Comments on: Tweaks, variations, concepts

By: Lantz

Lantz — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:56:00 +0000

It’s all in the eye of the beholder. We have our left- and right-brain people. My wife, a craftsy, far-right-brain person, would choose the first cover. I, a 50/50 brain, prefer the last one, while a far-left would probably choose it for sure.

It would be interesting to see both versions released simultaneously to see which sells best. Then survey the buyers to try and figure out what type of person they are.

By: Debby Weber

Debby Weber — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:33:53 +0000

I really enjoyed reading all the comments. It’s amazing how much our tastes vary. I can’t get enough of the Before & After products; I subscribe to the mag and have both books and am impatiently waiting for the next one. I am constantly looking for new design books, and I have to say that I don’t really look at the cover first. I look at the spine to read the title, and then immediately open the book and flick through hoping that it is the kind of design book that I want to buy. If I’m lucky enough to find a good book (we don’t have a great selection in Australia), then I buy it, and then I will examine the cover, but the cover never determines whether I will pick up the book in the first place — it’s always the title that makes my decision. But anything from John McWade I would buy — even if it was bound with brown paper. Hurry up and finish it John! Cheers

By: Shakeel Talat

Shakeel Talat — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:13:55 +0000

The last one is eye-catching, which also has simplicity and better impact rather the other versions. I like the concept.

By: judie

judie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:55:48 +0000

I’m going to chime in with what seems the majority here. As I scrolled down and came to that last cover, I actually had an intake of breath and thought, “Wow, now that’s beautiful.” The last cover is elegant, simple, sophisticated, clean. The other two look chaotic to me, although I’d definitely select the second over the original. But either of the first two I’d put back up on the shelf as way too much going on, no thank you.

By: Diane Landskroener

Diane Landskroener — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:06:24 +0000

My feeling about the different designs is that neither the original (which you guys intentionally made weak) nor the final—tweaked—cover look like they were designed by the folks at Before & After. They look kind of junky compared to the gorgeous work traditionally displayed in the mag. I’ve got every issue since the first, and this is the least likeable design I’ve seen yet. Sorry.

By: Giulietta Nardone

Giulietta Nardone — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:09:48 +0000

John, I agree with many of the commentees. I loved the last one. It had more breathing room! And I liked the first one with the red marker. Now that’s different.

Thx. Giulietta

By: Claire

Claire — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:34:25 +0000

While I am personally more drawn to the clean aesthetic of the last design, I think the edited version that Amazon accepted is more in keeping with the already established brand of Before & After’s existing publications. While I might flip through and buy the last cover because it looked cool, and be excited later when I realized it was the same author as this wonderful site, the immediate brand recognition I’d have with the other cover would be an insta-sell for my part. I guess I’m a sucker for consistency . . . and if you decide to go with the last one due to popular demand, you might have to consider revamping everything else to match! :-).

Great comments from everyone else about recognizing and appealing to the target audience as well — and the visual explanation of tweaks vs. variations vs. concepts from John was simple and poignant as always! Thanks very much!

P.S. To Rachael — you are so right about the dying art of noodling on paper . . . I’ve recently (re-)taken up the practice, and it’s been so refreshing and inspiring! While I remain a serious InDesign junkie (among many other digital vices), I’m finding that computer technology isn’t always the fastest or best road to innovation or effective and meaningful communication. Thanks for reminding us :-).

By: Andy Gilhooley

Andy Gilhooley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:14:14 +0000

I’ve got a feeling John designed that last book cover especially for his audience on this site to create a little stir for the blog.

It’s worked well, as the majority are favouring that design, simply because this is the stage of design we are all at in our thinking and how modern design is done.

Someone earlier on hit the nail on the head by saying this book’s target market is for the masses, people interested in learning to design for maybe the first time, who have very little academic grounding in design.

The first cover meets this target perfectly and invites those unsure of themselves into the book much more easily than the cover designed for us specialists.

Another good lesson by John on designing for your audience’s taste.

Now I’d be super impressed if you could tell me how the hell you get around designing something that your client will like as well as its target market; 90% of the time the client wants something the end user will not like at all!

By: Dan Silva

Dan Silva — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:36:51 +0000

Regarding the book cover, I think those who would post a comment on this site already have fondness for Before & After and probably don’t need to be sold to. We are a built-in audience. We would decide to buy the book based more on our experience with Before & After and if there is new content. I think it’s more important to think about what the uninitiated to Before & After would think about the cover. I do like the last design. But would somebody who hasn’t heard of John and Before & After be drawn to the last design as it is sitting next to other titles? Somewhere in all this great information Before & After provides, I seem to remember the phrase, “Don’t design for yourself.”

By: Lindsey

Lindsey — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:53:14 +0000

The last cover is nice, but we want to learn how to design “cool stuff,” not upper-class, minimalist stuff.