Newspapers are multi-faceted things, addressing the needs of many different groups of readers. But that makes the need for a coherent thread, a single unifying idea or characteristic, -a set of brand values if you like, more not less important.

It’s a point that Guardian newspapers might care to consider when they assess the effectiveness –or otherwise of this week’s last-throw-of-the-dice redesign of The Observer.

It is in part brilliant, in part dire and on the whole, totally confusing. I suspect that my confusion as a reader reflects the lack of certainty at Guardian newspapers over exactly what the paper should be doing.

The overhaul has been thorough, starting with the paper’s most basic ‘architecture’ - its rag bag of supplements and sections. Three of the excellent monthly magazines have been spiked and the paper has been reduced to four sections: news, sport, an expanded Review section and the magazine.

So far so good. It feels more focussed and somehow more confident.

But then you wade into the news section (which now includes business and personal finance). Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. In design terms, the front page is a pig’s ear with at least five different zones. It has three promotions and trailers at the top, all of which render the masthead, traditionally regarded as the font of a paper’s identity, strangely invisible.

Editorially the news section is running fewer, longer, stories. That makes perfect sense for a Sunday paper. In-depth reporting and weighty analysis seem a sensible way to compete with the second by second news coverage available everywhere else these days.

It underlines the Observer’s positioning as a ‘serious’ newspaper. But it presents design problems. The new word-heavy, picture and graphic light pages look strangely old fashioned. I cant work out whether it is merely appealing to older readers. Or is it performing some sort of retro schtick for younger readers?

They could possibly get away with it, if they really got behind it. But like an actor who squeaks his lines, the redesign fails to project those thoughts with single minded confidence. As a consequence it ‘dies’ on page.

The new colour coded navigation at the top of the pages is great. But the mish-mash of me-too typefaces on every page scream of a product that has lost its identity and its way. Many of the spreads look like they come from different papers and throughout they resolutely refuse to take any advantage whatsoever of the fantastic graphic potential of the Berliner format. Compared to its daily stable-mate The Guardian, it looks feeble, dull and uncertain. The Guardian owns equities that make it unique - and is proud of them. The headline typeface for one is unmistakable.

But then you come to the review section or The New Review. It’s completely different and completely brilliant. Unlike the news section it begs you to engage with it. Exciting innovative, buzzy, it looks like a monthly magazine that has been newsified. They’ve been bold and strident with imagery. This is confidence- a real contrast to the news section.

Every spread is packed full of energy. Brilliant features on a Cuban boy in the US and the wife of Swedish crime writer Stieg Larsson look substantial and important. There’s a fantastic double page picture of the murder of black activist Malcom X 45 years ago, a magnificent portrait of singer Rufus Wainwright and lively diary section at the front.

So it’s a tale of two sections, which seem to be produced by different teams, aimed at different readers and trying to do completely different things. Compare it with the confident single mindedness of The Guardian’s design and it’s clear, I fear, that The Observer is not long for this world.