Design Can Build (and Break) Trust

I subscribe to two magazines (actual paper that is mailed to my house). I love a good paper magazine. And I love a good magazine redesign.

I've been a subscriber to WIRED since almost the beginning. It's gone through multiple redesigns over the past 30 years or so. And while I don't agree with every decision they've made, I remain a fan and love the magazine, including its design.

I am also a fan of Scientific American . They have amazing content, create really fantastic data and information visualizations, thanks in no small part to Jen Christiansen who runs that part of the show. I am a subscriber and look forward to getting the magazine every month.

But, I am not a fan of the new redesign, which came out a few months ago. Overall, it's fine, but there is one glaring problem that I struggle with every time I read the publication. Can you see what it is (in the image below)? And if you see it, ask yourself, how do you interpret it?

I'll explain my beef, starting with the slightly less important problem (although far from unimportant).

You can see that one article has a bold black headline and the body copy of the article is in a serif font. That font (I think) is the SciAm font I'm used to seeing. The article looks like most of the other pieces in the magazine and it's consistent, if slightly updated, from the prior look and feel.

The second article has a different type treatment (different headline/subhead font, different headline color, not bold, same head & sub font sizes, sans serif font for the body copy). It looks completely different.

Yeah, so? The problem is that I have yet to figure out if there is any logic to when they use one treatment or the other.

Design is meant to communicate something to me - a different treatment should mean there is something different about that article. It's about a different topic area, an editorial vs hard science, etc. SOMETHING. But as far as I can tell, there is no difference here. Maybe it's just being used to keep things fresh and interesting when you have two articles on the same page?

This is a problem. I am distracted every single time I read the magazine. Only a small percentage of articles are treated this way and yet I have no clue why. If it is to keep things fresh and interesting, that would be OK, conceptually. Except that they use exactly two standard styles. This reads more like two specific meanings, not "fresh and interesting" eye candy. If they wanted to be creative and keep things fresh, I'd expect more differentiation from one article to another.

As a reader, I'm just confused.

OK, so that is the less important problem. Let me get to the bigger problem. Maybe you felt it.

When I first saw this design, my immediate reaction to that second treatment was "this is sponsored content", and I almost skipped right on by, ignoring it.

How many publications do you read where the standard articles have a certain look and feel and if there is sponsored content (often a whole section), it has a completely different type treatment? The design is telling you, "this is different". It is helping you discern an important distinction.

Now every time I read SciAm, I hesitate. I'm tempted to skip that content. My trust alarm is going off, even if just for a moment. Breaking reader trust is an inherent risk when publishing sponsored content (the reader might not trust the editorial independence and integrity of the information). But a design change like this could make it worse. (In fact, part of me wonders if this is intentional - so I find it harder to differentiate between "real" and "sponsored" content...)

This is not good. Every time, my confidence in the content and the brand waivers, even if just for a moment.

Is it possible I'll get used to this design change? Is it possible the standard approach to sponsored content will evolve and more magazines will adopt a more flexible design system like this and I will feel differently down the road? Is it possible that I'm just missing something and this is a "me problem" and nothing more?

Yes, yes, and yes. But, it is a great lesson in the subtleties of design, trust, the modern media landscape, and so much more.

What do you think? Is this much ado about nothing? Do you have similar experiences with this or other publications?

==========

Ask me about virtual or in-person data storytelling and visualization training for your team

Learn more about data storytelling and visualization via my other LinkedIn Learning courses