We're looking forward to your feedback...

uumm, no responses after almost 4 days ? This message board needs a makeover. Only teenagers like to watch video clips all the time, and what kind of demographic do slate's readers belong to ? This is slate's attempt to compete with youtube or trying to attract the younger audience ? If facebook is going to takeover the Internet, how does slate fit into it ?

cheers

Arnott

What audience are you going for? I watched the DP clip and got the impression you're aiming a bit low? Cutsie gifs of doggies gnawing on bones and licking themselves with syrupy-sounding voice-overs don't quite cut it for me.

So I checked out a few others I thought might be a bit more, uh, adult? professional? informative?

I came to one conclusion. Slate, stick to the format you know. Some people/things just do NOT work as well in video as other formats. Example. I like the sound of a lot of Neil Young's work. However, Neil Young has no business doing videos. Close-ups do not flatter him. The format adds nothing to his art. He needs to stick to audio. It works for him. He does it well.

When we were small, we had books and magazines read to us until we learned to read for ourselves, and now that we've managed the skill, some of us really do prefer to exercise it. Video doesn't always equal "better".

Slate has some fine writers working for it (the framer of the original question in this thread is excluded), writers who don't always succeed as readers of their own prose. Adding silly cartoons and kiddie-sounds to illustrate a story seems condesending to the audience. Additionally, most of us can gather the sense of (and dismiss) a pop-up ad in less time than it takes the video of a similar ad to load. Wasting consumer time doesn't benefit anyone's nerves.

So, sorry, no to the V-Slate. I prefer to read the news in Slate than to have it read to me.

Regards,

OurWarrenInNJ

Agree people from Slate are probably looking for something more serious. The parodies and sarcastic goofy videos are something you see more in the Fray than on Slate, however there seem to be a lot of them on SlateV. Maybe it's just the ones I saw. Maybe they should be clearly marked as "funny" rather than "news".

You might consider having a section for Headlines that links to videos on other news sites - the quality and frequency of videos on news sites is poor, so by doing some editorial filtering you can provide a value-added service. However this may be a short-term opportunity as networks focus more on the quality of their web video offerings.

I doubt people are expecting much different form what is on Slate (which may be a difficulty for you if you wish to expand in another direction - the joys of branding). Alternative editorials and looks at regular news. In-depth treatments of important side-issues or behind-the-scenes-issues. Coverage on topics that are important to the functioning of society yet don't make the major news channels.

OurWarrenInNJ:

So, sorry, no to the V-Slate. I prefer to read the news in Slate than to have it read to me.

I prefer to have it read to me, sometimes. Like when I'm making breakfast. Or to have video with it so I can see what it's talking about.

For a video to be Slate-y it needs to be smart, concise and should fit the mode of delivery--the content should be best expressed on video. And at this, Slate, in it's rush to appear more tecno savy, has sucked. Like a middle-aged man with a pot belly and a combover wearing a Thom Browne suit, Slate is just looking more and more ridiculous. Please go back to what you do well: smart WRITING in online print. Unless, that is, you have already fired all the smart writers and replaced them with YouTube idiots?

agoodspellr:

OurWarrenInNJ:

So, sorry, no to the V-Slate. I prefer to read the news in Slate than to have it read to me.

I prefer to have it read to me, sometimes. Like when I'm making breakfast. Or to have video with it so I can see what it's talking about.

But if video is needed to augment a text, then the writer (or perhaps the editor) hasn't done their job of orienting the reader - and Slate has some fine writers whose articles don't require illustration beyond the odd photograph or two.

Slate's strength, (as someone stated elsewhere), is in it's smart, high-quality writing. Video is fine as one form of journalism, but it doesn't replace or always enhance print journalism.

What I see in some on-line magazines, especially in those that were previously text-based, is the assumption that video is somehow "better", with a resulting techno-race to replace as much text as possible with video (with some of it being of very inferior quality!). Are online magazine editors afraid that their "readers" have lost the ability to read?

Regards,

OurWarrenInNJ

Love Prudie and the Shopper.

Left of center