Groxie

I’ve finally had the chance to read over the first issue of Portovert—“the first and only magazine for eco–friendly brides and grooms,” and I’m a bit disappointed. I finished reading with the vague sense that I had gleaned nothing at all from the “articles” in the magazine. Now I do understand that there is only so much to say about weddings. Most bridal magazines rehash much of the same material each season, with new colors and flavors on display. Still, each season, writers manage to discover adorable new ideas, little flourishes that are surprising and elegant, and old ideas with thoughts on how to make them your own. I always loved reading those tidbits—I’d clip them and store them away for future inspiration.

Portovert has none of these—nothing special at all, really. The few ideas they cover, from gown preservation to candles are just the organic, local, or vintage version of the same old crap. We’ve already heard it. The amount of information in the articles is pitiful—often one company’s options are highlighted with no discussion of other companies or alternative items. For instance, in the snippet about rings, they showcased a very cool designer. I was happy to read about her, but with the $3500+ price tag for her rings, it would have been great to see some info on companies like GreenKarat and Touchwood, too. And if those aren’t high end enough, I’m sure there are plenty of designers working with recycled materials, Canadian diamonds, and other ecologically sound materials. More research and information would have been much appreciated. I was shocked to find that there were no links in the articles at all—even when the company’s web address was spelled out!

I knew this magazine wasn’t intended for my style of crafty, cheap, and eco–friendly all in one. But having read this first issue of Portovert, I couldn’t tell you who the right audience is. If you’re looking for green wedding resources, I think you’d be better off doing a simple Google search, checking out the many articles on TreeHugger, or picking up/checking out a copy of Simply Green Parties by Danny Seo.

Another small complaint I have is about the “Resources” page. In a printed magazine, and even in most online magazines, ads are clearly ads. Because the “Resources” listed are so few compared to those actually available, I can only assume that they are paid for advertisements. I’d like to see that disclaimed.

I liked the original concept of Portovert—it just wasn’t well implemented. All of the things that could be great about having a magazine online seem to be lost on the creators of Portovert. I think a quick glance through Greenlight and Plenty might provide some important insight for the editorial team at Portovert. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the second issue makes good on the early claims.

Update: Meghan Meyers of Portovert contacted me about some of the concerns I mentioned above. In regards to my confusion about the “Responsible Resources” section, she had this to say:

If you go to the site, please note that the Responsible Resources are listed as
EDITOR’S LISTS. These are not at all paid for—and something very different
than most magazines. Ads (like the one under Pre–Event planning) are in fact
distinguished as such—With the word Sponsor clearly above it.