Vogue.com Gets A Facelift
The magazine launched a redesigned site today, aiming to increase visitation with a more contextually relevant experience for readers (and advertisers).
While we were appreciating the aesthetic improvements to the Vogue.com redesign earlier today, a New York Times article provided some detail behind specific enhancements to the site, and what they ultimately intend to achieve. The new Vogue.com pursues the same strategy as the magazine by pairing content with relevant ads, but utilizes site enhancements in order to offer a more contextually relevant experience for readers – and for the brands and designers that offer and sponsor site content.
We’ve recapped some of these key features below:
- Photos – which are the reason so many people go to Vogue to begin with – are now three times larger
- A more participatory, reader-interactive experience, with integrated Twitter feeds from Vogue editors
- Addition of a ‘most popular’ module to track how often Vogue.com items are posted to Twitter or Facebook, or commented on
- More control offered to advertisers and sponsors over how their ads are placed – only a single sponsor’s ads will be featured on some pages
- Addition of a content landing page featuring aggregated editorial content pertaining to only one sponsor – such as Burberry, Gucci, L’Oreal or Nordstrom – so articles, videos and photo spreads specific to that sponsor appear together, with no content from competing designers or brands
In terms of content and visitation, we wonder if the redesigned Vogue.com can compete with some of the nimbler, continually popular ‘street style’ blogs like Style.Nu, Sartorialist, and Fashiontoast – particularly with respect to their photography offerings. While the redesigned site offers advertisers in particular increased control over the context in which their content is placed, we wonder if visitors will perceive, value and respond to this improved content as well as advertisers do – and if they can do it better than more individually-curated blogs.
[via New York Times]