We had a really thoughtful write-up from James Bridle in The Observer this Sunday, including this quote:
“if MacGuffin does take off, mining this data for insights into human attention might be one of the smartest things any publisher has done in some time.”
We haven’t really begun our press campaign yet – it’s all aimed for the launch on June 30th (this was an early surprise bonus), so it’s interesting to see what angle a journalist (and particularly one who knows his way around publishing and technology) takes. The drop-out point analytics are given a lot of emphasis.
Interesting, too, to see what’s picked up in the comments. Not paying writers gets a comment (although, if I didn’t know anything about the project’s aims or intentions, I’d probably ask about this too, so fair enough…). Some other griping about the analytics.
I agonised about whether to reply to the comments, and in the end, I did, just because I though I should put our point of view forward on the payment point. I didn’t get into the nitty-gritty of how the analytics completion rates work, though. I think that when we launch, I should probably decide to bite my tongue.
Anyway, my phone started buzzing with sign-ups on Sunday morning, and hasn’t really stopped since. The review was tweeted by New York Public Library, and then that was followed by a write up on the Spanish-language website Communication Cultural, about which I know little other than it has a nice logo and seems to be about libraries and publishing. Still, they said nice things in Spanish about MacGuffin, so brilliant. Google translate renders my favourite quote as: “It is, in short, one of those tools that is fun tinkering.” What a lovely way of putting it.