Slimmed-down Sindy loses loyal fans of a quality read

Published on Thursday 7 June 2007 01:22

THERE have been few promotional slogans as good as the original one coined on behalf of the Independent at its launch 20 years ago: "It is. Are you?"

Now comes a relaunched Independent on Sunday with a new slogan that fails to set the pulse racing: "Everything you need. Nothing you don't."

It is supposed to justify the fact the "compact, concise and comprehensive" newspaper published at the weekend was a lean, mean news machine when it clearly was anything but. All sorts of news went uncovered, such as the hostage-taking in Iraq, the growing political crisis in Pakistan, and the difficulties faced by David Cameron over grammar schools, not to mention the controversial appointment of his director of communications.

Instead, we were treated to a puff piece about Cameron's so-called eco-home. Overall, the new-look Sindy was an odd jumble of non-news, facile features, poor picture display and gimmicky bits and pieces.

Though there was serious material, some excellent, the overall impression lacked any sense of gravitas. It was as if the absorbing material - dispatches from Rupert Cornwell and Robert Fisk, analysis by Geoffrey Lean and columns by John Rentoul and Alan Watkins - was published under sufferance.

There was froth instead of focus, trivia in place of information and superficiality rather than depth. In a bid to attract new readers, the paper dumbed down so far that it no longer merits genuine quality newspaper status.

The magazine, labelled the New Review, was infected with the same split personality as the main paper in its attempt to be everything to everyone. How different it seemed from the trend-setting Review section of old.

There were wholly daft ideas, such as the suggestions for "further browsing" with hyper-links - which don't work, of course, on newsprint. And why hide sport on a Sunday?

If all that seems unduly harsh, my comments are tame compared with those registered by readers on the paper's own website. Some were so scathing that they were removed yesterday, but those that remain, all from people who apparently used their real names, are anything but polite.

"A big disappointment," said one. "Unimpressive," another. "A ghastly mistake," wrote a third. The string of criticisms ran from "awful" through "insubstantial" to "dire". There were positive comments, too, but the negative outweighed them by a substantial margin.

I concede that loyal readers tend to be conservative and, in spite of themselves, they often adjust to a revamp after a couple of issues. But the insistent message of the critics suggests otherwise. They believe the paper has sacrificed itself on the altar of entertainment.

Some touched on the other problem: value for money. This is a looming problem for the Sindy because its achievement in attracting a reputed extra 60,000 buyers this week must be seen in the context of its price cut to 1.

I understand it will repeat the exercise with the next issue in the hope of retaining the extra 60,000 buyers it is thought to have attracted on Sunday. What happens, though, when this lightweight package returns to its former 1.80 cover price?

My hunch is that within less than six months it will be struggling once more. The experiment will fail because, whatever people say about their desire for smaller newspapers, they buy multi-section titles that enable them to select what they want and discard the rest.

Some commentators have called Tristan Davies, the editor, courageous for turning the paper into a single section (though it does have a separate business supplement).

Courage didn't come into it. Davies was required to revamp because Tony O'Reilly, its owner, cannot justify the cost of the ailing Independent titles any longer. With an international empire that is not returning bumper profits, and ambitions to expand in India, he cannot allow the papers to be awash with red ink for ever.