What You Think About The Resized Journal: From ‘Fine’ To ‘Egads’

crovitz_reactions.jpgYou’ve had roughly 30 hours to digest the leaner, meaner Wall Street Journal. L. Gordon Crovitz [left] says he has already received hundreds of “overwhelmingly positive” e-mails about the new design.

Your unedited reactions:

  • “I don’t like the new typeface. It’s smaller and harder to read. The WSJ and other publications and websites need to be thinking about going to bigger type sizes for the aging eyes of the boomer audience, especially the WSJ as it likely skews much stronger to a 50-plus crowd.”
  • “Anything the WSJ does these days — narrower page size or wider, should it choose to do so — is fine with me. As long as it maintains its high journalistic standards. And that it has been doing so becomes more apparent to veteran journalists with each passing day, sad to say.”
  • “The new journal makes sense and at first glance I thought, thank God. Now it’s easier to read……I assumed of course that the content will remain just as relevant and important. After a few minutes though, I began to feel a bit less enamored: the Journal now looks and feels like any old local daily!!!!! Egads. Just goes to show you the power of design and SIZE. Perhaps a more intelligent move would be to launch a Berliner tab and just jump five to ten years ahead of themselves. (mark my words, they will be tab by 2015.) Bottom line: the Journal is a landmark, a behemoth in the print world and to now receive it in the same format as all the small fish…..well it’s a bit of a letdown really.”
  • “Nothing but one big sidebar.”
  • “It looks like a toy. They’ve made it so small, it’s actually hard to read and fold on the commute (their big selling point). Much less news. Much less focus. Too many graphics. I’m in my 40s, supposedly their target.”
  • “WSJ paper edition now looks to be in permanent decline. On a happier note, the online offerings, particularly, wsjmarkets.com, are improved.

  • What Do You Really Think Of The Resized Journal?