According to AP writer Andrew Vanacore, some copies of the fall TV season preview edition of Entertainment Weekly will feature something new to the magazine industry: full-motion video ads. Select subscribers in New York and Los Angeles will receive a copy of the magazine that contains a thick page with a screen and an embedded video player. As the reader opens the magazine to that page, the video begins. The content of the video? Advertisements for CBS programming and Pepsi products.

This isn’t the same technology as electronic ink — the images will have full motion, color and sound. Does this make magazines more relevant or more obsolete? I’m not really sure what the draw is for Entertainment Weekly (other than what I assume was a massive amount of money for this ad deal). It’s a nifty technology — we’ve all seen science-fiction films where characters are surrounded by video screens showing off everything from sporting events to fast food commercials. But does it make sense for a magazine to incorporate video?

In my mind, incorporating video into a print format seems like throwing in the towel. It’s as if the print industry is admitting that its content isn’t revolutionary or compelling enough to keep the reader’s interest. And if I were reading a magazine and then opened a page to see video playing, two thoughts would immediately pass through my mind. The first would be “wow, that’s pretty cool.” And the second would be “why am I not looking at this online instead of in a hard copy magazine?”