Why I love and am skeptical about the new Fast Company

If you haven’t seen the new Fast Company website, it is very stylish and looks like this:

I absolutely love this look when it first came out for magazines like WIRED on the iPad when the now deceased Newsstand app first debuted. It’s a very intentional New Media, that aims to be more intuitive than tables and grids and repeating formats, and tries to tell each story by emphasizing what’s unique about them.

2015 seems to have been the jumpstarting year for really good new media experimentation. The New York Times gave all of their subscribers a Google Cardboard, and from the episodes I’ve seen on Cardboard and their other media outlets, have done an amazing job at using new tech to show readers important, unique aspects of stories.

I’ve read, and been struck by the great columns that NYTimes journalists have written about of Syria. But when I watch The Displaced on Google Cardboard, and I virtually stand accross the room from Hana and other Syrian refugees, it sparks a new kind of sympathy.

The impact of new media can have a really significant impact in creating content that has a purpose more than just readership. For Fast Company, the stream of snippets and gifs and stripes and colors is endlessly gorgeous, and genuinely emphasizes the unique qualities of each story.

The Incredibles was an endless fountain of wisdom, and can be referenced for nearly any situation. When everyone’s special, no one is.

When I browse Fast Company, I realized I barely end up reading the actual title of any of the articles. I’m not 100% sure how much text is article title versus just header content, and the variability in formatting leaves few clues as to where I should start.

Highlighting the uniqueness of a story is a fundamental tenet for new media, but there may need to be some separation between those stories to preserve clarity.