In a posting yesterday morning, I pointed out that I couldn't get hold of a copy of the relaunched Independent on Sunday. That was rectified hours later but I serve two masters and therefore chose to write my considered review for the Evening Standard. If you live in London you'll find it in today's issue. Sadly, however, it doesn't go online.
So here's a précis of my Standard column. The new-look single-section (see below) Sindy amounted to a jumble of non-news, facile features, poor picture display and gimmicky bits and pieces. Despite the inclusion of some serious material, the overall effect was anything but serious. "There was froth instead of focus, trivia in place of information and superficiality rather than depth. In a bid to attract new readers, the paper dumbed down so far it no longer merits genuine quality newspaper status."
I looked and felt more like a magazine than a newspaper, and included several rather pathetic "innovations", from a pisspoor diary entitled Sindy Pendant (geddit) and suggestions for "further browsing" with hyper-links. What was the point of them? Are readers supposed to remember them for later computer use? Or are they expected to read the paper next to their screen and then type in the url?
Indeed, the whole concept of the paper's scrappy bits-and-pieces editorial content smacked of "net-ism", implying that the internet generation have a short attention span and cannot read lengthy analyses and commentaries.
Yes, I know you may think that harsh, but click now to the Sindy's blog and see what commenters have to say... a big disappointment... unimpressive... a ghastly mistake... awful... insubstantial... dire. There were just a few positive comments, but several of those underline my criticisms, such one from Richard Wilson: "I love the new IoS - it's much like reading a magazine what with all the more 'compact articles' and the many 'smaller' grahics." Exactly. And S. Gibb, who liked the redesign and praised the IoS's bravery, added: "Only one negative comment - get rid of the hyper links. They simply don't work with the paper version." And here's Clare: "I liked it. Can't stand all those billions of sections in the other papers. But why not go a stage further and ditch the 'news' element and just go with the magazine bit? Features were good but the news wasn't too hot." Indeed.
But all editors who have ever revamped know that readers often react badly and eventually accept the changes. Maybe that will happen this time around too. But the £1 buyers may not stay once it returns to its £1.80 cover price. My researches suggest the paper sold well, putting on somewhere between an extra 50,000 to 62,000 copies. That probably matched, or even exceeded, the Sindy's hopes.
But the newspaper audience is so fickle. My forecast is that within six months, the paper will resume its downward spiral.
By the way, it isn't a single section paper. There is a separate business section. So it breaks its own much-trumpeted USP. And you have to hunt for the sport too, since there is no editorial on the back page. Overall, it was a lightweight mess.
I note that on this site on Monday that Andrew Neil regarded the revamp as brave. It isn't. It's a sign of desperation and has been forced on its the editor, Tristan Davies, by cost-cutting owners and managers. Successful serious Saturday and Sunday papers are multi-section because that's what the readers, and the advertisers incidentally, want. The Sindy has made a bad mistake in acting against the wishes of the market.
