crapping turtle

Are you familiar with Newspaper wannabe Snapd or SNAP or whatever they are calling themselves?

The tag line provided on their website reads “Capturing Life and Entertainment” yet a review of any of their editions and the only thing they’ve crap-tured is a stream of photos of people at local events. These photos are digested with advertising and then come out a sphincter in the form of a newspaper that is anything but.

Snap has based a business model around the belief that “existing media both nationally and internationally have grown stale in the public eye” and that they “deliver mostly negative and political editorial content causing local publications to drastically lose touch with readers and advertising”.

This is listed on their website and you can read it in full in this snapshot here:

Snapd believes that all those nasty words in papers are the things to avoid so they have removed them entirely as to provide a “truly Positive Communication Based Publication”.

Wow, talk about performing a journalistic lobotomy on the community it proposes to serve.

Then we read about how they are “implementing a progressive use of technology, with constant upgrades and efficiencies introduced in their technology and new media fronts”.

A visit to the Snapd website shows a framework that is incredibly dated, hard to navigate and severely restricts the viewing of the only content they advance.

New Media and technology have leapfrogged over Snapd’s business model over a decade ago providing a much more natural way to capture life and entertainment as well as share it, and all without needlessly printing out an instagram or facebook feed to reams of newsprint.

The “Dynamic financial model” that Snap references is a franchise arrangement that places the focus solely on 100% advertising.

Advertising they claim is “highly effective and affordable” but provide absolutely no metrics to support such claim. Instead under “Why advertise In Snap” we read that there are an average of 2.4 readers per copy, how this has been established is unkown and more interestingly that 65% of readers are between the ages of 24 and 49:

Now when it comes to making grandiose claims about the effectiveness of a publication’s advertising with respect to demographics it has outlined you would think that such claims would be substantiated with some form of market research.

Daniel Newman’s April 28th piece in Forbes title “Research Shows Millennials Don’t Respond To Ads” says it all:

Newman outlines how traditional advertising doesn’t work anymore. People haven’t stopped buying things, but how and why they buy those things have changed.

This can be summed up nicely in this photo:

Now seriously, where are the readers between 24 and 49 (that make up 65% of SNAP’s readership) going to fall in this photo?

There’s a reason to pick up a local newspaper like The Auroran, and even The Error Banner in print, because they has a large selection of content and context. Political and editorial content is what prevents papers from getting stale and the whole nonsense of who defines what is “mostly negative” is not something I would trust a paper featuring nothing more than photos of plastic smiles to define for me, or anyone for that matter.

If anything it’s Snapd’s own business model that has great potential to cause it to drastically lose touch with readers and its most important element: advertising.

But it’s business model isn’t just flawed from an output standpoint, upon reading online reviews there is also questions as to its production and management efforts.

There are only 2 reviews on Rate my, neither of which paint a picture of a “truly Positive Communication Based Publication”.

The first reviewer from May 2010 states they are not proud for working for this company- not ashamed, but not proud. They also dispell the notion of any “efficiencies”:

But it is this statement that rings true the most for me:

“I find the entire concept of SNAP to be extremely self-serving, and feeding of consumerist culture.”

The second review from February 2010 here: is equally eye opening.

Given that these are a few years old I continued my searching and stumbled upon the only review posted on, it is from February of this year:

“Lets face it when you have a paper full of random people smiling, at best it’s narcissistic and only appeals to the people who are in it. There is no news worth reading (by design) and the “events” are made up of nothing more than lame photos of people no one really cares about. Even the staff doesn’t want to look at it.”

Not unlike one of Fat Bastard’s bowel movements


Watts on your mind?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s