AddThis SmartLayers

JP weekly to switch from tabloid to broadsheet in relaunch

A weekly newspaper is set to make the unusual move of switching from a tabloid to a broadsheet title as part of an upcoming relaunch.

The Eastbourne Gazette is currently published as a compact-sized paper but has told its readers it will become a “quality weekly broadsheet title”.

The Gazette’s last revamp took place in 2012 when regional publisher Johnston Press relaunched all its newspapers with its new templated designs.

At the time, most JP titles which were broadsheets were switched to a compact size, with the exception of the Yorkshire Post which retained its historic broadsheet format.

Gazette editor-in-chief Gary Shipton has told readers about its new look and shown them its new masthead.

Gazette editor-in-chief Gary Shipton has told readers about its new look and shown them its new masthead.

Editor-in-chief Gary Shipton told Gazette readers this week that the new-look paper would launch “very soon”.

The title will also see it adopt a new masthead in a more old-fashioned style.

He wrote: “The Eastbourne Gazette has been reporting your news since 1859. Now it is making the news.

“As your champion, fighting for Eastbourne and the surrounding towns, we have always sought to offer a superb community service. Now we intend to be even better.

“We are relaunching the Gazette as a premier, quality weekly broadsheet title – packed with even more news, features and information. This new-look Gazette will launch very soon.

“This decision was reached after listening to what you the reader said you wanted. I truly believe that these exciting changes to your Gazette underline our commitment to you the reader and the communities we serve – with quality and value at the heart of this new enterprise.”

18 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • September 17, 2015 at 11:16 am
    Permalink

    Let’s wish this enterprise all the best – a brave decision.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)
  • September 17, 2015 at 11:22 am
    Permalink

    What a backward step. I think this really is a case of shifting the deckchairs around on a sinking ship just to deflect from the real problems.
    Who in their right ind would want a less easy to handle newspaper in this day and age when most people probably consume their news on a 9/10in tablet screen?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(12)
  • September 17, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    Permalink

    Decision made after listening to ‘the reader’ – not expecting a circulation increase then

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • September 17, 2015 at 12:35 pm
    Permalink

    Callmecynical, you’re comparing apples and oranges and missing the point.

    Yes, you’re right in that more people are consuming news in a digital format but this is a printed newspaper. Despite what some people think, they still exist but the audience for them is somewhat different to the digital offering, as is the experience around reading them.

    If they have genuinely asked their readers what they would prefer and made these changes on the back of that research, then it could be a good thing. It’s not a solution that will increase sales but it might keep the existing audience buying it for a little longer.

    It’s refreshing to see someone focusing on the local audience instead of solely chasing national figures in digital.

    Go on, hit us with the digital innovations that will address the ‘real problems’. I’ve frequently made my views on the digital issues clear.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • September 17, 2015 at 1:12 pm
    Permalink

    Interesting decision. Possibly driven by the high percentage of 55+ readers who maybe, just maybe, don’t consume their media digitally? Crude check puts about 47% of the population at 55 and older.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • September 17, 2015 at 1:13 pm
    Permalink

    The town needs a quality broadsheet publication, look forward to buying a copy

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • September 17, 2015 at 1:32 pm
    Permalink

    Man bites dog. Good move I think, hopefully they will move towards traditional news values as well, proper district reporting, club and society news etc. Interesting times for the subs desk though. Not 100 per cent sure whether a gothic script masthead is needed either, that’s a bit too far backward looking to my mind,

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • September 17, 2015 at 1:52 pm
    Permalink

    Sounds like a real newspaper, looks like a real newspaper – hang on, it’s ”exciting”.

    Best of luck, though.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • September 17, 2015 at 2:18 pm
    Permalink

    So it’s aimed at ‘ you the reader’ as in existing rather than looking to capture new or lapsed ones?
    With an elderly demographic I am sure those longing for the past will welcome a new old look paper but it will be interesting to see whether this stems the flow of copy sale/ reader decline and actually grows readership, otherwise why do it?

    How do the commercial bods and the local/ national media agencies feel about it?
    They will presumably need to supply broadsheet sized adverts along with smaller sized too if package buying which will incur costs
    Or is there a price rise on the horizon and this merely a smoke screen?
    Either way a bold move and if their research is right we will be able to see the end of sales declines for this paper over the coming months

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • September 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm
    Permalink

    I always have time for Oliver’s comments, and again agree. The last templated JP product I saw looked dreadful; a total mish-mash. Moving away from the template will be a good thing.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • September 17, 2015 at 4:10 pm
    Permalink

    They’ll be employing professional photographers next.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • September 17, 2015 at 4:32 pm
    Permalink

    …er, except they won’t be moving away from templates. Just using broadsheet templates.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 17, 2015 at 4:38 pm
    Permalink

    Quality doesn’t mean anything used as an adjective Mr S. ( it is a noun)
    Do you mean high quality,, medium quality, low quality, poor quality. Excellent quality, I expect!
    Anyway good luck in what sounds like a desperate move.
    I suspect JP (amongst others) is not getting the digital profits it needs to push its dismal share price up to a decent level.
    Having destroyed print sales it needs to regain them.
    For the sake of those stuck with JP I hope this works.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • September 17, 2015 at 4:43 pm
    Permalink

    Why not picture of local paper editor on front?
    Aha! I guess they don’t have one, like a lot of JP weeklies now. Sad.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • September 18, 2015 at 9:53 am
    Permalink

    Are JP executives ordered to write the word “exciting” 100 times during their induction into this weird outfit?
    Give it a rest, chaps…there must be other suitably-stimulating words you could use?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • September 19, 2015 at 1:32 am
    Permalink

    JP currently has a recruitment freeze and a travel ban. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that revenues aren’t quite at the levels promised to the city so, to hit the profit target, costs are being trimmed again.

    I hope this move works for the Gazette although I believe the primary issue with this paper wasn’t the shift to ‘compact’ but the shoddy execution of that format. I don’t disagree with templating (within reason) but the problem for many JP titles was/is the templates were/are not good enough or were/are not executed properly.

    As for Eastbourne, does it need two JP weekly newspapers? No mention of the Eastbourne Herald in this article. What are the plans for that title?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)