The O Resizes

Submitted by LynnS on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 9:22pm.

I forgot to note the O's resizing this week from 50.5" to 48", a size reduction that is rampant in the industry these days. Apparently not many people noticed--or cared enough to comment.

( topics: )
Submitted by rfaaberg on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 3:39am.

"The Edge" is now too skinny. That page's editor needs to rethink the width of "The Edge". Like somebody said, "The Edge" is largely why I read the "O" in the first place, and marginalizing it (so to speak) won't help me keep reading.

Viewer Rick

Submitted by veiledorchid on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 9:40am.

.....marginalizes itself. It's wasteful of valuable space....puerile drivel shoveled directly off Fark on a daily basis. Let the O shrink another inch....Edge can fall off and decompose biodegradably.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 9:48am.

Does this change enable the O to print two-up on their web press? (I think that's why the Tribune shrunk its page size a couple years ago.) If not, I don't see how it would save any money, or paper.

Submitted by walterburns on Fri, 01/12/2007 - 12:50pm.

Don't think so. But it's a narrower roll, which, by definition, would include less paper and be cheaper. How is that not saving money or paper? Their claim that it makes the paper "easier to handle" is just hooey, though. You want easier to handle, go tabloid. A half-inch doesn't do it.

Submitted by Spiro on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 2:01pm.

The Edge is day-old Fark without the Foobies. Not that the rest of the paper is much fresher--the O got around to running Spencer Kim's op-ed piece from Saturday's Washington Post on, what, Tuesday?

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Sat, 01/13/2007 - 9:47am.

I've closely read both before and after without seeing quantitative improvement. I think its safe to clip another inch or so without adverse effect to form or content.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Sat, 01/13/2007 - 11:58am.

just print The O on convenient toilet paper-sized rolls.

Submitted by tvprintradio on Wed, 01/17/2007 - 9:37pm.

makes the O seem like it's less of a newspaper. Of course, it literally is but it feels bad. It feels not as important. It's a huge mistake. Six months from now nobody will remember the old size. Hell, I still remember how good it felt to hold the paper before the LAST downsizing.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Thu, 01/18/2007 - 12:34pm.

Unless you go to the tabloid format, I think it's a rip-off.
For the advertisers, you have the same number of columns and same per/inch rate, but the ads are smaller.
A 2x2 still takes up the same percentage of a page, you get a smaller ad for the same price. If you go to tabloid a 2x2 takes up a much larger percentage of a page.
Also, unless the O is adding two or four pages an issue they are cutting coverage. On the other hand, adding pages would mean they are not saving any money on paper.
So to wrap this hodge-podge of a post: The O has less content and is charging more for smaller ads.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Sat, 01/20/2007 - 8:41pm.

Maybe with the new smaller page sizes, there's actually more news per capita, so to speak. Or maybe it's just another indication of how a publication slowly dies when it has no competition and therefore no reason for its personnel to work hard.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Voting controls can be added to this post.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
More information about formatting options