Rolling Stone’s new size

Yes, as usual I’m the last person to comment on this. Rolling Stone have gone from their 10 x 12 format to regular, perfect-bound magazine size, in the process re-tooling their existing look to work in the new version. It’s interesting how they tested it… according to the editor’s letter they “produced a version of that edition [the annual summer double issue] in the size and style” of the new one and “mailed it to 3,00 subscribers to get their thoughts. the response was a major surprise: Readers loved it. We realized that the only reason to resist change was nostalgia.” Here it is next to a regular-sized UK Esquire.


Personally I liked the old format, but don’t read RS enough to care much about the change. I think one thing they had going for them before is that they didn’t look too much like Paste and all the other music mags borrowing heavily from their interior layout and font choices due to their unique format. Now, I’d be hard-pressed to tell pick a Paste layout from a RS layout from arms length. With squinty-eyed-blurry-vision of course… I’m not blind, just making a point. I wonder how much of a role cost played in making the change. Would love to know how their production costs changed.

Explore posts in the same categories: Advertising, design, Influence, Magazines, Why is it like this?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: