What were they thinking?
What a terrible cover, in so many ways (March 2009). Margaret Atwood virtually swaddled and overly made up. Smothering coverlines and logo (which are not mitigated by making them transparent). A mysterious main coverline (She's one what?) Coloured letters. And that weird, disembodied NEW! (we think they mean the magazine).
posted by D. B. Scott at
5:08 pm
19 Comments:
Oh wow, that is incredibly painful. Everything about it hurts my eyes. Poor Margaret!
Ditto on all that. I can't believe what they did to Atwood's face, and that she would go along with it.
Creepy!!
It's ok; the website at zoomermag.com has the lead story as "Debt: Not Just a Four- Letter Wood" [sic, at least as of this writing] - maybe a thought about the shot?
Most established mags would have imposed the subject over the masthead and let her head obscure the logo by 50% (sometimes more). I think it is very common and as long the first 2 letters and some of the last ones are exposed it gives the subject a larger-than-life presence.
The exceptions are when you have a Nervous-Nelly editor/publisher/ad manager that let their half-backed theories of branding get in the way of decent art direction and design.
As far as the make-up goes - WTF! - did they just wing it or was that part of an pre-approved brief? Atwood is just as much too blame as the MUA or stylist. Big mistake.
Hopefully they get it right and support their AD - a lot is riding on the cover.
For a magazine about the vitality of "zoomers", they sure use a lot of grey on the cover.
seems the only thing Moses is parting these days are the words
"good" and "taste"
Ouch.....
Actually I thank you for all of your comments. As a creative type, I appreciate (through gritted teeth!) all the constructive feedback.
In terms of covering the Zoomer logo, we collectively felt that since this is only our fourth issue out and two of the previous covers had logos covered that we should show the full logo. This is one of the reasons why the decision was made to have a slightly translucent logo. So that we could show as much of Margaret as possible.
I can only hope to get this much feedback from my peers on the next cover.
Cheers, Stephanie
Graceful reply, Stephanie. But somehow I don't think these commenters are your peers.
I thought the previous covers were better because the poses were more dynamic and the people featured were positioned to be larger than life. If Margaret wasn't smiling, this could be her passport photo or mug shot ;)
I agree with the previous post about the logo being stamped right across her forehead. You shouldn't have to be in a position of choosing good design over good branding -- but good design should win.
(I'm sure Zoomer won't hold this up as one of their all-time favourites, but it's always easier to criticize than create. Props to the art team.)
I think the cover line: "She's One" refers to her Zoomer status. I believe the Wayne Gretzky cover had the same line on it. I wonder if that works for the audience.
The photo should have been cropped differently if the logo was to remain whole and transparent... there's a whack of blank blah real estate dead centre that screams bad design... and hiding Margaret behind a curtain of logo isn't going to disguise that horror beauty treatment.
That said, the art direction of Zoomer has generally looked marvelous and dynamic, and way better than the few local champions (Flare, Toronto Life, etc).
This could be a fun new weekly feature! Post a cover, and let everyone anonymously point out its flaws. Anyone willing to actually offer up their own work for public criticism? Maybe if we promised to actually be constructive about it...
I sign my name to everything, including the original posting and am perfectly willing to defend my criticism. Others, perhaps for good reasons, choose to comment anonymously, occasionally not very kindly. But so what? Are only art directors allowed to comment on such things and then only if they sign their names?
I just feel like there is a distinct difference between offering feedback and being constructive and blatantly crapping all over someone's work. It's so easy to criticize when you're never in that hot seat yourself. I don't personally read Zoomer because I'm not in their demographic, but I at least appreciate that a great deal of work went into producing that cover. If there are things about it that people don't like, that's fine. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'd just hope that people could be a bit more classy about the way they choose to share those thoughts.
It is quite possible that this crappy cover isn't all Stephanie's fault. Stephanie may have done an awesome cover that was transformed into this as a result of feedback/comments from the editor, publisher, marketing and circulation people at Zoomer. I find that when things like the pink "O" & "X" get done it usually is a result of editors and publishers getting involed. And lets face it, Stephanie can't help it if Margaret gets botox done (doesn't she look like an old Sarah Jessica Parker).
Hugs and Kisses everyone.
Wow. Heated comments here. Also being in the creative industry, I understand that covers are not designed by one person but a team of many.
At en economic time like this, should the people in this industry, be coming together as a huge team? Encouragement is welcomed, and so is criticism, but constructive. Do we really need to be blatantly mean? If you feel the need to be, then why not propose alternative suggestions and criticisms, and back up your reasons instead of just throwing them out into the public?
hey, i've had my stuff crapped on by anonymous folks for years...and have also been applauded for my efforts.
the fact is that this cover just doesn't work.
from a technical perspective, we've hammered it to death....
but the truth is that this is just one cover that should have been stopped at the press.
it sends the wrong message, pure and simple.
it is reversing into the future...
In the spirit of trying to give constructive criticism, I only ask for one thing. Will somebody PLEASE fix the letter spacing in the recurring cover line "HE'S ONE!" and "SHE'S ONE!" Since the first issue, this smirking line has read "H E'S ON E!" or "SH E'S ON E!" For heaven's sake, it's not that hard to kern two letters. And while you're at it, that exclamation mark is too close.
Believe it or not, the art director is not always responsible for the cover image or layout, at least not at most of the magazines I've designed (with the exception of House & Home.) Sure we generally get to impose our views or taste — at least enough for us not to give up the business — but there's always the boss that will get his way no matter how dumb he is or how little he knows of what we practice.
I've been in the hot seat Kristy mentions and I'm certainly guilty of producing covers of this ilk myself – minus the bad letter spacing. No matter what anybody says, there's always room for doing what you do well, and in graphic design, typography is paramount. Stephanie, they may have their sticky hands all over the layout but nothing would stop you from doing proper letter spacing – on the cover and inside the book. The morons wouldn't notice and it would improve a really bad cover line.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home