Website Analysis

Interview Magazine

A Satisfactory Web Presence

based on the blog

comparinginterviews.blogspot.com

by Justin McCraw

for Jacquie Marino

Mirroring its print publication, the Code and Theory-designed Interview Web site offers adequate functionality in an aesthetically pleasing package. While a few of the features listed on the Web site fail to meet expectations, the overall experience is suitable for the type of magazine Interview purports to be. With an already-available iPhone app and a forthcoming iPad app, Interview is prepared to meet the future of mobile magazine technology head-on while maintaining the integral design of its print offering.

Interview's Web Site

Featureset

Interview's Web site features a variety of departments, as listed throughout this weekly blog. Features include Fashion, Music, Art, Film, Culture, Video, Nightlife, Calendar, Blogs and Archives. Most of these departments include direct content from the magazine accentuated with Web features. For example, under the Music feature head, an article about Justin Bieber not only included photographs and an editorial, but also a Playlist.com sample of four of his current songs. The Calendar section, as detailed in the blog above, lists a month of events with accompanying photos and articles related to such events.

While much of the content comes directly from the print magazine, Interview's Blogs section is updated daily with Web-centric news. Blogs from the editorial department may include photographs, slideshows, videos, music, etc., and account for most of the fresh content on the site. One example is a post about a Michael Jackson portrait selling on eBay with a starting bid of $2.75 million. While the content may be quirkier than what typically may be found in the magazine, it still revolves around celebrity and the arts, as Warhol would have wanted.

Widgets and Gizmos

Apart from the feature content itself, Interview's Web site offers a plethora of widgets – small programs meant to do specific things within the site. These enhancements include My Library, In the News, Quoted, Browse, Cultural Roulette and Just Captured.

My Library offers user's the ability to register a user name, which can then be used to store saved articles – hence the Library name – as well as to identify users commenting on articles. In the News is an updated view of Interview's Twitter stream, while Quoted takes interesting, and random, quotes from articles and displays them in the same manner a drop quote would appear in the print publication, only online. Clicking on the quote produces the article it originated from. Browse allows a user to navigate alphabetically through a menagerie of content, whereas Cultural Roulette gives it all to chance and offers up a randomly selected article, once activated. Finally, Just Captured is a collection of photographs submitted by users and famous people alike. One of my favorite aspects of the magazine, but in a more communal, online form.

Overall, the widgets and gizmos add to the depth of the Web site while offering reasons to make repeat visits. Since the layout of the site follows a strict grid and color palette, these touches work to contrast the content with the layout's starkness. In this regard, Interview succeeds in creating an almost direct replica of its magazine while embracing the fluidity of the Internet and the human compulsion to click.

Disappointments and Conclusions

While the Web site offers a variety of things to look at and do, it takes time to notice these features and even more time to know why you should care. Such features as My Library don't seem very useful beyond the Interview Web site, while other ancillary offerings, such as its newsletters, don't work at all. I've signed up for three different newsletters and have never received any. While this may be a feature the team is currently working on, that it's being offered now leads me to expect content delivery, which is disappointedly absent.

In the end, the Web site doesn't do anything overly wrong as much as it doesn't do all that it purports to do. If Interview could produce better uses for its login systems, deliver its advertised newsletters and better integrate social media, the site could be a success. As it stands, however, Interview's Web site offers an adequate Web experience that is soon forgotten. Personally, I receive everything I need from the print magazine. As such, Interview's Web site leaves me with little reason to keep coming back. While the blog posts are interesting, I'm not inclined to read about Interview-styled celebrity and arts daily. Whereas the magazine is a treat to enjoy in bed or on the metro, the Web site is an aftertaste, the quiet displacement of an idea that was better the first bite.

Week 13 Report: The Finale

Features I liked and why: Interview does a good job, for the most part, of integrating images, audio and video into its posts, which I like. Take this Justin Bieber article. It features a series of images at the beginning of the post, most presumably from the magazine feature, and then the article. In the middle of the article's first page is a Playlist.com-created music profile for Bieber, which adds to the experience by letting you listen to his music while you read his article. I thought this integration was great and convenient, because when I normally read a music interview I want to know what the artist sounds like.

What's not working with the site: Nothing's really not working with the Web site this week. Over t

he past few months I've come to really enjoy its mirrors-the-magazine aesthetic. The design, by Code and Theory, is crisp and relevant and easy to navigate. While all of its features aren't active, which is a minus, the overall experience is enjoyable, which is as much as anyone could hope given it's a magazine Web site.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I'd like to see my subscription issues! I haven't received the last three issues and can only complain after the late-deadline has passed for receiving the issues. My February issue never appeared and they finally credited my account for the magazine. Make a point of that: They aren't sending me my magazine, but crediting my account for another issue. How am I supposed to have a collection without the Jay-Z cover?! That it takes months and months to receive an issue when it appears on the newsstand regularly is preposterous. While not a Web site critique, so to speak, it's irksome they don't take better care of their subscribers.

How the competitors' sites compare: W Magazine is still offering that red shoulder bag with a paid subscription, which is annoying. Maybe if they offered something else, I'd subscribe. The Web site has been updated to reflect the current issue, and that's about it.

V Magazine actually features a nude breast on its homepage, which I thought was interesting. Interesting in not that I like to see nude breasts -- I don't -- but that it shows home much of an artsy magazine it thinks of itself as. Other than that, content is similar. I like the color-coded blog calendar, but that's about it. They do offer a free digital preview to their magazine, which is nice.

Vanity Fair, apart from its redesign, is going strong. Its blogs are updated regularly and the content reflects the current issue's.

While two of the competitor Web sites are from Condé Nast, which is evident in their design layouts, the overall competition is doing similar things to Interview, with none of them really standing out.

I hope you enjoyed this 13-week excursion through Interview's Web site. If this wasn't informative, accurate and balanced, then you didn't put your glasses on. I love Interview, true, but it's Web site sometimes leaves something to be desired. I don't normally go to magazine Web sites, anyway, and this exercise didn't really change my mind about them. In reality, I can get more information from other blogs, but this was a good experience, nonetheless.

Week 12 Report

Features I liked and why: I thought Interview's transparent Privacy Policy was pretty cool. A lot of times, Web site feature their privacy policies as PDF files or something that's inaccessible. Interview, on the other hand, presents its policy in a manner resembling the rest of the Web site and in lamans terms, which is nice. It explains what a cookie is, how it uses them to target advertising, and explains how the information may be distributed to third parties. While I may not agree with all of their data transmittal practices, I like that Interview is transparent about it.

What's not working with the site:

The same things as last time. I haven't really seen anything much that isn't working right now than what has already been suggested.

What's not there that I'd like to see:I'd really like to see them offer their newsletters. As of now there are two versions you sign up for, but none ever get delivered, which is disheartening.

How the competitors' sites compare:Most of the competition's Web sites are fairing the same. None have really redesigned their sites, a la Vanity Fair, but they all seem to be progressing in their own way.

Week 11 Report

Features I liked and why: While I don't normally read the Fast + Louche section of the magazine, which is the equivalent of Interview's Web site's Nightlife feature, I find the Web experience more enjoyable. Perhaps its the way the Fast + Louche department is presented in the magazine, jumbled and chaotic, akin to the definition of "louche," that I don't enjoy as much. It really takes you out of the magazine experience. Seeing the same content online, however, seems more natural.

The feature offers up happenings from parties average people never get invited to, with insider photographs and a bit of gossip for good measure. Overall, nice eye candy and something to look forward to, even if the editorial accompanying the photos leaves something to be desired.

What's not working with the site: Sometimes keywords don't come up with relevant things, as I might have mentioned before. Otherwise, just the same ol' thing.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I'd like to see a more cohesive Twitter environment. Currently, Interview has two twitter accounts that seem to post similar Tweets, which is annoying. So I'd like to see a more thought-out Twitter experience.

How the competitors' sites compare: New competition from Spin magazine? Spin has a section near the back of the book where they introduce two musical personalities or celebrities and record their conversations a la Interview. The section is just as interesting, but strays a little from the Interview format in that Spin mediates the conversation between the two performers, whereas Interview's is more organic between the two celebrities.

Week 10 Report

Features I liked and why: Invertiew features an archive of old magazine covers. While the editorial content doesn't all appear on the Web site, almost every issue's cover from years past is viewable online. It's interesting to see how the magazine's cover has evolved and all of the various aspects Interview has employed to spur newsstand sales. It's always fun to see old covers of magazines, so I really enjoyed this aspect of the site.

What's not working with the site: I wish the covers could be enlarged. The thumbnails they have don't facilitate the reading of sell lines and such.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I'd like to see more brand enhancements or user gifts such as desktop wallpaper versions of covers or downloadable screensavers of past photo shoots. Some extra products would be nice and increase a person's reasons for returning to the site.

How the competitors' sites compare: Apart from Vanity Fair's redesign last week, there's not much to report. Content for all competitors is produced in around the same frequency, although the topics they cover sometimes varies. For example, Interview covers elite parties, whereas W may not.

Week 9 Report

Features I liked and why: The Calendar section of the Web site features an interactive calendar of events. Clicking on a bolded date will display a list of events on the right-hand side, while links to ticket information or related articles appears underneath the "fold." Users may also subscribe to the calendar through Apple's iCal, which is a nice touch, although I don't know how useful it would be to the average person. Overall, it's a great feature that extends that celebrity access to common folk.

What's not working with the site: Pretty much the same as other weeks.

What's not there that I'd like to see: Why can't I add it directly to Google's Calendar? Although iCal is uploadable to Google, it would make sense to offer it in more formats.

This is especially interesting considering Apple has only a sliver of the home computing market.

If Interview is targeting the iPhone crowd, however, then this is a smart move, otherwise it's confusing.

How the competitors' sites compare: Vanity Fair redesigned its Web site to be more streamlined. It features the traditional revolving image-with-title widget, but the clutter on the left- and right-hand sides has been cleaned up. The site now falls in line with other Condé Nast offerings, which is a little disheartening as the layouts now all resemble the same parent company, not necessarily the editorial direction of the individual magazine.

Week 8 Report

Features I liked and why: Interview's Video section is fairly interesting, with behind-the-scenes look at photo shoots, parties, etc. that you don't normally see on other magazine Web sites. A lot of this has to do with humanizing these high-profile personalities, while also offering something beyond the staticness of the magazine. I think Interview'll do a great job of integrating these videos into its iPad app. Or at least I hope it does...

What's not working with the site: Some of the sections, like Promotions, are never updated, which is frustrating.

What's not there that I'd like to see: Interview updating it's neglected aspects of the site.

How the competitors' sites compare: Vanity Fair actually has its own social networking site for fans of its magazine, which is a fairly interesting extension of its brand. It looks like they

use the data for marketing efforts, but it's ambitious of Condé Nast to offer user's a chance

to vent with other Vanity Fair enthusiasts on a semi-private and well-kept Web site.