Disqus - Latest Comments for marcusgrimm

Re: Motivation. Why is it so elusive?

marcusgrimm — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:36:05 -0000

I read something once: "The first 10 minutes of anything suck." That's so true for me. If you accept that, you can learn to ignore the lethargy, laziness and all around crappy feelings, and get to minute 11, where the vast majority of things do not suck.

Re: Sweet Victory: What Can You Accomplish in 8 Hours?

marcusgrimm — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:53:00 -0000

Thanks, Colleen! We've gotten 6 confirmed appointments already, so it looks like this thing is off to a good start!

Re: Sweet Victory: Medtronic CGM v. the Dexcom

marcusgrimm — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:22 -0000

Good to hear from you, Al! In the end, I did go on the Medtronic CGM. Curiously, my opinion hasn't really changed. If I had to put a number on it, I would say that - for me - the Dex was about 10-15% more accurate. However, I have really enjoyed not having to carry a second receiver.

If accuracy is your #1 goal, I'd go Dex, but if you're looking for convenience, as well, I'd go Medtronic. I am still eagerly awaiting the Animas/Dex combo and will move to that as soon as possible when it becomes available. Unfortunately, that could still be some time, which was why I wagered on the Medtronic.

Re: New Study: Digital magazines Outperform Other Electronic Media With Ads, Readers - Matt Kinsman - Blogs Digital Editions @ FolioMag.com

marcusgrimm — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:05:20 -0000

In regards to Ken's comment, there were a few key points about this study that Matt failed to mention. It's important to understand how this study is different not just from other studies, but from what most publishers are doing with their digital editions:

1. All magazines included in the survey had demonstrated revenue generation success with their digital magazines already. This was really the point: to figure out why some digital magazines make money and others don't. If you aren't making money with your digital magazine, you weren't asked to participate.

2. The vast majority of the digital magazines in the study have made the decision to optimize their publications for the screen, via layout and font choices and sizes. Not all of them, but most.

So, it's important to note that the people who filled out the survey were responding to how they felt about OPTIMIZED publications that have demonstrated FINANCIAL SUCCESS. If you haven't done these things, I'd suspect you wouldn't get the same results.

In the end, the survey is kind of like asking a theatre-exiting crowd how they feel about going to the movies when they've just seen an Academy Award winner. The results aren't bogus, though they're certainly influenced by the quality of what they've just seen.

Thanks,

Marcus Grimm
Marketing Director
Nxtbook Media

Re: Fever hit 103.8 last night. B…

marcusgrimm — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:10:10 -0000

Whoa - you're still sick? youch - those kids aren their germs. Hope you recover soon.

Re: Good print design is bad browser design

marcusgrimm — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:45:46 -0000

"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

Re: Good print design is bad browser design

marcusgrimm — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:48:16 -0000

Hi Michael,

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.