Matte vs. Glossy cover

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Michem on August 12, 2008 at 5:32pm

Well, would, does your readers like? Also what can your budget afford?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cathy Liewen on August 12, 2008 at 5:54pm

No reader feedback yet, but it costs the same for both matte and UV finish.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keith Gregory on December 15, 2008 at 12:01pm

Cathy, curious if you have any update since you first posted this?

And, my input would have been to check in with some of your advertisers to see if they noticed.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marie Hoyt-Pariury on August 18, 2008 at 2:35pm

If you have many slick, photographs, you might want to consider the UV finish. I find that photography, especially product shots, reproduce better when printed glossy not matte.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Melis on August 20, 2008 at 3:06pm

I personally like matte covers

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Katy Ryan on August 21, 2008 at 2:50pm

We've alternated between matte and glossy depending on the cover image and what will best enhance the design. Personally, I'm a fan of matte because you're not yet seeing it everywhere, and I think it's classy--it lends itself well to a variety of photographs/illustrations, especially those that are darker in tone.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joshua Thomas on August 21, 2008 at 11:18pm

I think it depends a lot on the content, design and (especially) the design intent. UV coating isn't just for the gloss and matte or dull coats aren't simply for stepping outside the box. I think a lot of publishers don't really think about making this decision, either they go with UV coating because "that's what's done" or they've decided to go with a dull coat for a particular reason. Both glossy and dull coats have their places and I would re-evaluate why the decision to go matte was made in the first place.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Liz Resko on September 12, 2008 at 12:34pm

Depends on the subject matter. Artsy design mags always look great on matte.
Photo heavy covers, such as fashion or celebrity gossip mags look great on gloss.

BTW, UV coating isn't always glossy - i did a great book on the Jay Chiat Awards 2006 with a dull UV coating on almost a full coverage black cover - it was fabulous!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Willson on September 12, 2008 at 1:35pm

A few years ago, I designed a new pub for launch in wider European sized format using very high quality matte stock and cover with matte UV. The masthead was printed in metallic gold. The format and stock were very trendy at the time, and the publication was of a nature that it made sense to go for a coffee table look. We loved it, but a large percentage of our audience were underwhelmed.

I think generally Americans tend to associate quality with glossiness. I know that bites, especially if you like matte for readability and reducing glare on images. But why fight your readers when you are trying to build and maintain a brand. We switched to gloss with the next issue, and the audience polarity disappeared. Later, bringing the size down to 8.125 X 10.875 solved a whole lot of other issues with mailing, etc. and saved a lot of money.

I consoled myself by making the decision to focus all our energy on content and imagery. You know what? The magazine still looked great, and I was just as proud of it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Convertito on December 17, 2008 at 7:31pm

IMHO glossy usually looks nicer,whereas matte usually feels better...depending on how the tactile experience figures into your sales equation and/or maybe it's just time for a change...switching back now may seem flighty until you've seen a few issues and can say for certain which you like better...also, spot colors covered in matte usually kinda suck compared to gloss...my $0.02

▶ Reply to This