anyway, here's my suggestion: put the weather map on the back of Section A, where you're probably going to have color anyhow. And don't forget the Buffalonians, who flock to Florida looking for an escape and who want to be reassured that the weather up north is cold, wet, miserable and otherwise worth spending a few months in sunny (though not on the weather page) St. Petersburg.

[kn]

Nelson Poynter is turning over in his grave! The gutting of the local news over the last five years is appalling. Graphicly, the paper is better looking. However, the articles
are much shorter. The depth is disappearing. What is the point of subscribing to the paper if there is going to be this steady reduction in news written by local reporters.

Hopefully,

[Eric Deggans]

Sorry I haven't yet responded to some very valid criticisms about the redesign, but I spent much of yesterday hanging out at the Don Cesar with various Fox News folks my story which ran today.

I wouldn't say our promotional focus on the reader benefits of the design is lying. I think these guys are trying to focus on the upside for readers in a move that we had to take to secure the newspaper's future.

As I said in my previous post, I think change is difficult. I miss having more space to tell stories and having a page which was larger than our competitors. But, as a previous poster noted and a I wrote in a story last year, this is a trend which many major newspapers across the country are adopting or have adopted already, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal -- which is shrinking more than we did.

I think, once you get used to the changes, you may find the newspaper more valuable than it seems now. And as we get more specific feedback on which changes are working, we will tinker with the redesign to make the new paper even more effective.

I hope you'll stick with us. I think we're working hard to deliver as much newspaper as we possibly can...

[Bob]

The St. Petersburg Times has always been a classy newspaper, one that my northern friends and relatives admired and envied whenever they visited.

This "new and improved" version is embarrassing. The much-trumpeted debut of it constitutes the final fatal blow in the death process that has been going on for a few years. What a huge loss to the city of St. Petersburg and surrounding areas.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have failed gloriously in your attempt to appear young and hip and thrown the baby out with the bathwater. No doubt you will ever admit it, not with the millions spent and the slick ad campaign instructing us all on how wonderful it is.

Shame on you.

[josh]

I realize you have a job to protect, but a good reporter would have called out the lie that keeps getting repeated in the Times promos about going to a new size because it's easier to hold and better for readers. That's a lie, that's not what prompted this. You said so yourself, tho in a very mild way, that it's a cost-cutting move. There's no shame in cutting costs. There is shame in lying about it tho.

That said, I do think the redesign is snappier and makes it easier to skim a section to find what you want. But I wish they'd pay more attention to sharper writing. some of those boxes down the side on each front page are pretty blandly written. The ones on 1A and Sports are pretty good but the 1B and Business ones are pretty snooze-inducing.

The design makes me want to read it, the writing needs to reward that and get to the point and maybe even some humor. Your TBT tabloid seems to do that much better. I just wish I could find the darn thing more often.

[Mary]

I guess I am a little bothered that you think that critiquing the new format constitutes a complaint. I feel that I have some legitimate concerns about the new format that I think need to be addressed.

I must admit I am puzzled about the rationale for changing the format of the paper since the old format worked really well. I do not think the new format is an improvement. It doesn't really look better, it doesn't read better, and it no longer stands apart from its competitor.

In addition, I like doing the Sudoku, Jumble and Cryptoquote puzzles and they are now almost impossible to do. The Sudoku is just way too small and I cannot work it at all.

I know you will say it's going to take some time to get used to this change, but I must tell you it's like the paper suddenly developed ADD. The articles are all jumbled together and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason in its visual structure. It's harder to read than the old paper. It's definitely harder for older eyes to read. I was unable to read either yesterday or today's issues at all.

Of course, I will give it some time, but if I can't get used to it enough to be able to read it, I guess I will end up having to cancel my subscription. I get the daily New York Times so I won't feel too deprived (and I hope it never changes!).

I grew up reading and loving the St. Petersburg Times and I am bereft.

There is a lot to be said for tradition and brands that endure. I doubt that the New York Times will ever do something as self-destructive as this, which is how I view what has happened to the St. Petersburg Times.

And I fail to see the cost-savings realized here---it wasn't broke, so why did it need to be "fixed" to the tune of $25 million???

The size is smaller, yes, so is the content. It is diminished. Literally. What a sad, sad day.

I suspect the "fresh & vibrant" (which sounds like a deodorant to me, sorry) is an attempt to appeal (pander?) to a younger reading audience. Frankly, this looks like a crappy, longer version of the tbt.

What the Times seems to fail to realize is this is all at the risk of alienating longtime loyal readers, many of whom are, yes, that dreaded undesirable demographic (the aging boomers). But the boomers will continue to read papers (maybe not this one) for another 40-50 years. I think the Times may miss some of us.

[Jim]

My impression is that there is a lot more advertising than there used to be. The front page looks a bit too tabloid for my taste with the "in the know" bar on the side. Sure, you want people to be able to find things but the stories seem like they've been made shorter on the front page, like you are trying to cram in way too much information on the front page.

The biggest improvement is the weather page. That was needing a big improvement for years, although it's too bad you guys dropped Dick Fletcher in the process. I think the new sections like the "Metro Report" and "lattitudes" are going to be well received. I've read the "Times" for over twenty years now so this is a definite change.

My other hometown paper, the "Columbus Dispatch" redid their format in 2002 and it seems to have gone well for them. But they also cut down on the number of stories they report so it's a losing game for the reader.

Let me just say that I am glad I am not in the newspaper/journalism business. Newspapers and television news try to appeal too much to a younger audience that is, quite frankly, too busy playing video games or listening to their iPod to be reading the newspaper or watching the evening news. It's a sad statement, but the more you try to appeal to a younger audience that isn't even receptive to what you are doing, then everyone loses out.

[Eric Deggans]

Yeah, it seems the powers that be are downplaying the financial aspect in explanations, but that is truly the bottom line here.

We are saving millions by slimming down the newspaper, because the cost of newsprint is increasing tremendously. And once you decide to slim down the paper, you have to redesign it, so you might as well work hard to revamp it into a more reader-friendly product...

So here we are. I have a feeling we will have more letters to the editor in editions where we don't spend so much space on endorsements...

P.S. Where are all the letters to the editor? My day just isn't complete without hearing some nut job explain that N. Koreans are really starving because of American policy.

I thought the rationale behind this was purely economic - same news on less paper. But the SPT explanation doesn't even mention cost cutting. Without that benefit, I can't imagine what the benefit is????? Basically, everything is smaller and seems stuffed together. Were people complaining about bulky newspapers or something? I'm sure in a few days this format will be the new normal, and I won't even notice anymore. But I'm at a loss trying to figure out just what constitutes an improvement. It just looks to me like you made everything smaller but the advertising.

Is it just me or is it kind of interesting that the "We want your feedback" section requires that commenters register and provide all sorts of identifying info? Hmmmmmmmmmm......

My first impression was that there are a lot more ads. It seemed like there were some news stories stuffed in between the advertising. It was kinda like reading a news story in the flyer. Also, I think a lot of old people aren't going to like the smaller print in the jumble and cryptogram.

[mr cynical]

ahem, you havent done anything that many if not most of your peers, and competitors, have done already. your biggest competitor, the tampa tribune, slimmed down at least two or three years ago. and no one noticed much. their readers are just as old and ill educated as most of those in the sptimes circ areas, so i wouldnt worry too too much about a negative tsunami. as long as sports, obits and comics are relatively untouched, it wont matter much to your average reader what you do with the rest, i.e., the part that most newspaper journos fantasize is so important to their audience, i.e., the big, important local and national news stories which many readers simply skim over, if at all. so, though i cant se the redesign online, ill assume its pretty much like dozens of others already done around the country...