Digital publications, good and bad (a video post)

Yesterday morning (or perhaps it was late Sunday night), I posted my instant positive reaction to some new weblogs launched by the Nashville City Paper and equally instant negative reactions to something the Nashville City Paper is calling an “e-paper.” I should have thought through my instant remarks a little. Both the software company hosting the e-paper and the newspaper’s publisher (and a friend — I hope not former friend — of mine) took offense at my, granted, ham-fisted slam at the e-paper version of City Paper.

After reading their response, I felt it necessary to explain a little better what I meant when I said I thought there was nothing about it that is appealing to me. I attempted (see below) to do this review via video. It’s my first attempt as such a review and I prove it by saying the word reiterate about four or five times.

The post also explains a little about the evolution of digital-versions of publications over the past few years and how I am beginning to see some I like — indeed, I like them enough to start recommending them to clients when I think they will fit in an overall customer/member media strategy. None of the examples are from work that we’ve done at Hammock Publishing — merely things I’ve run across.

Below the embedded video, I’ve provided relevant links.

P.S. This is my first ‘on-air’ video post. Be kind.

Later: Geez. This is ten minutes long. In the future, I’ll never go over five.



Links:

  • A browser version of the Nylon digital magazine
  • Digital version of “The Delta” magazine
  • Nashville City Paper
  • Brittney Gilbert reviews the e-Paper and, well, ouch.