What was most surprising for me was that the execs seemed to think our redesign was a bit too conceptual. I had considered perhaps applying there (and still might) but now I am not sure I like how literal and obvious their respective publication designs need to be. I understand we must cater to the readers and ensure that legibility and understanding comes before the design itself, but some of the things the execs strongly disliked, like the white bar and the vertical bar (I'm sure we were all expecting some controversy concerning these elements), to me just don't seem to be that unorthodox. It's a white bar. We understand that it will cover part of the cover photo, but what about all those sell lines that do exactly the same thing? I guess I just think the cover should, yes, showcase a photograph, but in the end the cover's sole purpose is to sell the magazine. If we can sell a magazine better with bold sell lines and the establishment of a clear visual identity, then that is the greater success to me.
I think I prefer a bit more creative freedom in my designs and would prefer to work at a more design-oriented publication that values current, classic and a little crazy design and typographic trends.