Overview of “Videomate: Men” (Encore)
This Decoder Ring episode (hosted by Willa Paskin for Slate Podcasts) revisits a 1987 VHS artifact—VideoMate: Men—and uses it as a jumping-off point to explain the rise, brief success, and quick disappearance of video dating. The episode traces video-dating’s history (from Great Expectations to VideoMate to early internet dating), describes why video seems like an ideal medium for matchmaking, and explains why it repeatedly fails in practice: video reveals too much, making people feel exposed and vulnerable. The piece contrasts high‑commitment, effective older services with today’s low‑commitment swipe culture and asks whether modern social video habits will finally make video dating mainstream.
Key points and narrative arc
- VideoMate: Men (1987) is a 90‑minute VHS of 60 single men pitching themselves on camera. It’s simultaneously hilarious, awkward, and revealing—featuring a “Viking” and many clumsy but sincere self-presentations.
- Creator Steve Dorman produced VideoMate to make dating cheaper, easier, and more entertaining than high‑end video services like Great Expectations.
- Great Expectations (founded 1976 by Jeffrey Ullman) offered in‑person intake, profiles, and video libraries; it charged high fees (~$1,400/year) but produced real matches because members were committed.
- VideoMate sold thousands of copies and reportedly produced some engagements but went bankrupt in 1988—the technology and distribution model (pre‑internet) made scaling impossible.
- Match.com (1995) and the internet displaced older models, but early web speeds prevented robust video usage; video dating lingered as a cultural punchline through the ’90s and 2000s.
- Recent experiments (e.g., Coffee Meets Bagel’s 10‑second, ephemeral video test) and features on Tinder/Hinge show ongoing interest, but most singles remain reluctant to video date.
- Core insight: video gives richer information but raises the emotional cost of exposure—people avoid it to reduce risk of humiliation and rejection.
Background and notable artifacts
- VideoMate: Men — 90 minutes, marketed in rental stores; mixed results: entertaining but awkward; three engagements occurred shortly after release and press coverage boosted sales.
- Great Expectations — pioneering, franchise-driven video dating service with intake interviews, profile binders, and a video library; expensive but effective largely because it demanded user investment.
- Found Footage Festival — Joe Pickett and Nick Prueher preserved and popularized VideoMate clips; an edited viral clip from their archives brought VideoMate back into cultural view.
- Cultural references: film and sketch comedy (Singles, Mad TV, Tim & Eric) treated video dating as a comedic device highlighting awkward self-presentation.
Why video dating keeps failing (main analysis)
- Vulnerability vs. control: Video reveals mannerisms, voice, posture, and intonations—information that helps judge compatibility but also makes rejection hit harder.
- Lack of social norms: Unlike photos or messaging, there are few established norms for how to shoot a dating video (setting, framing, tone), making videos feel awkward or intrusive.
- Commitment tradeoff: Older services worked because people invested money/time, increasing motivation to follow through. Video-first, low-commitment models remove that “skin in the game” and therefore generate less meaningful matches.
- Practical constraints (historically): Pre‑internet and early internet eras lacked cheap, easy distribution of video. Even with modern tech, cultural resistance remains.
- The paradox: The more a medium reveals (video), the more it amplifies the emotional risk of being seen and rejected, so people prefer shallower slices (photos, short bios) to soften that risk.
Modern context and experiments
- 2010s–present: Dating apps added video components (Tinder clips, Hinge videos, ephemeral features). Coffee Meets Bagel experimented with 10-second ephemeral prompts and self-deleting clips to lower the barrier.
- Mixed results: Some users enjoyed the immediacy, but many treated feeds like “a show” and didn’t engage seriously. Low user adoption and awkwardness led many platforms to shelve or downplay video features.
- Demographic hope: Younger generations (raised on Snapchat, TikTok) are more practiced in making casual video and may reduce the perceived vulnerability—this is the most cited reason video dating might yet become mainstream.
Notable quotes and insights
- “Video is theoretically great at showing other people who we really are. That's what's good about it. But that's also what's bad about it.” — summarizing the central paradox.
- “There is no technology in the world that is going to be able to make being really seen and then rejected feel good.” — explains why tech alone can’t fix the emotional problem of dating.
Takeaways and implications
- Tech ≠ psychology: Better delivery (apps, bandwidth) doesn’t solve the fundamental human reluctance to be exposed.
- Design lessons for dating products:
- Lower friction but provide scaffolding (prompts, time limits, ephemeral content) to reduce self-consciousness.
- Preserve some “skin in the game” (commitment mechanisms) to increase follow-through and signal seriousness.
- Build social norms and examples to normalize video presentation (templates, tasteful backgrounds, suggested scripts).
- For users: If you want to try video, start small (short clips, prompts) and treat it as an incremental step toward more vulnerability rather than an all-or-nothing exposure.
Final synthesis
The VideoMate tape is both a comic relic and a poignant illustration of the core tension in dating technology: authenticity helps match people better, but authenticity also increases emotional risk. Video reveals more truth about a person than photos or texts, yet that very transparency makes being rejected feel worse. Until social norms, product design, and user comfort converge, video dating will remain an attractive but niche experiment—both promising and perilous.