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.