Redesigning Newspapers (or any media outlet)

Over at 37 Signals, there was a post about a post about an article discussing the a redesign of the Wall Street Journal, and about newspapers in general. The piece interviews Mario Garcia, a well-known newspaper designer.

Garcia makes a lot of good points, but then sort of wonders into a troublesome territory. He first starts with a sound approach to redesigning a newspaper:

"It's basically a rethinking . . . (according to) how people receive information today"

I couldn't agree more. When involved with a web redesign, more often than not, a client usually wants to put a new look on essentially the same site. It's rare that a client or business is prepared to rip up a site's roots and replant the entire thing. It's a massive undertaking, and involves a whole new set of challenges.

One of these major challenges is dealing with legacy content, old non-semantic HMTL pages. Here, an important decision needs to be made about whether to convert old content, to leave it as and focus on making all new content more accessible, or keeping the old practice of coding content in standard HTML. We stumbled upon this road block when redesigning NBA.com, and were stuck with not only having to make sure our redesign incorporated the old structure/tables, but a management decision was made to continue to produce content in that manner, and not use XHTML/CSS. For a media company that looks to distribute their content across numerous channels, this was a poor, poor decision.

I think Garcia is on point to say that you have to rethink everything. Putting a facelift on a site has a limited value if all it delivers is a new look. The entire piece focuses on newspapers, but you could easily replace "newspaper" with "websites" and it would all still be true. Such as:

"A redesign is like plastic surgery . . . it can change your nose, but not your personality," Garcia said. "My design will bring the story, the photos, the whole package to someone who gives it 10 seconds of attention and decides, I read or I don't read."

The troubling part of Garcia's view concern not just content presentation and delivery, but the content itself. He feels that in order to appeal to today's market, the Wall Street Journal should include "more celebrity news" and "more fashion and trend pieces."

More celebrity news. In the Wall Street Journal.

That's insane to me. An attitude like this perfectly illustrates the process through which our culture is being dumbed down. If more and more outlets adopt this type of editorial focus, it will just continue to homogenize the information we're exposed to. As the lines blur between papers like the NY Post, NY Times, and the WSJ, they lose the very qualities that make them unique. And if this type of content/focus is needed to stay competitive, then I suppose newspapers are on borrowed time anyway. The value of defined markets was first proved with magazines, and is now being advanced with websites and blogs. As the need for bigger audiences diminishes, content producers will focus on narrowly defined audiences. If a paper like the Wall Street Journal has to go in the complete opposite direction, and become even less focused, they might as well close up shop.

This is not to say that content presentation in newspapers can't greatly improve, I think it can. To Garcia's point, there needs to be a rethinking of the way that we as readers consume information. There is a lot to be said for making information digestible. I think that is one area that celebrity/entertainment magazines do really well. Have you ever picked up a copy of US Weekly? As someone who has little interest in celebrity news, I find myself vulnerable to being sucked in. All of their content is quick tidbits and short stories. It's easy to just flip through the magazine and get a snapshot of what is going on. A daily newspaper like WSJ could find a medium between in-depth reporting and that type of snapshot delivery. While sometimes I want more detailed information, but other times I want to 'just know what's going on.' WSJ needs to be a place where I can find either of those options as it pertains to finance. And I think a great design can create that balance.

The last quote in the article, made by Bill Gaspard, the deputy managing editor of the Las Vegas Sun, really sums up what all media will need to eventually recognize.

"The design is fine at most newspapers," said Gaspard of the Las Vegas Sun. "(But) no one is acknowledging yet that people spend 20 to 30 minutes a day with them, and we're still editing and designing this stuff as if people are spending two or three hours a day with it. Newspapers have largely been produced for the satisfaction of other journalists, and the jig is up now."

I think the same thing can be said for network television, and the model through which they create, distribute, and capitalize on their content.

But we'll save that for another post...

Microsoft Frontpage Finally Dies

Microsoft has announced that with the release of Office 2007, the web editor Frontpage will finally die. While I have nothing against WYSIWYG's in general, Frontpage has always bothered me. It seemed this mediocre piece of software was used exclusively by those who were born without any design sense at all.

While the openness and accessibility of the web is one of it's greatest features, I'm glad that participation is moving towards the use of blogs and social sites like Flickr and Friendster. Sites like these are helping to put an end to the background-tiled, animated-GIF, blink-tag, MIDI-enhanced sites of yore. This is something for which we can all be grateful.

Everyone can participate on the web, and they should. But that doesn't mean anyone can build a website. I'm sure every web professional who reads this has come across that client who thinks making sites is so easy, 'my nephew could do it.'

On a sidenote, I do see that Office 2007 will incorporate Groove. That's pretty exciting. Many years ago I was at the press conference where Lotus father Ray Ozzie announced Groove, which is an online collaboration platform. It was pretty jerky in it's early days, but showed a lot of promise. And word is that the new Groove will finally deliver what was promised. I can't wait to check it out.

Man Wants to Die Like Jesus. Sort of.

From our good friends at KRON4 in CA, comes this story, about a poor soul in Bangor, Maine. (That could be Billy Joel song "Poor Soul in Bangor"). Anyway, here's the story:

Lt. Pierre Boucher said the man took two pieces of wood, nailed them
together in the form of a cross and placed them on the floor. He attached a
suicide sign to the wood and then proceeded to nail one of his hands to the
makeshift cross using a 14-penny nail and a hammer.

"When he realized that he was unable to nail his other hand to the
board, he called 911," Boucher said.

It was unclear whether the man was seeking assistance for his injury or
help in nailing down his other hand.

Perhaps if this man was a bit less shortsighted, he wouldn't find himself in the position of trying (poorly) to commit suicide. Also, I admire the reporter's attention to detail, noting it was a 14-penny nail. And being snarky enough to add that last part, about it being unclear why the man called 911. He obviously wasn't looking for help with nailing his other hand, but adding that is so awesomely back-handed.

Keep giving us the magic Bangor...

First just an Ambassador, but now also a Father...

Well, it's official. I'm a father.

My Maker's Mark barrel has officially arrived at the warehouse. As the birth announcement stated, my "name has been etched into the chronicles of bourbon with the birth of (my) Maker's Mark barrel." My little baby was just a glimmer in the barrel builders eye 9 months ago, when she was built out of white oak planks. She was air-dried for a full nine months, including a full summer, until she was ready for some delicious Maker's Mark. She was then filled, and sent to the warehouse.

And now we play the waiting game. About 6-7 years from now, the Maker's Mark will have aged to perfection, and she'll be ready to enjoy. I'm sure the time will fly, and I'll look back on today like it was yesterday. They grow up so quickly.

In a few months, the plaque bearing my name will be affixed to the barrel, and when that happens, I'll be sure to post the pictures, so everyone can see my little barrel of joy.

In the meantime, here is a scan of the Birth Announcement.

I'm just bursting with joy. Bursting...

Here's the Background:
About a year and half ago, I became a Maker's Mark Ambassador. Truth be told, I'm not 100% sure where I signed up. I think it was in a bar. You can come home from a bar with different things, but few can say they came home with an Ambassadorship.

The program is clever. Basically, you are deemed an Ambassador, and the idea is that you'll help spread the word about Maker's Mark. The gifts and items they send Ambassadors is of surprisingly high quality. Around the holidays, I got custom Maker's Mark Christmas Cards to send out, with cards, envelopes, and custom-printed address labels. A few months before that, they sent me a set of nice Maker's Mark acrylic glasses, with plastic stirring sticks modeled after the Maker's Mark red wax seal. There have been a few other items sent during my tenure as Ambassador.

They also send emails frequently, updating Ambassadors about events and promotions that are going on. There is also a private login section on there website.

Overall, it's a fun and clever marketing program. The items they send are so unique, I'm always talking about them and showing them to people, who seem equally impressed. It seems a bit expensive on their end. I would be interested to find out what they think of the program, and what kind of ROI they have seen.

Anyway, next time we're out, we'll have cigars and Maker's Mark to celebrate the birth...

Why is Movie Theater Popcorn so Expensive?

Every now and then, when reading an article or blog post, the author will mention some question, or unidentified song or unknown word, that has been plaguing them, something they can't get out of their head. For some reason, when I read this sort of thing, I have a tendency to catch the bug as well, and find myself thinking of the same problem.This happened recently with an article I read in Slate. Steven Landsburg wrote an Everyday Economics article regarding WiFi in hotels. He mentions that some offer the service for free, while others charge, and how, from an economics perspective, this doesn't make much sense. Read the article to see what he has to say.

Towards the end of the article, he circles back to a situation he often thinks about, which is, Why is movie theater popcorn so expensive? While on the surface the answers seems to be greed, it goes deeper than that. Obviously all business owners try to maximize profits, but the real-world economics of the situation also need to allow them to do it. In this scenario, the market accepts the high cost of the popcorn. Why?

I’ve been thinking about it for the last few days. I don’t necessarily have an answer, but I have a few theories. This is my first foray into writing anything even remotely associated with economics since college, so bear with me.

I suppose an important factor in this scenario customer expectations. Since prices have always been high in the past, people have come to expect high prices at the movie theater, and we begrudgingly accept it. (Keep in mind when I refer to the ‘past,’ I mean recent past. Not the days of double features for a nickel.) I saw this at play while traveling recently.

I recently flew on Delta/Song to Los Angeles, and even though it was a 5 hour flight, a meal was not provided, though they did have meals and snacks available for purchase. My first reaction was somewhat negative, thinking it was a bit cheap they didn’t provide a meal. But then it made me think of my expectations regarding train travel. Being from Long Island, the majority of my train experience comes from riding the Long Island Rail Road. LIRR’s longest train ride is only a bit over 2 hours, so there is no dining or beverage car. The first time I rode Amtrak, which was a 5 hour ride to Washington, DC, I thought it was great that they sold food and drinks. It never occurred to me that it should be free, as it did on Delta. This comes from nothing more than past experience. I expected a free meal on the plane, and was unhappy when I didn’t get one. I didn’t expect any food service on a train, so I appreciated the fact that Amtrak offered it.

The movie theater experience sees the same phenomenon. We all know food is expensive at the theater. For the most part, it always has been. So we anticipate that when we go. Same thing with their No Outside Food rule (Assuming you’re not one of the clever folks who stops at the deli for candy and snacks beforehand.) We know the rule has always been in place, and expect it. If outside food had been allowed in the recent past, and the theater owners instituted a new policy banning it, people would be a lot more upset about it.

Now, it then raises the question of, If we expect the costs to be high because they always have been, how did they get high in the first place? I’m not sure, and I know others out there will probably have the right answer. I only have another theory.

My theory is that movie theaters exhibit the characteristics of a commodity product. Most consumers seek out a specific movie, then see where it’s playing. There may be preferences based around cleanliness, snack choices, seating, etc, but the movie showing is the main factor. I doubt any of us often go see our second choice movie because of the theater it’s playing in, and forego seeing our first choice altogether.

Location is also a factor. We all usually go to the closest theater that is showing the movie we want to see.

Since the competitive element of the movie experience takes place between competing movies, it isn’t effecting the prices in the theater. If there were two theaters located right next to each other, showing the same exact movies, then you’d see snack prices being lowered, as each owner would be forced to focus on price/value as a selling point. But since the selling points are movies being shown, followed by location, snack prices remain high. There is no snack price competition between theater owners to drive it down.

That’s the best I could come up with. I’m not sure if it’s right, but seems common-sense enough for me to move on past the popcorn price dilemma, and stand ready to inherit some other writer’s problem…