Recent Posts

Thursday, October 1, 2009

So...Lonny

Yeah. So Lonny, the online decorating 'zine from fabric designer Michelle Adams with other various and sundry ex-Domino staffers, debuted today.

The web-only format allows for expanded editorial features and less advertising than traditional magazine publishing. That's one in the "plus" column. Another great feature is being able to click on an item you're interested in and follow the link through to purchase. Woe-is-be to any designer, manufacturer or artist without a web retail presence though, I doubt you'll be featured in Lonny.

The downside is the technical problems which will hopefully be solved in future issues. The print is nearly illegible when browsing. To read the content, you have to click on the page. You then see only a small section. You must scroll around to read the rest of the page, but it's very jerky.

Given the number of ex-Domino staffers on board you may be wondering about the quality of the editorial features. Well, it's all over the place.

Beautifully-photographed Domino-esque vignettes are plentiful.


But when they pull back to give the reader a sense of the room, you get this:


And this:

...zzzzzzz.

Fashion is also featured, but I really should put that first word in quotation marks. With all of the drop-dead gorgeous women inhabiting the Five Boroughs, she is the best they could come up with? You gotta love her expression in this shot - "Um...yeah...I think this jacket is, like, fugly too."

Former Domino editresse Deborah Needleman pops up having reinvented herself as a boho Martha Stewart who fancies gardening while wearing drapery treatments around her neck.

So, Dumplings, have you had a look? What are your thoughts?

[Lonny]

22 comments:

susieq said...

Okay, okay, I'll speak up. I was disappointed. Just not snappy, edgy, bolder, different enough. I just cracked open the July/August Inside Out and by 15 my socks have been knocked the heck off.

{ I think said fashion model must be Adams' sister or cousin. }

Raina, you wrestled it out of me. Now I've gotta go throw a stake in the ground over on at my own place.

susieq said...

oops. RE above: Meant to type "by PAGE 15"

Anne (in Reno) said...

Bah. I just found this and got all excited. It is nearly illegible. Having to zoom in and read and then zoom out and scroll down and zoom in to read the bottom of the same page is not going to have me coming back for more. I'm just clicking through to look at the pictures now.

I do have hopes though...

Waxy said...

Meh...not excited...hoping to see more 'indie' stuff that would be affordable whatever or cool homes but more of the same...snooze. at least the damn goat got a carrot...what the heck do i get???

amy @ switz~art said...

zzzzzzz is right. not a fabulous start, but perhaps the next issue will dazzle. *crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath*

pillow mint said...

I really appreciate what they're trying to do - it is free, readily available and clicking on featured items to buy them(!) is pretty amazing. *But*, I have a hard time with online magazines. Putting it in Full-Screen mode helps a little, but I just think it's cumbersome and hard to navigate.
I thought the photography was good*, but truthfully, I didn't read any of the text because I didn't want to enlarge each page. Maybe I'm lazy.
I think I'll stick to blogs for online design deliciousness and stick to the remaining magazines for er.... magazines. There is nothing better than curling up in bed with a good magazine!!

*(Don't be shocked if a "Lonny" photo or two winds up on my blog....I'm sure I'll be flipping through regularly!)

Sol Kawage said...

Raina you crack me up.

Anne (in Reno) said...

Some of their copy editing is weirding me out too - I'll accept spelt instead of spelled, but schlept instead of schlepped?

Raina said...

Anne - Must have been a British heeb. Those UK Jews are so fancy.

G. said...

great captions. BOHOMSTEW made me barf/laugh

drollgirl said...

YEESH! i'd have to put this under NOT LOOKING GOOD.

Design Junkie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Design Junkie said...

It wasn't horrible, but I didn't love it. But I hope, for the love of God, that we aren't forced to look at Rita Konig's apartment yet again.

Michelle said...

I love that you actually critiqued it. I like the magazine, but I wish it was printed. I know, I know, it's more eco-friendly online, but interior design is a VERY tactile subject...ya know?

Raina said...

Michelle - I do know. And welcome to this deliciousness!

kate salenfriend said...

took a look: the text being un-readable drives me bonkers and I am so sick to death of the injection of fashion into shelter mags- online or not, who gives a shit? If i want fashion, duh, I get a fashion mag.
and i agree with michelle: I want a magazine.

mypoliticalexile said...

Online doesn't work for design mags or any other genre dependent on visuals. You need to be able to read the text and look at the photo at the same time. Besides, I want a glossy that I can climb into bed with.

erin@designcrisis said...

I actually like the new attempt at an online glossy, if such a thing is possible. I am generally one for the tactile experience, but hey, this is FREE.

I did find most of the homes to be rather snoozy. It scared me that I spent the most time poring over Edie Ross' house.

Let us not speak of that again.

erin@designcrisis said...

Oh, and the fashiony stuff is not working for me. SusieQ's 13 year old daughter did a better job integrating fashion and design on her blog.

House of Slappy said...

My thoughts are that you crack my ass UP! That jacket and model are indeed fugly and you could do a way better job with the spreads.

Designers' Brew said...

I was disappointed too. Agree with everyone else about the text/formatting issue, but my biggest criticism was that it badly needs editing. In the opening editor's letter she talks about how great it is that the format lets them create longer features, but I don't think that's a good thing. Eddie Ross's house was very pretty but I didn't need 26 pages of it. The 20-page Ron Marvin feature could have been, and should have been, kept to 4 or 5. Only five of those photos were actually interesting, and the feature would have been far more compelling with just those few than with all the endless detail shots and landscape shots weighing it down. Why the hell do I care what he's got outside his windows?

Overall, though, I just kind of thought... yawn.

Pigtown-Design said...

I agree with Designer's Brew. It could have been much more tightly edited. Some of the word choices looked like someone pulled out their thesaurus and looked up a synonym to a more common word, which didn't work too well most of the time. I thought the writing was very bad, but the images were mostly great.