It's not often I'll defend Texterity, but I think your criticism is a bit harsh this time around. In this case, SPIN added iTunes and web links to the bands' websites and MySpace pages. I think this has value... Every week, I read People magazine (blame my wife) and sometimes see cool bands. Because it's in print, I rarely actually look them up online. Hence, I don't interact with the content nearly as much as I could.
But also - the costs for SPIN to do this instead of creating something entirely different would've made it counter-productive (imo). That's 1 fact that digital edition bashers consistently overlook: that the product provides a decent ROI with minimal investment. While other products could conceivably provide a higher return in terms of visitors and engagement, they'd do so at considerable expense and using resources that most publishers already lack.
Curious if you checked out Issuu yet? They're still "shoving" a portrait onto a landscape, but the UI is nice. Curious of your opinion.
mturro
· 1 year ago
Marcus: I know... guilty as charged with regard to the harsh tone of the post. But I am getting tired of seeing these kinds of rote implementations. I know that this format can be better and I just want to see it already. The link outs don't do it for me... I can get that from the web site - why do the digital magazine at all? There has to be some benefit that is unique to the format... no? In this version of digital Spin I don't see it.
And the ROI thing doesn't necessarily hold water with me. Sure if it doesn't cost anything there is no real harm to the bottom line... at least not an immediately apparent one. I just wonder if these kinds of cheaply done, poorly thought out attempts at a new model don't do some damage to the brand. Truthfully, it makes the whole industry look like we're grasping at straws... at least a bit. If it's worth the time and effort to do it isn't it worth the extra time and effort it might take to do it right?
Saw Issuu briefly and aside from the "free" aspect it seems to me to be more of the same. Though I will say this: since it is free it might be an ideal place to do some experimentation with regard to design. Maybe that's a place where designers can practice thinking about screens instead of pages.
marcusgrimm
· 1 year ago
"Maybe that's a place where designers can practice thinking about screens instead of pages."
That's really a great idea. A big piece that's missing right now is print designers having the freedom to experiment with the layout. That would go a long way - I think - to helping publishers realize the possibilities
games
· 11 months ago
This article I so true, keep on writing like this, enjoyment to read :) 127
mturro
· 11 months ago
Delete
Sent via mobile (so please excuse the brevity and any typos)
Chris Minnick
· 8 months ago
I could not agree with you more. It's clear to me that most of the current digital magazine formats are transitional technologies. Simply displaying a print layout on a monitor may be the easiest and cheapest way to distribute your content on the Internet, but it's not an effective use of digital technologies. In the process of creating a digital edition, the simple user interface of a paper magazine is replaced with a confusing passel of buttons and dropdowns where readers have to zoom in and drag each page around on their monitor in order to read your magazine. In short, everything that makes paper magazines so attractive is stuffed into a computer where it turns into something that's difficult to use -- unless you print it out. My company has a different approach: we produce a custom digital publication that is laid out for the Web. People register to read it, and then the qualified leads are turned over to the sponsor. This provides quality content to readers for free, while satisfying the advertiser's need for a real return on their investment.
All Comments
It's not often I'll defend Texterity, but I think your criticism is a bit harsh this time around. In this case, SPIN added iTunes and web links to the bands' websites and MySpace pages. I think this has value... Every week, I read People magazine (blame my wife) and sometimes see cool bands. Because it's in print, I rarely actually look them up online. Hence, I don't interact with the content nearly as much as I could.
But also - the costs for SPIN to do this instead of creating something entirely different would've made it counter-productive (imo). That's 1 fact that digital edition bashers consistently overlook: that the product provides a decent ROI with minimal investment. While other products could conceivably provide a higher return in terms of visitors and engagement, they'd do so at considerable expense and using resources that most publishers already lack.
Curious if you checked out Issuu yet? They're still "shoving" a portrait onto a landscape, but the UI is nice. Curious of your opinion.
I know... guilty as charged with regard to the harsh tone of the post. But I am getting tired of seeing these kinds of rote implementations. I know that this format can be better and I just want to see it already. The link outs don't do it for me... I can get that from the web site - why do the digital magazine at all? There has to be some benefit that is unique to the format... no? In this version of digital Spin I don't see it.
And the ROI thing doesn't necessarily hold water with me. Sure if it doesn't cost anything there is no real harm to the bottom line... at least not an immediately apparent one. I just wonder if these kinds of cheaply done, poorly thought out attempts at a new model don't do some damage to the brand. Truthfully, it makes the whole industry look like we're grasping at straws... at least a bit. If it's worth the time and effort to do it isn't it worth the extra time and effort it might take to do it right?
Saw Issuu briefly and aside from the "free" aspect it seems to me to be more of the same. Though I will say this: since it is free it might be an ideal place to do some experimentation with regard to design. Maybe that's a place where designers can practice thinking about screens instead of pages.
That's really a great idea. A big piece that's missing right now is print designers having the freedom to experiment with the layout. That would go a long way - I think - to helping publishers realize the possibilities
Sent via mobile (so please excuse the brevity and any typos)