Burberry’s artofthetrench.comhttp://bit.ly/7ar9xj

The Argument

There’s nothing worse than the pot calling the kettle black, which is the irony of today’s NY Times Critic’s Notebook Why So Stodgy, Prada.com?

Opinion #1: SEO purpose headlines

I agree that on first impression Prada.com’s not nearly as captivating as Burberry’s new ArtoftheTrench. But it’s better than ‘stodgy’, a fact I disputed immediately reading the NYT headline. In reality, the critique doesn’t even discuss Prada.com, and I assume the brand name is used for headline SEO ranking purposes.

Burberry’s ArtoftheTrench is totally fabulous. No wonder it has 3.7 million page views and an Alexa.com of 123,000. Heading over to Alexa.com, the good news on Art of the Trench might be ebbing, but let’s table that topic for a moment.

Opinion #2: No links to key points

The Prada.com kick-in-the-butt isn’t deserved, if you actually visit the website Prada.com.

Could we please have live links NYT?  All of your links except Art of the Trench go to internal NYT pages. Readers expect to travel to your reference points in today’s digital world, so links please.

Yes, I know readers might not come back, once you let them fly solo. Digital readers aren’t monogamous and every day we must prove ourselves as a worthy partners, or readers will leave us with slim chances of a reconciliation.