title: The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

publisher: Ecco

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

The Paradox of Choice; this cover looks a bit like it was meant for a Damien Hirst retrospective, but we already know who did the best book on Hirst out there (Barnbrook). The design is by High Design NYC who does seem to put out nice, but not altogether brilliant covers, some of which we’ve posted before. I do find it to be very attractive and at first glance thought it was a Gursky but instead it is a bunch of photochopped photos. Pity.

— , 2007-07-02 04:21:00 -0400

There is nothing about this that I don’t like.

— Ben Pieratt , 2007-07-02 04:52:00 -0400

I wonder what’s up with indentation of the author’s name, though?

— Ben Pieratt , 2007-07-02 04:52:00 -0400

If you saw the potatochop job on the photo, you’d be annoyed.

— , 2007-07-02 05:13:00 -0400

Cool concept. Yeah, it’s hard to tell what’s up with the photo. The idea gets across, but it could have been a nice shot of a real stocked supermarket shelf—like the cereal lane or something… Other than that it’s nice. I am sure it’s not the first time something like this has been done. Using the Nutritional Facts as a design element to hold the title…

Final word: This looks like a comp that was presented as an idea and was prematurely approved without massaging it to the finish. Oh well…

I think it looks more like a Gursky retrospective. Seems like an interesting read at least.

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-07-02 05:30:00 -0400

Over the past ten years or so, David High has produced quite a few brilliant covers.

— , 2007-07-02 05:42:00 -0400

I had the same at-first-glance-its-a-Gursky frisson, so to realize it isn’t was a disappointment. Tho I suspect getting the rights to a Gursky would be $$$.

— Antoine Wilson , 2007-07-02 05:42:00 -0400

Finally something me and Pamela can agree on. High five. He rocks.

— , 2007-07-02 05:49:00 -0400

I wonder what the spine and back cover is like.

— , 2007-07-02 07:30:00 -0400

Pretty neutral reaction to this one. I’ll give him credit for using nutrition label for type but production values aren’t up to scratch. I could put the last cover in the same category – fails on execution.

— beauGeste , 2007-07-02 12:05:00 -0400

I don’t get the “21” next to “Choice” in-joke.

— , 2007-07-02 14:41:00 -0400

Isn’t the ‘21’ next to ‘less’ rather then ‘choice’? My guess is on a typical nutrition chart, perhaps that is where energy or fat is often listed; making a sly comment about nutrition or the lack thereof.

— , 2007-07-02 14:48:00 -0400

The photochopping seems unnecessary, as does the mimicry of a nutrition label. I’m not sure if it’s a book about the clutter of popular culture, or if it’s a book about obesity. If it’s the former then this is a fairly cliché view of “choice” isn’t it? I mean, hasn’t the banality and superficiality of the supermarket been DONE TO DEATH yet?

I would have been more impressed with a new take on “choice” in mass culture. But this isn’t a bad cover I guess.

— C-Dog , 2007-07-02 16:16:00 -0400

Sorry, “Less.”
So, is this a comment on the book? After all those zeroes, one has to ask such questions.

— , 2007-07-02 17:12:00 -0400

Ditto on the prematurely approved comp idea. Those shelves are too monotonous to be real. A better shot would point down the aisle (a really long one too) and float the title label in the middle.

— , 2007-07-02 21:15:00 -0400

wise…... i think he blurred the background image for copyright purposes. thus making it safe for the publisher for brands to be unrecognized… good job on the nutritional label.

this are the kinds of books that u can easily categorized when put it on the shelf. so not really an impressive design coz its a cliché, the only interesting thing about this book is the information. makes you curious..

but i repeat the design concept is such a cliché...

— supercow , 2007-07-02 22:56:00 -0400

There must be a million stock images out there of supermarket shelves using “mock” products to avoid the © issues. (maybe time/money was an issue as it goes) This was just a poor execution of a decent idea that could have been so much nicer. What IS nice about it is that it has that homegrown, slapped together kind of organic approach. Like it itself is to be consumed and disposed of. Not to mention it’s very readable.

Anyway, I am sure the people at High Design tried it all before this was used…

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-07-03 01:36:00 -0400

Hmmm. I’m setting type—where is your mind at? (I hear ya, it was a bad wording)

créme de la crémeing? Does that pass your mental dictionary:)?

I was hoping for the cream of the crop of “political”posts for the 4th—as behooves covers.fwis. God, why do I need to explain. I don’t…

How ‘bout a comment on the cover wanda? What do you make of it? It’s got a bad rap so far… My comment: It could have been worse; Still does no justice to the subject though…

Anyway, 4 posts is my alloted amount…

— Ian Shimkoviak , 2007-07-04 12:20:00 -0400

Ian, I think that for the average consumer, this is an effective cover. Not spectacular, but effective (i.e., I wouldn’t masturbate to it). It communicates the contents of the book effectively and is eye-catching.
All this talk about the photo-montage being less than perfect is only of consequence to book design nerds/connoisseurs.

— wanda jackson , 2007-07-04 12:28:00 -0400

well, i just wanna add that we mock/make a comment on such book design.. coz simply we dont belong to the “AVERAGE CONSUMER” type of people. we judge through aesthetic and for somehow we don’t level ourselves to be average. coz if we do, we would’nt say anything but “the cover is colorful”.

although the market for this book is the common populi, it needs to be rated by the people who knows something about designs. unless ur part of the “average” wanda?

no offense….

— supercow , 2007-07-04 14:34:00 -0400

true… guys gotta nerd out sometimes… it is an effective cover. But not to the discerning eye. Designers are not your average bookstore visitor. We are the creators of books—and after X hours (days, years and lifetimes) doing it, we have our ideas and comments on what works—ladies and gentlemen… is it eye-catching? No. Not anymore than a supermarket isle and a nutrition label. But it’s a tall order. And on that note: Yes, it does the job… so great that you replied and even greater that I exceeded my 4 comment quota. Thanks. I love going above. and beyond. HAPPY 4TH! wanda jackson. HAPPY FOURTH! Get out and see the firecrackers—they’re a cracking!

bottomfeeder:....

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-07-04 15:47:00 -0400

kodomanlar ordeklerle kosarken birden karsilarinda orhan gencebay cikmis sonra muslum b una bozulmus baslamislar kolbasti oynamaya sonra yorulmuslar otururken mum sondu yapmaya karar vermisler acaba niye?

— yapay havuz , 2009-12-03 10:17:15 -0500

garlica

— garlica , 2010-01-20 08:17:03 -0500

biber hapi
fx15
lida
rent a car
magna rx
penis büyütücü
elektronik sigara

— red pepper , 2010-01-28 07:35:44 -0500