Web Magazines

2010 Circle of Excellence Awards Program

Judges Report

The process: One March 26, 2010, eight judges from seven different colleges and universities, as well as one person from a very distinguished firm that specializes in educational marketing, convened to review 31 exceptional online magazine entries. The panel included people with experience in design, web technology, development, writing and editing for both print and the Web, marketing, education and business practices.

Prior to the face to face judging, each judge was sent the URLs of all 31 entrants. This gave each judge the opportunity to carefully review all entries and organized their comments.

During the day of judging, the first step was to determine how the criteria from CASE would be applied to each entry, insuring fairness to all.

Judges decided to emphasize these areas:

• The appropriateness and quality of the design and writing for the entrant's audience
• How the entrant had taken advantage of the available technology
• How the entrant had used the Internet to track audience responses

The judges agreed that, award winning online magazines should offer a unique online experience rather than serve only as an extension of the print version.

There were 31 magazine entries and eight judges working independently on computers. The judging was divided into first, second and final cuts.

For the first cut, seven of the judges were assigned four entries to evaluate. One judge was given three. Judges independently evaluated and graded the entries that had been assigned to them and shared their comments with the group.

For the second cut, the judges were then asked to identify which, if any, of the entries were worthy of being considered for one of the three awards available in this category (Awards can be given to up to 10 percent of the entries.)

For the final cut nominated entries were projected one at a time on a large screen so that all judges could offer comments on every entry nominated. They were also given the opportunity to nominate an entry that they had reviewed previously but which had not been selected to be shown to all the judges.

After all the nominations were reviewed and discussed, the gold and silver winners were clear. There was less consensus on which entry would receive a bronze award, but, after some lengthy discussion, a clear winner was determined.

Because the category was so new, the judges decided that, although there were outstanding entries in the category, the category needed a more established history to identify a superior entry for a grand gold award.

The Winners:

Gold Award

Boston University, Bostonia Online (http://www.bu.edu/bostonia)

When the images of this magazine were projected there was an immediate gasp from all the judges. As one judge later said, "The creators of this website pushed the boundaries of what an online magazine can and should be." The judges agreed that it was clearly the most innovative and interactive of all the entries. There was easy access to all the stories, the videos embedded in each feature story were stunning, the writing was excellent, and the ability of readers to contribute comments on each article was a great plus.

Silver Award

Case Western Reserve University, Think (http://case.edu/magazine)

The concept and creative approach to the magazine was outstanding. The great use of video on the home page was noted by several of the judges. The publication contains lots of information, but does not feel overwhelming. The visuals were excellent as well.

Bronze Award

Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health (Md.), Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine Online, Fall 2009 Issue (http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2009/fall/)

The design, writing, use of current technology, and the general content were all excellent and reflected the concerns and sophistication of a knowledgeable and serious audience.

Additional Comments:

• "From an aesthetic standpoint, the best online magazines were those that featured a clean, easy to navigate interface, yet had some flair."
• "There was some disagreement among our group of judges regarding the appropriate length for articles, but most agreed that people do not want to read lengthy articles online."
• It's not clear that budget and cost matter much in scoring. Results should be judged on their own merits. It's talent and management and results that count. Clearly, some of the sites are well done despite (by their account) no budget and limited resources. And some with more money and resources to spare, do not necessarily produce award-winning results."
• "There were several entries that allowed the viewers to flip through the pages of their online magazine as if they were looking at a printed copy of the magazine. Most of these entries did not take full advantage of the web medium, so we were all in agreement that these magazines did not merit an award."
• "Relying on their own testimonies, we thought most of the magazine seemed to serve their primary alumni audiences well, or well enough. Some did seem too parochial. Some seemed to go further. Yet all of them also seemed constrained by their duty to their alumni audience, or perhaps emotional ties to the traditional print medium."
• "Many articles, slideshows and video clips just ran too long for online purposes."