John Caddell's blog

My post last week on the Harvard Business Review redesign drew a thoughtful response from Scott Berinato, Senior Associate Editor of the magazine. He was kind enough to allow us to repost it here.

Hi, John,

I’m Scott Berinato, senior associate editor at Harvard Business Review. We of course are watching out for reaction to our redesign and your thoughtful critique has been discussed among the editors here. We thought it was appropriate we provide a loyal reader with some (almost) real-time feedback.

I’m the editor in charge of Idea Watch, so I was particularly interested in your comments. Rest assured I’m not trying to give you a headache and I understand your initial reaction to the color and use of bold visuals. Indeed, it was startling to most of us as we started living into the new design. I think the color especially surprised me. I hope and believe some of that will wear off for you, as it has for me.

I’ll try to explain some of the thinking that went into our visual approach in Idea Watch. As this section opens the magazine, we were seeking to distinguish it from other sections of the magazine and make the magazine less daunting. I won’t get too nerdy about magazine architecture, but very short, very visual elements here help readers make that distinction, which our research said they weren’t making before and thus they were feeling daunted by prospect of starting to read the magazine. Thus by changing the pacing we help carry the reader into and through the magazine, the same way a meal changes from one course to the next. Idea Watch is bacon-wrapped scallops to the middle of the magazine’s steak dinner.

My section is devoted to showing off new and interesting business research, so we knew it would be heavy on data. Data lends itself to a visual approach. Without going this way, few of the stories in that first issue could have been told in the space they were told. I would argue they’re told more effectively using visuals as well (and when text works best, as with the piece on brain science, we didn’t force the issue). Especially in my section, where we have such limited space, visual representations of data and information is not just a style choice, but an important tool.

One good example is the trust piece you cited. The author submitted that as an 1,800-word text essay. It was a ‘tweener, too short (and not a big enough topic) for a full feature but too long for an Idea Watch piece. After taking the visual approach, the author was more pleased with the outcome than he was with his draft. He said that we lost none of the important information while making it a more attractive, readable piece of content.

Did we get all the charts right? Probably not. As first efforts go, and for a design staff not used to producing visual information, I’m proud of the results and looking forward to watching as they improve in coming issues.

The first Idea Watch isn’t perfect; as with most magazine redesigns, it really takes place in two phases. First the new design debuts, then it’s tweaked over the coming issues as we learn. I think you were right about questioning the use of those top spaces and whether or not that content is and/or should be related to the rest of the content on the page. That’s a question we’re still working out the answer to. One change we’ve already made in March is to eliminate bylines and bios from those top spaces entirely, instead making them staff-written, uncredited data shots. This change alone, I believe, removes some of that frenetic energy you felt in the section. We will continue to tweak the section as we learn and process feedback like yours.

Finally, on the information graphic about bailout and stimulus monies, the Vision Statement. This is a format we’re committed to (we’ve received positive feedback on this as well). Even more than information graphics contained within article, such as those in the pricing story, creating these large-form graphics is a unique skill, practically an art form in itself. We learned quite a bit from this one (which I happen to love) and I’m hoping you continue to give them a chance as we approach different topics and improve our visual storytelling. (The next one I’m equally excited about, it’s on new ways of thinking about markets in China).

Once again I’d like to thank you for your thoughtful critique. We love to hear from readers like yourself and take any and all constructive criticism seriously. Happy to hear your reaction to this email as well. Write any time.

Cheers,
Scott Berinato
Senior Associate Editor
Harvard Business Review

I feel a bit like those folks who complained about the new Tropicana orange juice carton.

The editors of my favorite magazine, Harvard Business Review, have completely redesigned the look of the magazine. Editor-in-chief Adi Ignatius writes in his editor’s note, “we are excited to bring you a more modern, accessible magazine.”

He may want to hold off on the “accessible” comment. For me, the magazine has gotten busier – much busier. Bolder text, more graphics, more color. Everywhere from letters to the editor (now called “Interaction”) up front to the recommended reading list in back. I actually put the magazine down the first two times I started to read it. My eyes were boggling from all the colors and graphics.

In particular, the upfront IdeaWatch section (formerly Forethought) is a mess. Longer articles weave among sidebars – some relevant to the article at hand, others completely separate. And I had trouble differentiating. Is “Faith In Firms – as Low as You’d Expect,” on p. 22, part of the article “Can Technology Really Save Us”? No, it’s not. But the sidebar on p. 23, “Gauging the Impact of New Energy Technologies,” is.

This picture with its brilliant coloration and large, cartoonish numbers seems like what Edward Tufte calls “chart junk.” With four pie graphs, two outsized percentage numbers, the picture was utterly confusing to me. It took me a minute or more just trying to figure out what the graphs are trying to say.

And what of this?

(Full-size version here.)

If you can make heads or tails of this without referring to “How to Read this Chart” two or three times, I admire you.

Unfortunately, these examples are emblematic of the whole redesign. It’s far too busy for my taste. The great content is still there, it just takes more time and energy to wade through the clutter to reach it.

Perhaps I will grow used to the redesign. For certain my comfort level with the old design hasn’t helped me adapt to the changes. But I won’t ever love it, and I would be surprised if too much time passed before a “re-redesign” to improve readability and reduce the noise level.

Related post:
Customers are talking: Tropicana brings back old juice carton