NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
I don’t recall ever opening a copy of Reader’s Digest. I may have been tempted to do so in some crowded doctor waiting room but I probably chose to read something like Rhinoplasty Monthly which, even as a made up magazine, sounds more interesting than what the cover of a Reader’s Digest ever promised by looks alone — it felt cheap, lowbrow and filled with ads of “As Seen on TV”. [Full disclosure: I religiously read gossip mags like Us and OK! when I travel, so make of my literary tastes what you will]. Clearly, I’m one of the few in the world that does not read this magazine that enjoys distribution in 60 countries, in 50 editions and 21 languages, reaching 40 million people worldwide. Every month. 10 million copies alone make up the circulation in the U.S.. Well, as of December 10, with the launch of a new design and supporting a new positioning, only 8 million copies. Reader’s Digest is trying to gain ground on a younger market so it will put more effort and resources into its web site, accounting for the 2-million drop in circulation… and serifs.
Gone is the Garamondesque logo, with it’s immense “R”, and in is a Gill Sansesque logo with a reversely immense “D”, which also sports a (maybe?) speech bubble in its counterform. A gesture that seems out of place as magazines are not about dialogue, they are more of a monologue. However, if that’s no speech bubble I pray that someone didn’t think it would look cool to take out a notch from the “D”, because it doesn’t — even if it matches that triangular apostrophe. What it does achieve is a techie look more appropriate for a computer geek crowd. And, from what I gather, the majority in their readership is women, and this logo feels very masculine. But regardless of what the logo looks like, the type selection is very mediocre. Nothing about that typeface is right: the bump on the “e”, the tummy tuck of the “a”, the odd crossbar of the “t”, it all feels clunky. According to this article, the logo was designed by “famed designer Peter Arnell, architect of such brands as DKNY and The Home Depot”. Ok!
The cover and the whole magazine also got an update, designed in-house lead by Hannu Laakso, the magazine’s Design Director. I thought about going to the newsstand and getting a copy of the latest issue to see the redesign, but that would mean I would break my un-Reader’s Digest streak and judging from what I see on the cover, I’m not even tempted. Now back to my stack of Rhinoplasty Monthly.
Thanks to Brian Collins for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Eric’s comment is:
My favorite part is the "New!" burst to the left of the masthead.
On Dec.12.2007 at 11:46 PM
deelirium’s comment is:
The logo does look clunky, but those covers are awful. They look cluttered, rushed, and cheap.
But what do I know. Maybe cluttered is what gets the attention of that coveted younger crowd (just look at the average Us Weekly or similar tabloids).
On Dec.12.2007 at 11:47 PM
Unit B’s comment is:
The techie look remark is dead on. There are a thousand mags on the newsstand with the exact same layout, and in this case, the banner type is thin enough that it blends into the background. Totally misses the mark, and its target. The logotype mimics that of MacDesign magazine: a look IT abandoned a couple of years ago when it rebranded!
On Dec.12.2007 at 11:54 PM
Michael’s comment is:
the site for the arnell group uses aria for its copy. talk about eating your own dog food.
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:10 AM
Michael’s comment is:
the site for the arnell group uses arial for its copy. talk about eating your own dog food.
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:10 AM
Paul D’s comment is:
New logo: that chip in the D is really annoying me. Plus it looks bland as hell.
Old cover: comforting and familiar.
New cover: cold and cluttered.
Something tells me "low-risk" was the key idea driving this re-design, except the designers confused "risky" with "interesting".
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:38 AM
Mark’s comment is:
This style change comes too late. They went from retro 80's logo to 2003-style logo, when the retro 80's are back and happening.
On Dec.13.2007 at 04:46 AM
Gm’s comment is:
Holy crap! Frankly, I'm speechless.
I don't actually know what my gut reaction means, but I'm truly shocked.
On Dec.13.2007 at 04:51 AM
Ian’s comment is:
What's with the version of the logo on the old cover? That's not the familiar RD logo at all: the oversize 'R' is wrong, as is the 'g' and the apostrophe (I'm looking at this on a 12" iBook and those still jump out). Was there an interim redesign before they got Arnell involved?
As for the new design, the techy 'D' and the undotted 'i' are totally at odds with the humanistic 'g' and 'e'. And that 't' just plain sucks.
On Dec.13.2007 at 05:13 AM
Kristoff’s comment is:
I can picture the brief for this and I bet it did include the objective 'dialogue, not monologue'. So when the comp came back and, all the committee could say, having been pointed out to the use of neg space for the speech bubble and the iteration of that for the apostrophe, was 'hey, that's smart'. And that was that. This logo, and I'm deliberating my words, is a failure. I'm confident this will have an impact on circulation but not in a way RD is hoping for. I'd gamble we'll see a revert or restyle within a year.
On Dec.13.2007 at 06:38 AM
Joe S’s comment is:
My initial reaction was that the masthead isn't aoptically centered or physically centered. They should've at least done one or the other. I think that as bland as the old identity was, that given time this new identity will be just as unmistakable. If you think about the fact that the original masthead was designed to look just like every other masthead back when it came out it makes sense to assume that the same will eventually happen to this. I think it makes sense that they attempt to rebrand, but I think they need to remember that their market will always be the older crowd, so they should just keep it updated enough for older people.
On Dec.13.2007 at 06:51 AM
kristen’s comment is:
It's also odd that they shifted the emphasis from the word "Reader's" to the word "Digest." Wouldn't that be the same as putting the word "Magazine" in bigger letters than the rest of the title?
On Dec.13.2007 at 08:21 AM
ChrisM70’s comment is:
I don't know why you would change your logo to emphasize the word "DIGEST". Maybe they are counting on people who are hungry to think this magazine is about high-tech cooking? Seems dumb to get rid of that distinctive "R".
I wasn't a RD reader (except when at the doctor's office), but It's sad to see another long-time logo disappear.
On Dec.13.2007 at 08:55 AM
Matt’s comment is:
Serifs seem to be completely on the way out. I really don't like either logo. The cover seems appropriate. I'm not sure Reader's Digest can "keep up".
I often drive by the Reader's Digest compound off the Saw Mill Parkway in NY. It looks like a giant house. The kind of place I'd expect Reader's Digest to come out of.
On Dec.13.2007 at 09:19 AM
Chase Langdon’s comment is:
I've never read it either, I'm not going to start. can you mail me a gift subscription for Rhinoplasty Monthly?
On Dec.13.2007 at 09:25 AM
Keith’s comment is:
The last person I knew who actually subscribed (except doctors and auto shops) was my grandmother, who passed away in 1980. If she represents the demographic, the nthe new design will surely miss the mark.
On Dec.13.2007 at 09:40 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:
Feels WAY too forced to keep up with "modern" design. Is the apostrophe supposed to be the chip out of the D?
On Dec.13.2007 at 09:54 AM
Tom’s comment is:
I would at least give a second look to the newly designed magazine before ever picking up a copy of the old, but maybe I'm a computer geek. Still, everything about the redesign is bland and boring.
On Dec.13.2007 at 10:03 AM
ChrisM70’s comment is:
On a side note, does anyone know why the iPod shown on the cover has devil horns and a tail? The copy makes no reference to it - do they think gadgets are evil? That iPods are devilishly tempting? That iPods make great Halloween gifts?
It seems like if you are going to add these details there should be some reason for it.
Keenan Cummings’s comment is:
If they are looking to contemporize (not a real word) the look, than mission accomplished——it looks like every other magazine on the stand. Maybe regular readers will feel refreshed and hip, a little less shy about letting their cover show while reading in public.
But it needs to be more than contemporary if they want to draw new readers. This is always the challenge in business: to overcome the perceived switching cost of readers dedicated to other publications. You don't have to match them on quality——you have to be 5 times better. In short, The Digest has to bring it, and this crazy, cluttered, sans-serif cover has already been brought.
On Dec.13.2007 at 10:36 AM
Oxa Koba’s comment is:
My father "reads" reader's digest, but with a most peculiar mindset.
He goes through the entire magazine tearing out all advertising (even if the backside is an article). He then weighs the ads and non-ads to determine what percentage of the magazine is advertising.
Once he has satisfied this odd ritual, he reads what few articles are still intact.
On Dec.13.2007 at 10:36 AM
Bart’s comment is:
I don't think the magazine cover is great by any means, but I still think it's a vast improvement over the old one if they're targeting a younger crowd. I'm in my mid-20s and have never opened a Reader's Digest, but might actually consider opening the new one. The old ones looked like something older women without taste would buy, very infomercial-y. The notches and the rectangle remind me of dog ears, which would be appropriate if this magazine is about products or short articles? (I still honestly don't know what the magazine is for...)
On Dec.13.2007 at 11:55 AM
Matt’s comment is:
Has anyone ventured over to the Reader's Digest web site? What a mess! The content presentation is overwhelming and it's like each distinct section has been forced to battle it out Thunderdome-style for your attention.
I'm assuming the site design coincided with the rebranding. I'm not familiar with the previous layout, but the "clean" look they tried to achieve with the refactored logo is drowning in a pretty bad site design.
The menu doesn't even work correctly in the various browsers (menu options, for example, float underneath the ads). This seems like design-by-committee gone very badly.
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:25 PM
TheUprock!’s comment is:
I don't necessarily like the identity redesign, but I think it's about time they refreshed their magazine design. RD is one of those little rags that's full of advertising chotch, with a couple of decent spots hidden in the pages. I would be interested to pick up a copy on the newsstand, and see what the interior is looking like these days. Regardless, it's good that they lost that semi-religious looking aesthetic and caught up to present day design style, even if it does end up making them look a little on the chintzy side.
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:28 PM
TheUprock!’s comment is:
@Matt: Oh god. After re-reading your post, I went and checked out the site. That is some really atrocious stuff there. Who trucks a logo up against a header like that? Muy terriblé!
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:31 PM
craig shully’s comment is:
A redesign should have a purpose.
To better define the personality of the product or service
The old design at least had a hint of a personality.
Also hate seeing cheesy subheads run over the cover top.
On Dec.13.2007 at 01:19 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
(Pretend you hear Homer Simpson screaming while flailing about, maybe his eyes are on fire… and then his head explodes… )
YAAAAAAAHHHHH! YAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!
-- pop --
Just a "gut" reaction.
VR/
On Dec.13.2007 at 02:46 PM
Chris’s comment is:
The only time that I've ever flipped through RD was on the toilet at my in-laws' house. I can see now why they are focusing their name on "Digest".
On Dec.13.2007 at 03:44 PM
Paul’s comment is:
As was already pointed out here, I don't know why they would shift the emphasis to DIGEST.
They may as well change the name of the magazine, because I would have no idea it was the same thing as the old one.
On Dec.13.2007 at 03:57 PM
David’s comment is:
Looks like the typed out Freight Sans (lowercase "a" gives it away) and cut a notch out of the D.
Weird how the reversed the emphasis from "Reader's" to "Digest". I also noticed that there is an intermediate logo on the "Before" magazine cover.
I think they should have stayed with a serif font so as not to completely throw away their brand equity.
On Dec.13.2007 at 04:03 PM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
It doesn't strike me as much as a design crisis as an identity crisis. The venerable Reader's Digest logo was -- without a doubt -- distinctive and well-known to everyone who has ever stood in line at a supermarket. The new logo and its accompanying "redesign," (if you can call it that), is ultimately un-ownable.
When Popular Mechanics revamped their logo (in what...1985?) they weren't stupid enough to ditch the slabtastic serifs. In fact they made them bigger.
Reader's Digest did not build on what they are. Instead, they erased it to take a bold new step...a step well-trodden by other publications. They turned their back on their own domain.
Did they maybe see an opportunity in the vacuum of Business 2.0? I can't imagine what their rationale would be except to attract "younger" advertisers who consider the venerable RD reader too out of touch with today's trendy marketplace.
Reader's Digest built lots of the editorial formulas that periodicals enjoy today. Big-faced models giving you eye contact, bright colors, lists and lists and lists, and content short enough to read on the toilet. (Reader's Digestive.) Nowadays we have tons of compartmentalization in the magazine market and RD seems to fall outside of them all...except for "comfortable." Now they've gone and killed it.
But whatever. It's not a very good magazine anyway.
On Dec.13.2007 at 04:30 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
i can't wait to read the responses from the readers about how much they hate the new design and how difficult it is to read. wait a minute, i'll never read those responses because i will never read the mag. what do i despise the most? the rd.com under the masthead. i think that trumps how much it looks like a 'puter tech mag. what happened to the d and why is it missing that sliver?
On Dec.13.2007 at 04:33 PM
potato’s comment is:
Oh come on, this isn't classy at all!
Give me back my big R.
Mr. One_Hundred’s comment is:
Kudos to Reader’s Digest for not getting Wolff Olins to redesign this – it could have been a lot worse.
Reader’s is what it is, so I think this is one of those re-designs – clunky as it may be – that doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt either.
On Dec.13.2007 at 06:29 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Ech.
I guess this means they got rid of their horse icon for good (which I liked)
sigh...
I doesn't look any better and lost all friendly, casual feeling it had, sad sad sad.
That apostrophe thing reminds of the the long discounter Caldor logo, that has been burned into my memory from the 90's.
this screams cheap, ugh.
On Dec.13.2007 at 11:24 PM
Mark’s comment is:
This is the edited version.
Ech.
I guess this means they got rid of their horse icon for good (which I liked)
sigh...
I doesn't look any better and lost all friendly, casual feeling it had, sad sad sad.
That apostrophe thing reminds of the the long gone discounter Caldor logo, that has been burned into my memory from the 90's.
this screams cheap, ugh.
On Dec.13.2007 at 11:32 PM
Chris’s comment is:
If only the New Yorker updated their old fuddy-duddy masthead and got rid of their antiquated Eustace Tilley mascot, they would be as hip and cool as Reader's Digest is now!
BTW, at least Reader's Digest didn't ruin their look as badly as TV Guide did by becoming a full-sized magazine a few years ago.
On Dec.14.2007 at 11:49 AM
Tim’s comment is:
I hope they do a write-up this rebranding effort as one of their riveting "Drama in real life!" columns.
On Dec.14.2007 at 12:28 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
The change up in the name hierarchy kind of makes me queezy.
Andy’s comment is:
wow good call on Caldor Mark
On Dec.15.2007 at 03:44 PM
Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:
For a few minutes (and I'm still not unconvinced), I thought Nabisco bought Reader's Digest.
On Dec.15.2007 at 09:49 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:
I miss the old logo! It was sort of iconic and reminded me of curling up on my bed as a kid and reading my mom's Reader's Digest. I wish they would have embraced their history a little more rather than trying to look like everyone else.
On Dec.16.2007 at 01:06 AM
Ethan’s comment is:
@chrisM70
It is an iPhone. And if you're curious, check this out:
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/972
On Dec.16.2007 at 10:07 AM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Honestly, it's just bad on every level. Granted, a magazine masthead operates in a (slightly) different way than a brand mark, but as far as concept, technical execution, appropriateness, memorability... it fails on pretty much every benchmark by which we judge the success of a piece of branding. Sad day.
On Dec.17.2007 at 01:42 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
Strangely enough, I got this in an e-mail this morning. New logo nowhere to be seen.
On Dec.18.2007 at 02:29 PM
Squirrelywoerle’s comment is:
True Story: I saw that exact cover on the newstands and said to my fiance, "Oh look, the new MacWorld is out...how come we haven't gotten that one yet?" Neither one of us noticed it was Reader's Digest until right now.
On Dec.18.2007 at 02:58 PM
Mark’s comment is:
anyone else notice the awkward "t" at the end of "Digest"? ugh, just bad, baaaaaaaaad. :p
On Dec.18.2007 at 08:48 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
This is not the logo on the magazines on the stands here in Oregon. They're using the updated version that can be found in the image I linked to a few posts ago.
Interesting.
On Dec.19.2007 at 12:25 PM
Andrea’s comment is:
I admit it! I am a Readers Digest reader, and has been for 3 years AND I am under 30!
I hate the redesign, logo and all. I guess it is supposed to appeal to my demographic, but it doesn't. I don't take the publication seriously anymore after reading the new Janurary issue, it all looks so clunky to me.
On Dec.19.2007 at 05:12 PM
adam’s comment is:
their readership is old people, and old people in the doctors office. now old people are going to be scared to read this hip, new-fangled pub!
oh, and i read the reader submitted humor story sections whenever i go to the doctor.
humor in uniform indeed!
On Dec.27.2007 at 05:07 PM
Patrixxx’s comment is:
This is what happens when a company owned/run by conservative business men try to 're-vamp' their look to keep up with the market changes. However, I'm sure many of us can relate to this - when there are too many hands involved in a creative venture and the concepts have gotten fogged up and lost. I'm sure the beginning concepts were much better so I'd like to give the designers some credit.
On Dec.31.2007 at 03:04 PM
Reiem illustration’s comment is:
All the new cover needs is a "beta" somewhere and turn the "new" rectangle into a 2.0 badge!
I don't think a new logo was needed, they should've cleaned the cover. With the new type it's now similar to Cosmopolitan and alike. As someone pointed up there, they're gonna have to let the horse go, which I liked a lot.
Bill Bates’s comment is:
I really miss Reader's Digest's familiar 'Classic Roman' style lettered logo, which has truly identified the magazine, since I have known it. Most of all, I miss the beautiful & seasonal artwork, done by the Digest's regular artists, such as Ralph Avery & Robert Blattner, etc., that truly made the Digest a very distinctive magazine. I also enjoyed having the index on the front cover of the magazine, which made it easier to find the articles that interested you the most, at a glance. I do hope someday that the Digest will return to its familiar image that many of its readers, including myself, have & do know.
On Jan.15.2008 at 10:18 PM
Bill Bates’s comment is:
I really miss Reader's Digest's familiar 'Classic Roman' style lettered logo, which has truly identified the magazine, since I have known it. Most of all, I miss the beautiful & seasonal artwork, done by the Digest's regular artists, such as Ralph Avery & Robert Blattner, etc., that truly made the Digest a very distinctive magazine. I also enjoyed having the index on the front cover of the magazine, which made it easier to find the articles that interested you the most, at a glance. I do hope someday that the Digest will return to its familiar image that many of its readers, including myself, have & do know.
On Jan.15.2008 at 10:26 PM
Richard Berenson’s comment is:
As the former art director of the magazine (before Hannu Laakso took over) we spent many years contemplating a change to the corporate logo. Some of the designs we came up with were far better than this one and yet when we realized what a strong symbol we were trying to change we never had the nerve to do it. Now I can see that we were smarter than the folks there now.
And we also realized (after much testing) that as much as we wanted to change our demographics, a younger audience was not viable for the Digest. It really is attractive to the 50+ segment and they should just find a way to live with that. And perhaps in this media-driven age they ARE irrelevant.
On Jan.24.2008 at 11:28 AM
Richard Berenson’s comment is:
As the former art director of the magazine (before Hannu Laakso took over) we spent many years contemplating a change to the corporate logo. Some of the designs we came up with were far better than this one and yet when we realized what a strong symbol we were trying to change we never had the nerve to do it. Now I can see that we were smarter than the folks there now.
And we also realized (after much testing) that as much as we wanted to change our demographics, a younger audience was not viable for the Digest. It really is attractive to the 50+ segment and they should just find a way to live with that. And perhaps in this media-driven age they ARE irrelevant.
On Jan.24.2008 at 11:28 AM
lodenmuse’s comment is:
And isn't the "50+ market" growing leaps and bounds, thanks to all the Baby Boomers? So why would you want to rebrand your magazine for a "younger" market? If the goal was to increase interest in the magazine, they could always focus on maintaining interesting content. But that's just too obvious, right?
I often wonder if the people who make decisions like these have any brains at all. =^\
On Jan.31.2008 at 12:16 AM
malecat’s comment is:
I don't like the new logo.... Please Readers Digest..... Bring back the old familiar logo!!!
On Apr.21.2008 at 01:19 PM
Tim’s comment is:
I think we have another " New Coke "
on our hands.
They've lost the focus on "Reader's"
and focused more on "Digest".
Are we supposed to eat it?
On Jul.23.2008 at 02:11 PM
Tim’s comment is:
I think we have another " New Coke "
on our hands.
They've lost the focus on "Reader's"
and focused more on "Digest".
Are we supposed to eat it?
On Jul.23.2008 at 02:12 PM
Su-Z’s comment is:
Come on folks, Reader's Digest is THE most read magazine on this planet. Can we even begin to imagine the "design-by-committee" pressures that are associated with such a ridiculously huge and entirely unique product?
Give the poor designers involved in this a break for God's sake and focus the criticism on the people driving such lame decisions. The message to be had from this relaunch seems to be that the new hedge-fundish owners don't care if this 80+ year old icon survives the next decade, they just want to finish gutting its assets before the next guys realize what's behind the pseudo-hip, freshly painted facade.
Bottom line is that the magazine, overall, is good design work (based on what was a sound concept) and that is reflected in the innumerable design prizes they receive as well as the millions of reader's they still have worldwide.
And finally, to Richard Brenson, I personally would much much rather read a Hannu Laakso Reader's Digest than the one he inherited from you.
On Sep.19.2008 at 05:47 PM
Menk’s comment is:
The whole deal with the readers digest was, heavily abridged important works, and short, simplified 'how about that' writing,
sprinkled with good old fashioned christian morals. The idea was to make highfaultin' topics and 'how about that' party stories easily accessible to the lowbrow so fanny and bob can sound informed and witty at bingo night.
Some pretense of sophistication goes with the territory, thus the old-style serifs fit perfectly.
Choosing something so angular and generic for a logotype is a poor choice. If anything, something mildy retro cool, downmarket with just a hint of 50's barbeque party would have been the ticket.
On Dec.12.2008 at 11:17 PM
Kelly Hobkirk’s comment is:
Oh I get it, it's a Digest now, a quick read. I can read it much faster now, except that I don't read it all. My grandma did.
I always thought that Reader's Digest was for 'readers', that dying sector of people who actually read magazines cover to cover. Now it looks like every other computer mag under the sun. Ugh.
On Dec.13.2008 at 07:25 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
