OK, so First Things is an ugly magazine. I mean, nobody is going to say, “Wow, that’s a beautiful design!” about the pages we print.
Of course, there’s something coolly uncompromising in its ugliness: We’re about text, man, and here’s the text, and if you want pretty pictures, then go someplace else. Even the heavy rag paper we use—the current magazine’s one nice design element—has always had about it an element of cool assertion: We’re a journal, not some glossy fashion magazine.
But . . . but . . . maybe it’s time to make a change. Twenty years is a long time for any magazine to stick to one design. Besides, (1) that rag paper we use is howlingly expensive (glossy and matte paper are much cheaper), and (2) we’re getting more and more color advertisements, which print poorly on rag stock, and (3) for the last five years, First Things has been stuck in a circulation range just above 30,000—as though we’ve hit a barrier that, in our current design, we can’t find any way to break through.
So I’ve been thinking about a redesign—and wanted to ask what everyone else thought. Got some ideas? Got some comments?
It’s a deep rule of publishing that you can’t make a change, no matter how good, without some readers complaining. (Fr. Neuhaus used to joke that Jim Nuechterlein, the great longtime editor of First Things, was so personally conservative that he would have objected to the movie downloads alterations on the second day of Creation.) But, I think, we can weather some complaint. The question is, rather, what the changes should be.
The Atlantic has redesigned recently. I don’t like it much, but I could be wrong. Commentary has redesigned, too. Standpoint seems interestingly laid-out. The New Republic? Paris Match? American Crafts? Vogue? Architectural Digest? What magazines, and what magazine elements, do you like?
October 21st, 2009 | 6:57 am
Bring on the redesign! Both Books & Culture and The New Republic use attractive design without sacrificing substance.
October 21st, 2009 | 7:03 am
There’s a certain elegance to the simplicity of First Things… I wouldn’t change the layout one bit — it’s one of the few publications that relies on the quality of its prose alone. Not a bad thing, IMO.
Personally, I am an avid reader of two publications: FT and the Economist. But I wouldn’t swap out one format for another. I just happen to be a big fan of the way things are.
Regards,
October 21st, 2009 | 7:27 am
Although I would purchase First Things if it came in a plain brown wrapper, I do understand that you must expand your readership. Perhaps the Catholic architect Matthew Alderman or someone else with his combination of faith and artistic gifts could design a cover in memory of Father Neuhaus and worthy of the distinguished content of First Things.
October 21st, 2009 | 7:33 am
I like it just the way it is. It is distinct.
October 21st, 2009 | 8:16 am
The rag paper has always added a certain degree of pleasure to reading First Things. Text heavy…yet sensual. (On the other hand, if you changed to a cheaper stock, would the savings be passed along to readers? Hmmm….)
Just no perfume sample strips, OK?
October 21st, 2009 | 8:55 am
Keep the content. Do not overshadow the content with the redesign. Support the content with the redesign.
Do not use pictures as substitutes for the content. I now subscribe to The Economist as the American news magazines took this route. A picture is worth a thousand words, but First Things doesn’t contain those types of words.
Glossy paper to save money is fine. A somewhat smaller size would make it easier to read while reclining. More ads are fine. I can ignore them individually. But don’t let the ads intrude on the content as current web design fashions do.
But keep the content and you’ll keep me.
October 21st, 2009 | 8:56 am
If you do want to redesign the magazine, one great precedent is Foreign Policy Magazine, which under its current editor, Moises Naim, has become very engaging (though less “serious” looking). For those of us in this field who slog through Foreign Affairs and sundry economic journals and bureaucratic papers, FP is a fun thing to read and full of great information. I do like FT just the way it is, though, and you might put off some of your current readers. The Economist has also made subtle changes over time and, like FP, has built in witty aspects to its titles and overall look. You might also consult your very own Secondhand Smoke blogger, who has very creative graphics that to my mind do not undermine the seriousness of his messages.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:01 am
I like the fact that First Things as is feels more permanent, so however the redesign goes I hope that quality can remain.
City Journal comes to mind as also having that sort of feel to it.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:02 am
I did not realize the paper was expensive. But maybe that’s the reason all of my other old magazines have fallen apart or are torn and wrinkled, while my very first issue of First Things (from 1991) still looks and feels great.
Regarding the cover: I’ve always liked being able to look at the cover and see essentially everything contained inside.
But, of course, I will still subscribe no matter what. I have faith in the innovators that their schemes, pernicious or otherwise, do not reach to the content.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:07 am
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
I love the rag paper. It demands that it be read, not skimmed.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:29 am
If you can, keep the rag paper. I like it. I agree the design can use work. Although it has some annoyingly cheap-looking elements, your evangelical imitator The City has a lot of design elements that I think are really attractive (i.e., their font, the covers).
October 21st, 2009 | 9:41 am
I love FT. I’ll love FT if the quality of the prose is maintained reguardless of any design changes. I’m deaply touched though that you asked for our opinions. Thank you for valuing your reader’s preferences. Take care and God bless.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:45 am
As long as it doesn’t end up looking like so many ‘edgy’ magazines do that are designed by the progeny of Sesame Street’s attention-deficit-inducing style.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:49 am
First Things is NOT an ugly magazine. It’s really sort of elegant and the paper is a real pleasure. And it doesn’t wrinkle up and get nasty when you fall asleep with it in bed. The New Yorker is an attractive magazine, but after a hard night it looks frowzy and terrible. First Things still looks good in the morning.
What are ugly magazines? National Review and The New Republic (but especially NR). Everything in them looks second rate as though they were trying to be fancy and slick, but couldn’t nearly afford it.
So if you redesign, please get a brilliant designer who has some sense. Be simple and don’t try to do things you cannot afford to do and so look cheap–like a perpetual failed attempt. Don’t be a copycat. Pay close attention to the type design. Go classic and elegant, as befits your content. And please, no illustrations.
October 21st, 2009 | 9:52 am
I am quite happy with the present “ugly” First Things. Gloss for lips and paint.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:05 am
I like the rag paper. I keep my old First Things. Cheaper paper would not stand up.
If you’re going to go to cheaper paper, just go completely digital.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:13 am
The interior layout is fine, but please get rid of the gosh awful changing color scheme on the cover. The colors chosen, and the fact that you change them every month, is a Mickey Mouse design feature and it undermines the quality of what is said inside the covers.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:53 am
I’m afraid I like the rag paper too :-)
Revamping the cover might be result in the biggest return for the least “messing-with”…
Fwiw, I’ve found that there is nothing that more transfixes me in a magazine cover than for its background to consist entirely of a reverently-painted or sculpted human face or faces, as in, say, a cover-filling closeup of a detail of, or the entirely of, the face of a medieval or Renaissance Madonna or Saint. “Smithsonian” occasionally has come up with such a cover, and perhaps a few other culturally-themed publications — and I find that, whether glimpsed on a waiting room chair or glimmering amid the dross on a magazine rack, such images draw me as with an irresistible filament of wonder and heart’s desire.
I suppose they also are expensive to produce…sigh.
Failing that idea, I would suggest merely going to less lugubrious colors.
In any case — coraggio, keep up the wonderful work, and thank you for asking!
October 21st, 2009 | 10:55 am
My son Andrew turns 18 in a few days. He opens up Frirst Things before I get home and then informs me which articles he thinks I should read first because he has already begun. On this we agree – there are no changes necessary. By the way, he has requested his own subscription when he departs to college in a few months.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:12 am
The First Things calico’ed themes were Never ugly.
I volunteer to complain about the redesign, regardless of its inevitable high quality.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:32 am
This is a tough year. So much change that I have not been looking for…
October 21st, 2009 | 11:46 am
PLEASE keep the rag paper–I have copies of First Things dating back to when I first started reading in college 10 years ago. No other magazine has held up nearly as well (that goes for the content too!). How about printing the color ads on a glossy insert and keeping rag paper for the substance? And I agree with other commenters, keep the font and design befitting of the seriousness of First Things. As a comparison, The New Atlantis has great content but the design is very amateurish, yuck!
October 21st, 2009 | 11:50 am
Adding drawings a la the New Yorker or GKC would be terrific and need force little added alteration.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:55 am
I’m with the wouldn’t-change-a-thing crowd. And I’ll add that the covers are perfect; when I’m flipping through back issues in search of that one article from two years ago, it’s great to have the titles displayed right there in big, bold print on the front of the magazine. It would more than double my search time to have to flip to the table of contents of every issue whenever I wanted to find an article. So I hope that, whatever else may change, THAT doesn’t.
(I’m curious as to how many people archive, say, The Economist, NR, etc. My wife and I had a subscription to The Economist for a while, but never kept an issue. Whereas I think pretty much every FT reader archives FT’s. So any re-design does need to feel archivable. –That includes, too, having a spine on which the date and issue number can be printed. Who wants to keep a spineless magazine?)
I’m not crazy about the idea of photos or illustrations in FT; I could live with a few, I guess, but I’ve always liked that FT is a haven from our image-obsessed culture. Just the reader and the printed word. That resonates well with something else, somehow . . .
But so long as the writing quality continues, I know I’ll keep subscribing, come what may.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:57 am
Au contraire, Lee…
The varying colors of the covers make it easier for me to find a particular back issue.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:58 am
1) Keep ads and content distinct. Too many mags these days make their articles look like ads (weird typefaces, strange alignments, etc.). The visual difference between ad and content should be stark.
2) Print the title of the article in the header/footer of the page.
3) Don’t try to compete; try to make it effective and attractive on its own terms, not relative to all the glamour out there.
October 21st, 2009 | 12:04 pm
I echo the sentiments of most above: the rag paper is elegant and has its own message to bring. So I’d keep it. Furthermore, I find little if anything to change in the design or layout. If I want glossy pictures, garish graphics, and vacuous drivel to read, I’ll pick up Time or Newsweek. First Things should stick to its current practice, which puts one in mind of the famous self-observation of those in the Roman Curia: “We think in centuries here.”
October 21st, 2009 | 12:09 pm
> Christine writes “lugubrious colors”
Shhh, Christine. Mary Rose Rybak, our managing editor, loves those dark, shadowy colors. She’ll be very sad to hear them called lugubrious.
Years ago, First Things tried a cover that had as its background a reproduction of denim cloth. Here it is: August/September 1998. Anybody else remember that one? Whew.
October 21st, 2009 | 12:17 pm
I *love* FT’s current look and feel. I subscribe to several magazines but nothing that is as easy to read and has such a nice tactile sensation.
My middle-aged eyes find it more and more difficult to read glossy paper and to pick their way through the winding paths of text between graphics and ads. So simple is better. (And, please, oh please, never use “Continued on page …”. )
I admit, since I carry my FT everywhere I go, I like how the serious cover shows off the fact that I’m not wasting my time reading a run-of-the-mill grocery store mag.
October 21st, 2009 | 12:26 pm
Like many others, I will remain a FT reader regardless of the magazine design… but for designs I like, the most beautifully designed magazine I read is Woodworking Magazine (www.woodworking-magazine.com). If you can make FT as pleasing to look at as this one – you’ll make a great move.
October 21st, 2009 | 12:57 pm
I too love the current look and feel of FT. I also love the durability of the current binding and paper. Ten year old copies are as good as new, and unlike glossy/cheaper paper magazines that are stapled in the middle, I’ve never had FT pages come loose.
I’d hate to see FT start to look more like a slick, ephemeral, current events newsmag, rather than the hefty, serious, and lasting journal that it is (an exemplar of the “permanent things” as well as “first things”).
As long as the quality of the thought and writing and other standards remained the same, I’d read it no matter what it looked like, but I’d be sad at any changes that compromised on paper quality, binding, and durability.
October 21st, 2009 | 1:03 pm
Oh, please, no!
I like the rag paper because it doesn’t produce glare in the light and it lasts. I keep my old copies of First Things like I do precious books and refer to them from time to time.
As for visuals, we are practically assaulted with them at every turn and they encourage passive attention. If you must change the cover to grab for the attention of potential new readers, fine, but please keep the inside free from the distracting clutter. If you are determined to add eye candy, put a pop up in the center that the rest of us can discard!
October 21st, 2009 | 2:16 pm
Whatever the redesign, keep it simple, simple, simple. In an effort to keep up with evolving media trends, competition, magazine rack neighbors, etc., the danger will be–will always be–that style matters as much as–if not more than–substance. You can be simple in presentation, complex and challenging in substance, while still giving the magazine a bit of a facelift.
But once FT starts looking like Christianity Today–and heaven forbid its content ever follows CT’s!–I’m headed for the doors.
October 21st, 2009 | 2:29 pm
I think there is a general concern that change would “dumb down” FT.
Sacred art (Michael O’Brien?) as a cover background would make it more beautiful, but is it necessary?
I agree with Anita K., reading First Things in public makes me feel smarter than I really am, perhaps a change in the cover would tone down my vanity, and for that I would be grateful.
I am touched that you value your readers opinions enough to ask. Thank you!
October 21st, 2009 | 2:35 pm
< < Mary Rose Rybak, our managing editor, loves those dark, shadowy colors. She’ll be very sad to hear them called lugubrious. >>
Very sad, indeed. Deeper and deeper in lugubriousness. I’m afraid Christine will be responsible for the next issue’s black cover.
October 21st, 2009 | 2:50 pm
The black cover wouldn’t be so awful. Keeping the black lettering, however, might pose problems.
On the other hand, it would be instantly collectible, like “The White Album”: “The Black Issue.”
October 21st, 2009 | 3:26 pm
“Years ago, First Things tried a cover that had as its background a reproduction of denim cloth. Here it is: August/September 1998. Anybody else remember that one? Whew.”
We don’t have to remember it, Jody. We all still have it on our shelves, in chronological order with all the others since the beginning. Ours have made two transatlantic moves, not to mention umpteen other city-to-city and house-to-house moves, and still look good as new. Which, as you point out, may not be saying much, but still, they do hold up.
October 21st, 2009 | 3:57 pm
I join with those who are happy with your current design, and who will continue to subscribe and read it no matter what your redesign resembles.
What surprises, and even shocks me is that your paid subscriptions have plateaued at about 30,000 copies. While no doubt that figure leads you to appreciate the Orthodox Jewish view that quality matters more than quantity, I can see no reason why your number should not be significantly higher.
I do have some ideas about how you might increase subscriptions, and will refine them and send them to you separately.
Since I don’t believe in Rabbinical infallibility, and would not apply it to me even if I did so believe, feel free to discard them cheerfully if you find them useless.
Rabbi Chaim Frazer
October 21st, 2009 | 4:10 pm
Please, keep it just the way it is. I share a subscription with my father. We hold on to our issues and I like how they hold up, especially with his notes all over them.
If you want to change the cover design, please keep it text-heavy. I like knowing the topics and writers in each issue without having to look inside. Also, like Ellyn I disagree with Lee about the changing color scheme–please keep it so I can find a particular old issue more easily. And unlike some others, it seems, I appreciate the color schemes as of late. The November issue looks great.
October 21st, 2009 | 4:28 pm
I love First Things as is (especially the rag paper); but I suppose you would expect a conservative to say as much. I would even be willing to pay a high subscription rate to keep the current design of the journal in place. With so much changing in our world, I cherish the permanent feel of FT.
That having been said, I will continue to be a strong supporter of FT regardless of its design.
October 21st, 2009 | 5:06 pm
Regarding finances: Probably a large percentage of subscribers are teachers. Since First Things is now on EBSCO and other common library databases, all subscribing teachers should ask their institutions to subscribe. Then, whenever possible, refer students to First Things articles they have to find for their studies.
Then the circulation boost could help us keep the quality paper? Maybe?
October 21st, 2009 | 5:19 pm
Rabbi Chaim Frazer wrote: “I do have some ideas about how you might increase subscriptions, and will refine them and send them to you separately.”
Yes, please do send them along. Such things are always gratefully received.
JB
October 21st, 2009 | 5:21 pm
I would be grateful if First Things had footnotes. Thank you.
October 21st, 2009 | 5:55 pm
It could just be me, but I like to have in mind a visual image of who is talking and thinking in the articles I read. So I would enjoy seeing a small B&W photo of the author accompany each major article in FT. An example of the kind of photo that would work is on the inside back cover of the October Issue. FYI, I brought this idea up at our last Denver ROFTERS meeting, and it was roundly ‘booed’.
October 21st, 2009 | 7:14 pm
Like most others here, I think First Things is just fine as it is, and I do like the different-colored, text-heavy covers.
But if a sensitive redesign would allow FT to break free of its subscription plateau and reach a wider audience, then I would support it wholeheartedly. FT is way too precious to be restricted to those “in the know”, and I can see how the current design gets passed over in the midst of all the other glossies that surround it on the magazine stand.
So go ahead, redesign away! Just don’t change the content!
October 21st, 2009 | 8:13 pm
I realize that this is not on point, but how about changing the blog bar popup on your website so that it doesn’t automatically disappear if your cursor strays too far north? That is the only annoying thing about the website.
October 21st, 2009 | 8:20 pm
The design was great for a journal that began with a promise but had not yet the heritage to back it up. I was a charter subscriber. Richard John Neuhaus was a longtime acquaintance and I just had to read what he would write. But, the times have changed. What was in large measure a personal project of RJN has become a journal with an identity, heritage, and voice in its own right. I would think that it is time for a redo. Just be careful that the redesign lends a view to its past as well as points to the future — some consistency is in order. Good luck on the venture. I will continue to read what is coming even as I cherish every past issue.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:13 pm
Chances are, whatever format changes you are considering, there is already a journal out there doing it– a journal which I do not buy because I buy First Things instead. Please remember that most magazines are obnoxious.
Want to improve the way your ads look? Why don’t you start by insisting their copy includes some reference to a real geographic location? I can’t tell you how many conference announcements and program descriptions in FT have intrigued me, yet offered no clue as to in exactly which state (or country!) I might find the College of St. Obscura of the So-and-So.
October 22nd, 2009 | 12:32 am
Seeing as how someone mentioned me in one of the posts (thanks!!), thought I’d chime in myself, as I have some experience in this area. The different colors are interesting, but also in some ways limiting, as it permits only fairly ‘high modern’ approaches in the typology.
This is not a bad thing though a more modern-classic look in parchment-colored paper with the titles on the cover in a black serifed font with some red initial letters, and perhaps a nice ornamental border or headpiece in black and white would be nice. Type should be well-spaced, confident, and fairly simple–but not stark or floridly Victorian. Perhaps the main title could be in red caps, with the article titles in black with large initials and small caps, and any supplimentary text in italics. One probably should avoid lots of … … before the page numbers and simply have the numeral.
It needn’t be explicitly theological (given the magazine is ecumenical, this could lead to some symbolic traffic jams) but perhaps there is some single symbol or set of symbols that could be discretely worked into the ornament or headpiece/tailpiece. It ought not to be too literally old-fashioned, but some of that elegance could be worked into the feel of the design. The typography used in the works of the early twentieth-century designer Martin Travers and the ornamental borders of the architect/illustrator Bertram Goodhue (which are elegant and classical but with a bold and distinctly non-Victorian sensibility) could offer good precedent.
A small but variable number of specially-commissioned but still fairly generic graphic flourishes, tailpieces or headpieces, could be sprinkled through the magazine–below a title or at the end of an article–to add variety. They’d be the same for each edition, of course.
Of course, if you wanted to do something really wild, you could take a page (mwaha) from the wonderfully-designed pages of the old Viennese art-nouveau journal Ver Sacrum…
I think the other thing to ask is, why is this being done? Is it to spruce up an existing (text-heavy but popular and straightforward) format, which is essentially what I’ve suggested, with a few more graphics? Or is it, as someone said, to attract new readers, which might require a more variable cover, though could also bring up more complications? Something to consider, and glad you’re listening to reader input.
October 22nd, 2009 | 7:42 am
I agree with those who like the rag, and visual simplicity.
Many of the advertisements print poorly because they are low-quality JPEG images. Don’t blame the rag!
If you’d asked me how many people in the U.S. are willing to pay FT’s price for the kinds of articles FT prints, I would have guessed lower than 30,000… and I doubt you will do better than 30,000 with shiny pictures. :-)
October 22nd, 2009 | 8:12 am
I’m confident that whatever changes are finally implemented, FT will continue to be a great magazine. My one suggestion is this: do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, go from perfect binding to staples. Keep the perfect binding at all costs.
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:42 am
My recommendation is that FT should adopt a format similar to the journal, Interpretation (www.interpretation.org), in size (7 x 10) and style (clean and classic). However, I think the cover should still feature the contents and maintain color differentiation for each issue.
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:45 pm
Please, please, please do not change the design. All of my favorite publications went radically downhill once they began focusing on style more than substance. Once finances and resources begin to be diverted from content to marketing/design, the shark has been jumped.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:54 pm
To follow up on Jamie’s comment above: Good graphic design (like good editing) is invisible. If people start commenting on how exquisite (attractive, exciting, whatever) it is, it’s too much. It’s supposed to be entirely in the service of the content, to remove any obstacles between it and the ability of readers to take it in. The effect should be subliminal, enhancing whatever pleasure readers get from reading the book but without their even noticing that it’s there.
On the other hand, I agree with Jody that FT the magazine is ugly — endearingly ugly, but ugly. I don’t have many concrete suggestions for making it look crisper and more polished, but that’s what I think you should aim for. Take what it already is and make it look like its better self, not like something it never was and shouldn’t try to be. OK, one concrete suggestion would be to substitute serif for sanserif on the cover.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:37 pm
If you must change the paper, go with plain white rather than anything glossy. Plain paper is good for conveying ideas about the first things; glossy paper is good for conveying the lusts of the flesh and the luxuries of the world.
I do not think a redesign is necessarily imprudent. The simplicity of the current design may be scaring away potential readers who wrongly think FT is too academic for their tastes or abilities.
As for the circulation numbers, Fr. RJN [RIP] frequently wrote he expected them to plateau at a certain point, though it wasn’t 30,000. See, e.g., the Summer 2004 issue. I do not doubt that whatever redesign, if any, FT undertakes, it will not be so significant that in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience FT becomes about second and third things.
As a post script, many have taken this as an occasion to share stories about the material durability of FT. I will add a few of my own. Mold did begin to grow on an issue I was citing in a paper, but that was only after spilling a flour and water mixture on it and then leaving it over Christmas break in my outdoor locker in the foggy San Francisco Bay Area. Dad kept back issues from 1991 for more than ten years, but has gotten rid of them now. I don’t think the University of Virginia has subscribed for as long as Dad; if you’re in Charlottesville looking for all the issues, in print, the Center for Christian Study will be much more help than the main University library.
October 22nd, 2009 | 7:54 pm
Keep the paper, use the cover to attract attention. Keep the inside the same. You are probably losing folks with the lines of text on the cover. The first things logo with a more attractive cover will have copies flying off the newsstand.
October 23rd, 2009 | 1:27 am
Please proceed carefully. First Things has a simple yet sophisticated design.
Consider tweaking or massaging rather than a redesign.
I purchase my copy from the magazine rack at my local bookstore and always make a visual comparison to the other publications it sits among. The uncoated, substantial paperstock conveys a sense of honesty and importance.
October 23rd, 2009 | 9:56 am
Please do not change anything about FT’s print edition. Its look is distictive and elegant, like most of the ideas it conveys. It’s design has a feeling of independence of approach that is precious.
I must say that the changes that the website has undergone provoke mixed feelings in me. They seem a bit of a self-concious attempt to keep in line with the blogosphere and I can’t help but feel that any change to the print edition will also seek to conform to other publications of lesser value.
October 23rd, 2009 | 11:25 am
Anyway, FT’s circulation seems to me more an issue of availability/exposure than design. I live in NYC and have been reading First Things for about four years now and have only once seen a copy of it among other magazines/journals displayed in mainstream and independent bookstores.
October 23rd, 2009 | 1:30 pm
Nick Melucci writes: “FT’s circulation seems to me more an issue of availability/exposure than design. I live in NYC and have been reading First Things for about four years now and have only once seen a copy of it among other magazines/journals displayed in mainstream and independent bookstores.”
Yep—but this might be one of the reasons for a redesign. Across the country, with the monopoly of Barnes & Noble’s et al., the newsstand sales of our level of magazine is in decline. Sharp, sharp decline: Unless a magazine has fame or a big circulation, they don’t want to carry it. FT needs to find some way to reach the level of sales that makes the newsstands carry it—and thus gives the magazine sales.
It’s not just FT that’s caught in this bind. Try to find a copy of a magazine as old and established as Commentary in a magazine shop today.
October 24th, 2009 | 12:10 am
I appreciate you asking readers for their input, so allow me to second some suggestions others have made:
1. As many have said, please keep the rag paper. It really does help give the magazine a feeling of seriousness and durability.
2. I think that redesigning the cover would be a good way to make the magazine for attractive to newcomers without sacrificing the content. I would be fine with artwork on the cover, but if there’s a way to keep the “headlines” on the cover as well, that would be great. I bought my first copy of FT last summer when I saw “The Death of Protestant America”, “The Vindication of ‘Humanae Vitae’”, and “Benedict in America” calling to me on a bookstore newstand.
3. The suggestion to print the article titles in the header/footer is a great idea – it would make finding a particular article much easier.
4. As for the inside content, I am confident that you will not sacrifice the quality of the content. I would have no problem with art or illustrations inside the magazine, and also like the idea of small author photos. But whatever you do, don’t make things too complicated – the simplicity of the layout is one of the things that makes First Things stand out.
October 24th, 2009 | 9:07 am
Regarding ads, you could design these in-house to ensure that they are in keeping with the overall layout. If done elegantly (and effectively) advertisers should be happy with this solution. Inside cover ads eg Ignatius Press could remain the same.
October 24th, 2009 | 9:40 am
Dear Jody,
I’ve thought about this for a long time.
- I like the simple elegance of the magazine’s interior design, though I agree with Matt, above, that the occasional flourish at the close of an article – instead of the ol’ solid square – could be a subtly pleasing change.
- I like the rag paper because it sets the magazine apart from all the other magazines out there – it’s the only non-flimsy periodical extant, that I’m aware of, and that solidity suits well the magazine’s contents.
- I’ve always thought that the cover was ugly, and an unjust representation of the magazine itself. Contrarily, I’ve always liked the Table of Contents page, which does a much more attractive job of outlining what an issue contains. Why not simply use the TC as the cover page? Maybe give it a border and a couple subtle font alterations (again, as per Matt, above), and I think you’d be golden.
- Or, if you have a few dollars to spare, consider commissioning Matt and a few others to design two or three alternate covers for you, for a nominal fee, and see what results you receive. Or perhaps kind-hearted people have already sent in such redesigns for you to consider.
I agree with your premise, and wish you Godspeed in working it out.
Happy hymnody!
- Chris
October 24th, 2009 | 11:48 am
May I suggest a centerfold?
No? Okay, then don’t change a first thing.
October 24th, 2009 | 12:02 pm
I like it the way it is, but these are the elements about which I feel most strongly:
(1) Whatever you do, don’t go to a slick cover. One of my favorite elements of the magazine is the texture and consistency of the cover.
(2) Keep the interesting color schemes. It’s hard for me to describe what I like about them, but I think their beauty is. . . Prokofievian?
(3) I really like the typeface that’s used inside the magazine.
(4) Keep the rag paper.
In the spirit of positive contribution, here’s a change I could get behind: have someone help that monastery come up with a better advertising campaign than “got monks.” America has moved beyond the bazillion parodies of the “got milk” campaign…
October 24th, 2009 | 4:29 pm
Thomas writes: “May I suggest a centerfold?”
“The Girls of First Things,” perhaps? “ROFTERS at the Beach”? I really don’t want to be the one who tries to sell that idea at a staff meeting.
October 24th, 2009 | 8:09 pm
I respect that you want to defray costs; please usher change with substance in mind, and you shall retain readers while garnering new ones. Go well.
October 25th, 2009 | 1:16 am
Change everything: front, inside, paper quality, no fancy words in the articles, please lots more pictures (Ok, it’s First Things so no color, make it sepia), more “spiritual” stuff and less of that religion business—tends to such a downer, and while you’re at it maybe a hipper staff would be cool – less button-down East Coast guys and refuges from the Dakotas and lots more metrosexuals (the Princeton look seems be doing well for you though) and dump the poetry, maybe a good limerick here and there but yeikes, that stuff that don’t rhyme, dump it.
Second thought. Just dump it. Put it all on twitter.
October 25th, 2009 | 2:06 am
Mike Linton writes: maybe a good limerick here and there but yeikes, that stuff that don’t rhyme, dump it.
Yow, Mike, let’s not adopt a complete theory of the decline of the world. Not all possible changes in the universe are necessarily in the direction of dumbing down.
On your poetry point, though: It was some years ago, while I was poetry editor, that FT started publishing mostly poetry that rhymes. That was during the tail-end of the New Formalism fights, of course, but still I resist the idea that rhymed poetry is necessarily dumber than unrhymed free verse.
Of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I?
October 25th, 2009 | 6:01 am
The paper is perfect, the design I hardly notice (I’m looking for content rather than appearance). If you must change the design, then my only suggestion is NOT to change it again for at least 25 years. In other words, do it once and do it right. That sense of seriousness and permanence is FT’s greatest asset – a glossy format would detract from it. Lastly, no thumbnail photo’s of authors! Don’t distract the reader with what the writer looks like – it’s what he (or she) has to say that matters.
October 26th, 2009 | 5:50 am
I miss Fr. Neuhaus.
October 26th, 2009 | 10:14 am
Ryan writes: “I miss Fr. Neuhaus.”
As do we all.
October 26th, 2009 | 12:55 pm
Apologies if this was already suggested:
If you are concerned about the design, a simple solution: Avoid the bold color schemes that include brown, dark-yellow and orange on the cover.
Use lighter pastels, off-whites; these are easier to mix and match and more pleasing to the eye.
Otherwise, I agree with Eamonn’s comments:
“The paper is perfect, the design I hardly notice (I’m looking for content rather than appearance).”
October 27th, 2009 | 12:32 am
The smelling part of the brain is located close to the memory part, so a new perfume insert each month would help us remember the contents better! And we could wear it to ROFTERS meetings. If you want to attract the consumer’s eye at Barnes and Noble, go with “lowbrow” art (see http://www.hifructose.com). In fact, nobody seems to be publishing lowbrow art that is devoid of religious antagonisms–it must be out there, waiting for the right people to chance it, make it popular. Image magazine has a chance, but they just seem stuck on modern/ugly art.
I save a lot of copies of FT, too. Why? To make my coffin from precious rag paper? Will I ever read them again? Why don’t we give our old copies away, and try to get past the 30K plateau by spreading them instead of hoarding them? Here’s your new paper: http://www.mrelliepooh.com
October 28th, 2009 | 3:23 pm
I wonder if a few small tweaks could improve it. For example, I’ve always found the font a little heavy. Though it is elegant, I wonder if you could find a serif font that is just a little finer.
I love the rag paper–I hope you keep it!
My favorite magazine, design-wise, is The New Yorker. It is text heavy, like FT, but still visually interesting, with plenty of breathing room.
October 28th, 2009 | 4:08 pm
Being a professional writing major with layout and design experience, updating your appearance is necessary not only to keep up with the newest trends in advertising and presentation, but to also be presentable to the next generation of readers.
Yes, the text is important, but it’s also important to present the text in a breathable format, with white space utilized wisely. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen the publication (because a professor recommended it to me via your website) but I could glance at it and probably come to the same conclusions.
November 2nd, 2009 | 4:33 pm
From the Designer,
When we first ventured the idea of “First Things” journal many years ago, we discussed at great length its’ objectives. The “Why” of the publication was simple and expressed in a straightforward attitude by one of our country’s leading thinkers, Richard John Neuhaus. We were not designing an art catalog, or a “mass appeal” magazine, but rather, a publication about ideas – one that hopefully, would become a leading commentary on Religion, Politics, and Societal Issues.
The “Why” of the publication should always influence the “How” of a publication and in this case we considered a multitude of variables and guidelines: it’s meaning, content, constituency, cost, format, competition, stand appeal, efficiency, visual logic, etc…
Just considering one of the afore mentioned variables, “format”, brings with it a host of other issues: size, paper, page count, binding, use of inserts, advertising, size of gutters, etc…
Then, from there, considering paper choice also brings with it a myriad of issues: use of a matt or coated stock could increase the cost a publication by 50%-200%+ more per issue; Changing the publication’s paper stock would demand different more costly printing methods; Paper stock could decrease readability because coated stocks reflect light thereby decreasing readability – but great for photo reproduction.
My file is crammed with rejected “First Things” designs – some quite elaborate. But, the “Why” of the publication always guided the “How”, i.e., to present ideas in print, straightforward, naturally, easy to read, without strain, in a clean format. And to that point, I believe we succeeded.
I congratulate “First Things” publication and those involved on it becoming what Richard always hoped for, a leading commentary on Religion, Politics, and Societal Issues.
Cordially,
Patrick Doiel
ASG Marketing
asgmarketing@yahoo.com
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:52 pm
Coming from the younger generation, which has been barraged with everything slick and glossy, I appreciate that the design of FT is simple and elegant. And the rag paper is just the right consistency for copious pencil notes. Keep it as is. Also, I think that the price of the magazine is not exorbitant at all, if a cheaper price is one of the redesign reasons?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact