Jay-Z Announces 2010 Tour Dates. Chicago Not On List.
"Batman" Headline Is a Stretch, But Prison Escape Story Could Be Its Own Movie
Extra, Extra
Around Town
Health Care Bill Heads To U.S. House Floor For Debate, Vote
Well, Creative Loafing hasn't even owned the Reader for a week, and already the Tampa-based company is leaving its mark. Creative Loafing CEO Ben Eason announced Friday that the Old Gray Doorstop's going to become a traditional tabloid. In addition to moving ad and page design and some production functions of the paper to Atlanta and printing the paper to Fayetteville, N.C., Eason told Crain's Chicago Business that they're going to combine the Reader's three sections into "one fat section." Hearing that, we're getting visions of the Mastodon burger at Kuma's.
In a memo to staff and freelancers at the paper, Reader Editor Alison True wrote that the switch to a tabloid was in the works "way before any talk of a sale." The memo also acknowledged that losing its production department will be particularly hard for the paper. "It's hard to imagine making this paper without them," True wrote. Having lived in this city most of our life, we're going to have to get used to the adjustment of picking up a tabloid version of the Reader. It's possible that the change to a tabloid will be a good thing, but there's still a bit of that "New Coke" feeling about it.
The Reader will also be looking for a new home. Plans are under way for the building that houses the Reader's offices at 11 E. Illinois to be sold, and the Reader will find new office space within the next eighteen months.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Caring about whether the paper is a single section tabloid rather than a multi-section monster is similar to caring about the cover a book more than the content inside. What matters is the quality of reporting and editing--you know, the content. On that front, the Reader's been going downhill for years. Perhaps new owners will reverse that trend somehow.
I like the Reader's design, but I've never been a big fan of the format. Going tab is a wise first move.
Guest1: design does matter. The way elements are organized on a page has an influence on whether people even read the story. Of course content comes first, but good design can give a boost to good content. Not to mention the fact that it helps establish the paper's brand.
2: I never said design did not matter, but thanks for making the point, and noting the importance of good content. I was merely addressing what I consider an irrational, general dislike of the tabloid format. I should have been more clear.
I think I agree with you on the "wise first move."
This sounds like a good move to me. I always thought the format was very unbalanced anyway. Everything was in the first section, while mostly ads were in the other two.
If I remember correctly, when I lived in Oak Park there was a tablod version of the Reader--but it was pared down, with only arts and entertainment. Do they still have that?
I agree that this will be a good idea, as long as they are not moving in the direction of one big fat RedEye-type paper.
As long as they are tabloid in format only and not in content, I'll be ok. But if they were to get rid of Ben Joravsky, I would stop reading the paper. The work he's done on TIFs is amazing.
This will be an improvement.
My concern about Creative Loafing is that they will be focused on advertising revenue to the extent that they won't want to anger, via editorial content, any companies that buy ad space in the Reader.
That sort of problem arose recently with the Sun-Times, which withheld any negative information about Macy's during the period that Macy's paying the Sun-Times a fortune in ad revenue.
Maybe Creative Loafing will allow unfettered reporting, maybe they won't. Only time will tell.
I've gotten use to the format, but, I don't know much about about news paper production and I don't understand how they were going down hill?
Of course keeping Joravsky would be a sign of good faith that its not being Red Eyed into stupidity.
Where are all the Field protestors on this issue?
probably watching soap operas, eating bon bons
>any companies that buy ad space in the Reader.
Yeah, but what do you have to do to piss off a futon store or a bar?
Actually, The Reader's suburban edition has been in tabloid style for years.
It's a huge bummer to hear about the production being moved out of town though.
Spook: It's primarily a matter of economics. Having the production and printing facilities in one centralized area, and having them all follow the same design format, saves money. The question - and at this point no one knows the answer except Creative Loafing and the Reader - is will it eventually compromise how the Reader does what it already does well.
It seems like a no-brainer to make the switch to tabloid, but you know that there are going to be folks who will complain that this is the beginning of the end. I just wished that the production staff in town had the opportunity to implement the design.
my concern, which i haven't seen addressed anywhere yet, is how many people who work in design and production for the Reader will lose their jobs?
i suppose these days its much easier -- and cheaper -- for people to buy/sell an apartment, a car, a date, online than thru the Reader, so content in that section has declined, but i kind of appreciated the different sections because it was easier to toss one and go directly to the music or movie or miner section, if that's what you needed at that moment.
and while i think its about time the Reader lost the ponytail and the blacklight posters, i do hope it doesn't get watered down, like LA Weekly and the Village Voice have become.
someone wrote:
"That sort of problem arose recently with the Sun-Times, which withheld any negative information about Macy's during the period that Macy's paying the Sun-Times a fortune in ad revenue."
Proof? where is it? and what about the Trib, as well? back it up, man ...
That all sounds logical too me Chuck-Su.
I just hope us citizens keep more than a watchfull eye on Chicago's only paper when you consider the limits of the Tribune and the Suntimes, not that we don't need those papers too, but the Reader holds a special place
Been hecht (13),
I heard from someone who works in advertising at the Reader that the whole production crew will lose their jobs and many have been around for 10+ years. I heard that it's like a funeral over there in the office.
I actually like the old format - it actually feels like a real paper when you pick it up. I was a loyal Chicago Reader reader when I was in college - I used to read that thing cover to cover, but sometimes the stories were too darn long -but I guess that's the whole point of having an alternative weekly - more indepth coverage. Now, I subscribe to their online newsletter, so I don't even pick up the paper much anymore.
Still feels weird that it won't be locally run or owned.
let met get this straight "tabloid" means the style of how the pages are folded together, not the style of journalism, correct?
Matty: They can mean both, actually, depending on context.
In this case, tabloid concerns the shape and size of the page, not the style of journalism. Traditionally, papers in tabloid format have been assocated with what we consider tabloid journalism. Yet there are many important exceptions to this rule-of-thumb (Village Voice-New Times papers, for instance, or certain editions of the St Louis Post Dispatch; as well as some European and, I think, Asian papers).
Perhaps the writer of the original post should not have assumed everyone knew this fact, as I can see how it can be misleading.
Other cities have great alt-weeklies in tabloid format: the Washington City Paper and Seattle Stranger spring to mind. I would not worry about the tabloid format.
I think the Reader has improved substantially since the redesign about a year-and-a-half ago, but it still isn't great. Other papers (again the City Paper and the Stranger, for example) have a much more distinctive editorial voice and better coverage of local politics. I dunno if a new owner will improve those things.
" "That sort of problem arose recently with the Sun-Times, which withheld any negative information about Macy's during the period that Macy's paying the Sun-Times a fortune in ad revenue."
Proof? where is it? and what about the Trib, as well? back it up, man ..."
I am the person who wrote that. This was covered in detail by Mike Miner of the Reader, who detailed the fluff pieces put out by the Sun-Times about "exciting" new things at Macy's while refusing to report lagging sales. In addition, for about eight months after the change, the Sun-Times refused to mention anything about the pro-Fields/anti-Macy's movement. Protest coverage ran on all local TV stations and in the Tribune, but not in the Sun-Times.
Simultaneously, Macy's was taking out tons of ads in the Sun-Times, at one point running a series of lower-front-page ads as part of a contest.
The Sun-Times also would not run Letters to the Editor about the controversy. The Sun-Times, responded, amazingly, by saying, "Oh, we never received any letters to the editor about Macy's or Field's. Again, this was reported in the Reader by Mike Miner.
I am not saying that the Tribune was perfect on this issue, but they did print letters to the editor about it and they reported the problems at Macy's much earlier than did the Sun-Times.
I would give you a list of the exact dates of the above events, but I am busy, as "spook" alleges above, watching soap operas and eating bon bons.
Apologies from me for the ambiguity regarding the word "tabloid." It was an assumption on my part, and we know what happens there.
#14, you can read the article that Ward Up is referring to here:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/070112/
While I actually do like the three-section format, I don't think the tabloid conversion is a harbinger of doom. (The move from four sections to three because there wasn't enough ad revenue to justify four -- that was a harbinger of doom.) I scan the first section, read bits and pieces of the second section, and rely on the third section. If the paper isn't organized into separate news, music, and "all else" sections, it does become less useful to me.
So each week's entire print run is going to have to be trucked or flown from N.C. to Chicago? Google says that's a 14-hour drive -- I'm sure a trucker can nail it in 10. The Reader doesn't cover breaking news, but it generally has tried to be timely, and that drive takes a day from their production schedule. I'm hoping for the best but keeping a grain of salt within reach.
With current high fuel prices, I fail to see how trucking tons of paper, hundreds of miles is more economical.
There's also the problem of bad winter weather delaying distribution.
Many of the Reader's ads are of timed value, such as the movie & theater ads.
They will be massively angry if the paper comes days late, after the all important weekend play dates!
It's doubtful that the Reader will survive that!
Amen, Scooter Libbby. I don't know how many alternative weeklies Creative Loafing owns, but I know that they're all over the Southeast. It's a big area, but it's also one region. Are there many CL-owned publications outside the Southeast? I know that printing all the papers in one place must be cheaper and easier, but it hardly seems worth it. I imagine this will sacrifice content, if not the articles then at least their timeliness.
Guest 23: People in Chicago receive the Wall Street Journal and NY Times every day, and that is timely news. Perhaps they are printed in Chicago? I am not sure how that works. I am sure that they will find a way to get the paper to us on time--unless, of course, they are relying on the Chicago Post Office in any way.
Sparky: I don't know the exact situation, but national papers typically have printing facilities in different parts of the country--somebody correct me if I am wrong. No, the Post Office is not involved, but rather delivery people who, I think, operate as ind. contractors. Data is transmitted by Internet or satellite?
24: I really, really doubt that would be the case, but then again, I have no direct knowledge of CL practices as they may regard the Reader.
(I'm the guest in #23.) Indeed, national newspapers contract out with local dailies to rent time on their presses. I don't know the specific details of the NYT and WSJ, but it's the opposite of the situation the Reader finds itself in.
I hope the building's new owners get a better restaurant than Star of Siam, too. It takes a lot of effort to make Thai food that uninteresting.
This is clearly the beginning of the end.