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.

Week 7 Report

Features I liked and why: A new feature to the Web site is the Cultural Roulette. After clicking on the roulette icon, a random Web page appears from any one of the categories offered. I thought this feature was cool because it lets you get lost within Interview's Web site while reading articles you may never knew existed. While some of the content is hit-or-miss, most is interesting and engenders repeat clicks.

What's not working with the site: While the Web site offers a lot of content to sift through, its commenting system really limits interaction. I'd like to see more opportunities to interact within the site, be it a forum or what have you. I think implementing a chat system would be great because then you could have everyday folk gain their 15 minutes by commenting on the hyper-elite.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I suppose that chat feature I mentioned above, although that's just an idea. Of course, adding too many features to the Web site may turn some people off. So I would just suggest updating the current login system's array of features by expanding what you can do with your personal library, as mentioned in a previous post.

How the competitors' sites compare: W Magazine seems to have stopped with the popups asking for my subscription dollars, which is nice. Other than that, they all look the same. :/

Week 6 Report

Features I liked and why: From the blogs features revolving Web posts by the editors and other contributors. Most of the time, content is from whatever meme or trending topic is hitting the inter webs today. Notable posts include an analysis of the product placement within Lady Gaga featuring Beyonce's music video "Telephone," which I commented on, as well as George Lois' new book inspired by the collection of his covers currently on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

The feature is what really updates the Web site and keeps people coming back. Even so, it's not something I would RSS and follow all outside of this project, mostly because I'm not interested in receiving Interview-style celebrity updates all of the time. Furthermore, the blogs differ in editorial tone from the magazine, which is acceptable given Interview's celebrity-on-celebrity formula.

What's not working with the site: Same as last time. However, the Web site is featuring more colorful photography on its revolving slideshow of posts, which helps to balance the stark black and white design of the site.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I'd like to see the commenting area increased a bit, since the size of comments is limited to so many characters, which isn't specified before you submit a comment, potentially cutting off some of your response.

How the competitors' sites compare: Overall, the same. New content is propagated but still appears in the same package. Not much to update here.

Week 5 Report

Features I liked and why: The bottom of the Web site, before the contact, advertising and general up-keep, features an alphabetized reel of Interview's articles. Called Browse, the feature lets users select a letter and then displays some related articles. If no letter is selected, the system automatically chooses one and revolves a few suggested-reading clips.

I thought it was interesting in that the articles are alphabetized, which isn't a method you see other magazine Web sites employ when people browse their repository of articles. I thought it was not only convenient, but also allowed for greater discovery of articles that may otherwise be overlooked.

What's not working with the site: Really, the same problems as last time. The color scheme of the site doesn't bother me anymore, really, because the starkness of the layout is accented by the color photography and in-house advertisements.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I'd like there to be a way to order old issues of the magazine. Right now you have to contact syndication, which can be quite the process. A basic store setup would be wonderful.

How the competitors' sites compare: Mostly the same as last week. W magazine has some different merchandise you may receive with a paid subscription and offers a "buy W and Vogue for $1/issue." I actually got a direct-mailing from W the other day, which was surprising. Maybe if the bag wasn't red and a clutch I would have subscribed. :P

Week 4 Report

Features I liked and why: I enjoyed playing with the registration system on Interview's Web site this week. Users create rudimentary profiles which act as keys to a few features otherwise overlooked. For example, after registering, users can archive articles, and other content, they like by putting it in their "library." This collection can then be retrieved from a CSS application at the top of the page no matter where they are on the site. It's handy in keeping track of your favorite writers and personalities. You can also share the content on social media sites.

What's not working with the site: Again, the content organization. Not much to update this week.

What's not there that I'd like to see: When a user registers for t

he site he or she can select to receive email newsletters. I've yet to receive a newsletter. I think if Interview is going to advertise this feature it should deliver, or at least elucidate its lack of email service.

How the competitors' sites compare: The competition has remained the same. V especially is pushing the purchase of its magazine, which you can no longer do in

single-issue print format (it must have been a popular cover -- Dakota Fanning, Gabourey Sidibe). Overall, the sites lack a reason to keep visiting. As a print consumer, I'm content with viewing these specific magazines from my airplane seat, 32,000 miles up.

Week 3 Report

Features I liked and why: I really like the "Quoted" feature of the Web site. It sits on the left-hand side of the homepage and offers a snippet from a then-linked-to article. Very snazzy and a good way to draw in potential readers. Reminiscent of Time's verbatom section.

What's not working with the site: Updated content is in its own section below the main content cycler of the magazine (see image), which is confusing in regards to if the content is actually up-to-date or not (it is). The disconnect, while perhaps mitigated by the bold, black line segregating the two content types, is still frustrating and possibly limits the amount of time a reader spends on the site.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I would like to see an RSS feed, or something besides their Twitter update, so people know content is constantly updating, whether they can tell or not.

How the competitors' sites compare: W, V and Vanity Fair have more obviously fresher content than Interview, but the subscription pop-ups still persist, which are increasingly annoying.

W's content is recent, but, again, is under the content sneak-peaks for the magazine. I noticed that the magazine subscription advertisement on the right features a new handbag as an incentive for subscribing, although the image of Rhianna is the same.

V's site is very modern and easy to navigate, even though the basic header layout is the same as all the others. Overall, not much to update. Staff blogs have content not pertaining to me or featured in the print magazine, so I'm not sure what kind of supplement this provides.

Vanity Fair has started offering content from its next issue, which none of the other Web sites are currently offering, as well as a menagerie of other content. The site is simple at face value, but becomes confusing as the user navigates, as mentioned last post.

Overall, the competition is only doing what their competitors are doing: not taking chances.

Week 2 Report

Features I really liked and why: The "Today's Most Popular" section on the homepage lets users see what the community is currently looking at, which I like. It not only allows visitors to gage what content is new, but also what may be relevant in terms of mass-appeal.

As with last week, I enjoyed the "Captured" section, and look forward to seeing what kind of art and daily life gets captured and sent to this site.

What's not working with the site: The Web site doesn't update as frequently with its same print stories. It updates with other content, but not necessarily the content in its next issue, which is a little troublesome from the perspective of needy readers who have to wait for the actual print publication before partaking.

What's not there that I'd like to see: I'd like to see more color. The Web site does an excellent job of maintaining Interview's aesthetic, however, that sam

e aesthetic looks funny on a 24" iMac screen where colour has such an opportunity to be so much more dynamic and engaging.

How the competitors' sites compare: W Magazine and V Magazine have very similar Web site layouts, including, to a certain extent, editorial content. That is, not the content itself, per say, but the themes presented and entertained weekly. That said, W offers updates to its blog list, which are written regularly. Interview also features blogs, but they seem to updated less frequently.

V also regularly updates its blogs and features a sleek layout that I appreciate more now. It offers an engaging slideshow of stories, as well as micro-snapshots of current blog and other articles.

Vanity Fair's Web site is updated the most frequently, perhaps, of all four publications and includes content from last night's Grammy Awards. The site itself, however, appears too busy, with too much flashing content and left-hand navigation sections which dilute the experience somewhat.

Each of the competitor magazines displayed an in-frame popup window asking to purchase its magazine. Generally, this is annoying as I may already subscribe to the Web site and don't need to be reminded I payed money for a shitty online experience. The only reason these companies should have this interference is if it's an actually-lucrative feature. If not, take it down!

Week 1 Report

Features I really liked and why:

I love the Capture section of the Web site. It asks semi- to full-on-famous people to capture snapshots they find interesting in the world using their mobile phone. This is also a dedicated page in the magazine I find intriguing and slice-of-life-ish.

The Web site also offers various interactive features that load seamlessly and feel like natural extensions rather than something tacked on for effect. For example, this fashion piece on the new catwalk features a clean-cut slide show reminiscent of other sites but without the interfering advertisements (link may require clicking within slide show to activate advertisements). While I don't know how sustainable it will be from a revenue-generating standpoint, it synchronizes the aesthetic perspective of both the magazine and the Web site and leaves the editorial feel in tact.

What’s not working with the site:

This Web site offers a lot to see, and I feel like I'm overloading my senses. This feeling may dilute itself as I visit the site week after week, but right now it feels like too much. I find myself looking at the pictures and reading over big captions, while only skimming over all of the sidebar and Twitter feed attributes. In this respect, the cleanness of the magazine is lost on the homepage of the site.

What’s not there that I’d like to see:

I'd like to see direct updates about what you can view only on the Web site compared to the magazine. That is, I want to know how the Web site will extend the longevity and enjoyment of the magazine. Will I be able to see extra photos from cover shoots, or gleam samples of music from featured artists? I want to know and not have to fish for it.

How the competitors’ sites compare:

Comparatively, competitor Web sites feature similar homepage layouts with lots of information, revolving feature stories and pretty colours. W Magazine, operated by Conde Nast, is all about having you subscribe through a constant barrage of popups, which ultimately distract from the overall enjoyment of the Web site. I feel like I'm looking at something produced because it has to be there in this market.

V Magazine does a good job of integrating its stories with other features and even lets you preview the magazine in a virtual magazine layout with flipping pages and load times. The site is quite enjoyable, however, and offers more than W Magazine, while competing with Interview in terms of design and ease of use -- after the homepage.

Vanity Fair's features include that extra information upfront, such as this extra photo shoot of Robert Pattinson which didn't make it into the final magazine. Overall, the Web site is easy to follow and resembles the physical magazine. Vanity Fair also does a good job of competing with Interview, although it perhaps has a more solid reputation (Interview went through two or three editors and two redesigns in the past two years), which can be seen in the online integration of articles.

Choosing a Magazine

This blog created for my Magazine Publishing course will focus on Interview magazine's Web site and three of its perceived competitors, W Magazine, V Magazine and Vanity Fair. Throughout the next 13 weeks, I will compare the offerings on each of these Web sites, as well as describe any content or features I wished would have been provided.

With the digitization of magazine becoming ever more important, it will be interesting to see how these media outlets compete.