What would you watch?

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:23 GMT

Latest product briefing now published, with links to a couple of studies showing acacia honey's antimicrobial effect:

www.youtube.com/.../GfF6LCc2YAw

RE: What would you watch?

serena holmes — Sun, 07 Jul 2024 11:21:31 GMT

2 and 3

RE: What would you watch?

Miriam Lodewyks — Sun, 07 Jul 2024 08:46:39 GMT

For me 5; 4; 1

I recently moved into a niche market and have no need of surgical skills or equipment here.

I recently came across this though and found it extremely moving and effective: youtu.be/yF6aXfLVTlQ

RE: What would you watch?

Ben Walker — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:25:02 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244908#244908"]But I will tweak to remove any ambiguity.[/quote]

That would be helpful. I wasn’t deliberately misinterpreting. I genuinely believed that the description meant that all the video content on the channel went through a review process.

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:14:34 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244904#244904"]

The Brains and Drains channel description states:

”Films are peers-reviewed by Alasdair Hotston Moore FRCVS”. I didn’t say you were the scientific editor, but the channel does claim the content is peer-reviewed by VetSurgeon.org’s clinical editor.

[/quote]

You are not giving the full context. What the channel description actually says is:

Brains and Drains contains peer-reviewed veterinary clinical demonstrations performed by specialist or experienced UK veterinary surgeons, a weekly roundup of veterinary news, reviews and the occasional interview. Films are peer-reviewed by Alasdair Hotston Moore FRCVS. Brains and Drains is brought to you by the publisher of www.vetsurgeon.org and www.vetnurse.co.uk. Films published here are also published on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk, where UK-based vets and nurses can claim a CPD certificate for the time spent watching these films.

What it actually says is that the channel contains peer-reviewed clinical demonstrations. And when I wrote that films are peer reviewed by Alasdair, I was referring to the clinical demos, something I thought would be obvious because clearly the other stuff (vet news, reviews and occasional interviews) are not things you would typically have peer reviewed.

But I will tweak to remove any ambiguity.

RE: What would you watch?

Ben Walker — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:00:23 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244903#244903"]So, you agree that it is unfair criticism, then, because I have never held myself out to be a scientific editor, just an editor that fact checks stories.[/quote]

The Brains and Drains channel description states:

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:39:42 GMT

Ben Walker First of all, I am not dismissing what you say. I don't agree with all of it, and I will challenge some of your points, but I am not dismissing them, and I am thinking about how your feedback plays into future films.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244902#244902"]Maybe also lean less on the press release. All the video content seemed lifted from it, hence my assumption.[/quote]

The thing is, when summarising the point in 60 seconds, there is only so much I can say. The story is: new, broad spectrum adsorbent with two binders in one, whether it is in a press release, a news story or a video brief. The purpose of the product briefing is to summarise succinctly, and reach out to wider audiences. Oh, and perhaps to show things better than can be done in a photo. But beyond that, the room for originality is limited.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244902#244902"]I disagree with your Direct Line point and I think it fair criticism if you are going to claim the content is peer reviewed by a scientific editor.[/quote]

So, you agree that it is unfair criticism, then, because I have never held myself out to be a scientific editor, just an editor that fact checks stories.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244902#244902"]

The Opinium questions and recruitment strategy aren’t disclosed and Direct Line have worked closely with Opinium for years to promote their branding. Part of Direct Line’s insurance offering is access to a vet phone line, so they have an incentive to overstate the problem.

NVS also have an incentive to make the problem seem important and they will have cherry-picked that survey. The info we as vets really need to know is a) how prevalent are intoxication cases in practice (VetCompass is likely a better source); and b) what proportion of these have unknown toxins.

[/quote]

Two things here. First is that some (many) products are sold on fear - flea treatments for example, wormers etc. The marketing for these products often uses inflated figures to create fear. That kind of thing triggers immediate alarm bells for me.

However, in this case, it is an adsorbent used by veterinary professionals in response to a need seen in practice. In this case, the product can't be sold on fear or inflated risk, because YOU KNOW how many poisoned dogs you see in practice, and furthermore you know how many don't respond to activated charcoal, and your decision to buy this stuff is based on what you know, not on whether there are a reported 120,000 or 7.1M or 50M.

That said, as I was making the film and adding the visual 7.1M, it did cross my mind to reference it - I just thought ... nah, it is an unimportant point and I have limited space on the screen for some long reference.

However, I did reference it in my written news story, and I think on reflection you are right, I should apply the same standard to my video, so as to be above criticism.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244902#244902"]

You can say it’s on us to consider this, and that’s fine, but in that case the brief is just the press release and I’ll see it on your News Headline, Vet Record, or VetTimes. Probably all three.

I like the concept of a product brief, but I wouldn’t subscribe to them without seeing more obvious originality, ideally with a sceptical filter applied to the content.

[/quote]

So I come back to the original distinction I made between a review and a product brief.

A review weighs up the pros and cons and can include scepticism. A product brief simply outlines the facts. As I said at the outset, I am not qualified to review products, only to tell you about them.

The purpose of video content is also to reach out to new audiences. Interestingly, Duotox has not yet been reported by Vet Times or Vet Record.

But if it had been, there is still a sporting chance that someone - even you - has not read this week's edition, and they happen to be scrolling through instagram, or linkedin, or facebook, or wherever, where they see my briefing.

So all in all, I see the product briefing being what is, you're right, a variation on the news story. ie a succinct summary of the product. Presented in a less dry format than the written word, one which reaches beyond the site and engages with different audiences. That may not be your cup of tea - which is fine - the answers to the question I asked at the start of this thread (what would you watch?) reminded me how variable people's tastes are!

But your feedback reminds me also of the importance of referencing, even if I think a point is unimportant beyond being a scene setter.

RE: What would you watch?

Ben Walker — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:36:32 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244898#244898"]Now you might think the script sounded like an advert, perhaps a consequence of my enthusiastic style and the premise of 60 seconds. Perhaps I need to tweak that, if people don't like it.[/quote]

Fair point and I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions. Maybe also lean less on the press release. All the video content seemed lifted from it, hence my assumption.

I disagree with your Direct Line point and I think it fair criticism if you are going to claim the content is peer reviewed by a scientific editor. The Opinium questions and recruitment strategy aren’t disclosed and Direct Line have worked closely with Opinium for years to promote their branding. Part of Direct Line’s insurance offering is access to a vet phone line, so they have an incentive to overstate the problem.

I like the concept of a product brief, but I wouldn’t subscribe to them without seeing more obvious originality, ideally with a sceptical filter applied to the content.

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:04:28 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244897#244897"]I don’t think the above has actually answered my question. Unless you are aiming to brief on every product that meets these criteria it doesn’t outline the selection process[/quote]

Well, we haven’t narrowed it down any further yet. I’ve done one, to test the concept, and now plan to do another half a dozen. Then we’ll see where we go from there.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244897#244897"]I think it should probably be made clearer that it is an advert.[/quote]

No, it is not. An advertisement is a piece of marketing copy commissioned, scripted and paid for by a manufacturer. The film I shared was commissioned by me, scripted by me and paid for by me. So it most categorically is not an advert.

Now you might think the script sounded like an advert, perhaps a consequence of my enthusiastic style and the premise of 60 seconds. Perhaps I need to tweak that, if people don't like it.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244897#244897"]could you back up the 7.1 million pets falling ill from poisoning in 2020 figure at the start of the brief?[/quote]

Firstly, I would say that this is not a product claim, just a figure to highlight the point that lots of dogs ingest toxins, which I am sure you yourself would know to be true. I would say the precise number is not terribly important. But since you mention it, I used the figure because it was one supplied with the original press release, along with VPIS figures. I checked the source, that it was quoted correctly and that it seemed to be a reasonable piece of research. Direct Line would not be expected to be biased on the number dogs which ingest toxins, it was a reasonable sample size. I am sure too that any numbers reported by vets would be an underestimate, because many animals would not have been seen by the vet. But again, it’s not a product claim, nor does it help sell more product, because you know in practice how often you need an adsorbent, so even if I said 50M pets were poisoned last year, you wouldn't be buying more of it than you see the need for in practice.

RE: What would you watch?

Ben Walker — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:21:28 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244896#244896"]The criteria is quite broad: Any new product or any old product with something new to say, or any product not widely known about.[/quote]

Thanks Arlo.

I don’t think the above has actually answered my question. Unless you are aiming to brief on every product that meets these criteria it doesn’t outline the selection process.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244896#244896"]I do not endorse products,[/quote]

Are you sure? The Duotox video transcript reads a lot like advertising copy, and I think it should probably be made clearer that it is an advert.

If you disagree, could you back up the 7.1 million pets falling ill from poisoning in 2020 figure at the start of the brief? Why did you pick Direct Line’s 2021 briefing as your source (https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2021/7-1-million-pets-fall-ill-after-eating-something-poisonous.html)?

That source has a separate vet survey that put the estimate at 120,000 pets, which fits better with VPIS data on the number of enquiries they receive per annum.

A 2021 VetCompass study (based on 2016 data) put the annual prevalence of grouped “intoxication” disorders at 0.69%, again supporting the vet estimate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7888168/

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:20:53 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244895#244895"]Some questions if you don’t mind:[/quote]

Not at all!

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244895#244895"]What is the nature of the peer review your channel description claims? Are the manufacturer’s claims being assessed, or is it more an editorial review to make sure your statements are in line with the manufacturer’s claims?[/quote]

I am not a veterinary surgeon myself, so I am not qualified to review the practical strengths or weaknesses of a product.

Also, in line with my news reporting, I do not endorse products, or make claims on their behalf. What I do do, is fact check. If a claim is made, first I check it seems reasonable, second I make it clear that it is a claim by the manufacturer. Third I reference it.

So as opposed to a review in which I might express an opinion or endorse something, a briefing is just a presentation of the facts (that I have fact checked).

I write the script, not the manufacturer. But I do allow the manufacturer to point out if I have made a mistake, before I film.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244895#244895"]How do you choose what products to brief?[/quote]

The criteria is quite broad: Any new product or any old product with something new to say, or any product not widely known about.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244895#244895"]Is there any compensation or incentive for you or VetSurgeon.org?[/quote]

This is currently in beta testing - but our plan is not to sell these, so no direct compensation. However we do inevitably prioritise companies that advertise with us (banners and emails) - because we are talking to them more regularly, apart from anything else.

RE: What would you watch?

Ben Walker — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:00:43 GMT

Some questions if you don’t mind:

How do you choose what products to brief? Is there any compensation or incentive for you or VetSurgeon.org?

What is the nature of the peer review your channel description claims? Are the manufacturer’s claims being assessed, or is it more an editorial review to make sure your statements are in line with the manufacturer’s claims?

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:20:43 GMT

[quote userid="4103" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244893#244893"]I think I like it[/quote]

Thank you, I think!

[quote userid="4103" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244893#244893"]I probably count 0[/quote]

On the contrary!

RE: What would you watch?

Cinzia Gandini — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:13:46 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244890#244890"]Obviously these will be particularly relevant with new products like Duotox, but I think they may also be relevant to old products if there is something new to say about them[/quote]

I think I like it, I probably count 0 but go for it

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:00:54 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244891#244891"]An eleVETor pitch? [/quote]

Mmmmm ... That's an idea!

RE: What would you watch?

David Mills — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:35:24 GMT

An eleVETor pitch?

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:02:48 GMT

.... After some thought, I had an idea the other day to try and replicate a format which has worked well for me in the gadget world ... which is summarising things in 60 seconds.

And so the 60-Second Veterinary Product Briefing for Vets and Nurses was born.

This is slightly different to a review. With a review, I would have to outline pros and cons, which I am not qualified to do.

With a brief, I am simply going to offer the salient facts as succinctly as possible and hopefully in a way that you find engaging.

I suppose the success of this will depend on whether people like my presenting style .... or find it grating! I hope the former.

My plan is to do a few more of these to hone the format, and so if you have any feedback, good or bad, please do say so.

Obviously these will be particularly relevant with new products like Duotox, but I think they may also be relevant to old products if there is something new to say about them.

Anyway, with no further ado:

youtube.com/.../UWpKBNO03yM

RE: What would you watch?

Cinzia Gandini — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 21:43:54 GMT

(4) 15-12 min interviews with interesting figures in the profession about topical issues.
(5) A 5 minute round up of all the important veterinary news from all sources.
(3) Short form demonstrations of veterinary equipment
(1) Reviews of veterinary equipment
(2) Long form demonstrations of surgical techniques

RE: What would you watch?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 18:22:34 GMT

In order of preference: 3, 1, 2 and the rest nowhere.

RE: What would you watch?

David Mills — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 11:08:13 GMT

Reviews and demos of vet equipment would be my choice.

Surgical videos are useful but I prefer to read about procedures - I suppose it depends on your learning style as others have said seeing is a major thing for some people. I imagine they are time consuming to produce and there are a lot on youtube etc already. Didn't the BVA try something similar many years ago? Don't think it was a huge success but it was behind a paywall.

Interview heavily depend on the speaker and I mostly get annoyed at opinion-givers in the vet profession but then I suppose it may raise interest.

News round up with careful editing (so it's not just we've produced a new tablet that's chicken flavoured) could be a good use of 5 minutes.

So in order of preference 1, 3, 5, 2, 4.

RE: What would you watch?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 07:50:23 GMT

Thanks both, really helpful.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244820#244820"]People interview may be ok, but really depends on speaker and topic. VV do something like this, and they are generally dull - I've never finished one.[/quote]

Ha - yeah, well that's what I tend to think about almost any film I have seen which is made for the veterinary profession. Interviews tend to be people just talking to camera (or worse still a webcam) and usually not people who have any training or practice presenting to camera.

And of course there is the problem that few people are brave enough to be candid on camera, so you can end up with some pretty anodyne stuff.

Worse still, patronising cartoon explainers of new drugs by pharma companies (I sit there asking myself ... why not have a product manager talk to camera enthusiastically about their new "baby"?).

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244820#244820"]The most interesting for me would be Long form demonstrations of surgical techniques, on the condition that I was particularly interested in that particular operation because I had one to do. Very much a visual learner and if I've seen it I can do it. Not going to waste an hour watching a detailed video of something I'm not going to be doing.[/quote]

For sure. I did a few of these with Alasdair a few years ago and they have racked up a lot of views on youtube - I imagine from people who are preparing to do that specific procedure, or owners wanting to know what is about to happen!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244820#244820"]Reviews are interesting, but again, only if I'm looking to buy.[/quote]

Yes, except that if one reviews interesting things, more likely perhaps that you might decide to buy as a result of seeing the film.

For me, the challenges are:

1. Long form films - very time consuming to schedule and film (got to wait till there's a suitable patient etc).

2. Reviews - I think I can present the features of a piece of equipment reasonably well now (even demonstrate some features). But I am not qualified to review veterinary equipment. I need a vet for that!

3. News - Interesting it was quite high on Clive's list. I did trial it a few months ago, and stopped when it didn't spread like wildfire. I think Alasdair thought I should have persevered, but I didn't!

4. Interviews - I think I could do that. The challenge is to have interesting people speak their minds. I think I know enough about film making now to make it visually more interesting that a piece to webcam!

RE: What would you watch?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 22:18:03 GMT

The most interesting for me would be Long form demonstrations of surgical techniques, on the condition that I was particularly interested in that particular operation because I had one to do. Very much a visual learner and if I've seen it I can do it. Not going to waste an hour watching a detailed video of something I'm not going to be doing.

Reviews are interesting, but again, only if I'm looking to buy. Ideally, some genuine comparable testing, rather than a testimonial from someone who bought it and is trying to convince themselves they didn't waste the money!

People interview may be ok, but really depends on speaker and topic. VV do something like this, and they are generally dull - I've never finished one.

Would never watch a news format.

RE: What would you watch?

Clive Ansell — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:09:23 GMT

1) (4) 15-12 min interviews with interesting figures in the profession about topical issues.

2) (5) A 5 minute round up of all the important veterinary news from all sources.

3) (1) Reviews of veterinary equipment

4) (3) Short form demonstrations of veterinary equipment

5) (2) Long form demonstrations of surgical techniques