Slate’s latest incarnation is as a data-driven social-media beast.  The site thinks it can use viral wizardry to spray smart writing around the internet and, at the same time, finally earn a profit from being perspicuous. The money question has become pressing because Slate, despite its years as a high-brow conversation starter, has yet to show it can survive without the largesse of a corporate mothership.

So will Slate’s third act pan out? Here’s a look at how its brain trust is approaching data, technology and the evolving ethics of advertising.

Top drawer or traffic whore? Stats and story selection

On a cold January afternoon, I met editor-in-chief of the Slate Group, Jacob Weisberg, and Slate editor David Plotz in the former’s airy corner office on Morton Street in New York’s West Village. The office has large windows and shelves of hardcovers, including Weisberg’s exposition “The Bush Tragedy.”

The men were busy. Weisberg was en route to Davos, while Plotz had ducked out from answering questions on the online discussion forum Reddit. But both wanted to make the case that Slate has what it takes to survive in the age of analytics. “We rely on data, not intuition” said Weisberg. “The big cultural change at Slate is that it’s moved from being a site driven by instinct to a site driven by evidence.”

The remark comes as a rebuttal to earlier observations that Slate relied on creaky technology even as its competitors shot by it with state-of-the-art tools. The New York Observer in 2010, for instance, talked to members of Slate’s staff and concluded that the site’s tech was “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.”

Weisberg says those days are done and that technology is at the center of the editorial operation. He points to a new Silicon Valley-style product team and a doubling in the amount of “sideways” readers from social media in the last year as proof that Slate has gotten religion on the analytics front.

Weisberg says Nick Denton of Gawker and Jonah Peretti of BuzzFeed have been inspirations in the push for better analytics. The two viral media evangelists have shaken up publishing by using social media metrics to judge what stories to promote. (Peretti will be speaking at paidContent Live in April.)

But if Slate turns to audience activity to inform its story choice, does this also mean pandering? “We have written traffic-whorey stories here and there,” admits Plotz. But these efforts haven’t been particularly successful, he says. Instead, he credits editorial initiatives like “Bad Astronomy” (a feature for science nerds) with drawing new regular readers to Slate.

In this regard, Slate is like other high-minded publications navigating a tough, even contradictory mission. On one hand, they promise smart and independent ideas; on the other, they’re heeding social media metrics that could tug them to the lowest common denominator. While news sites like BuzzFeed cut their teeth on silly cat photos only to climb up the intellectual and media food chain, it’s unclear whether this process can work in the opposite direction.

So far, Slate appears to be threading the needle by growing its readership, while also publishing thought-provoking pieces (like this one about Palestinian versus Israeli textbooks). Slate says December 2012 unique visitors increased 33% percent from a year ago; meanwhile, comScore stats show Slate is faring well against other ideas publications. Here’s a chart that shows how they compare (note QZ and theAtlanticWire are part of the theAtlantic.com) :

Paywalls and pettifogging

The buoyant numbers are good news, of course, but do they mean Slate is finally in a position to make money? In 2010, Plotz admitted that Slate was not profitable. Like nearly every other digital publication, Slate had discovered the hard way that great writing and a loyal readership are not the same as a business plan.

Since then, many publishers have followed the lead of the New York Times and begun to charge for access to all or portions of their digital content. These so-called paywalls have gained acceptance after being a contentious issue for years — in part because an early effort by Slate to implement one in 1998 didn’t work out.

Slate recently floated the idea of a future “membership” scheme for some readers, but Weisberg is adamant it won’t involve charging for content. The topic is sensitive enough to have produced a bizarre Twitter spectacle in which Weisberg’s Mr. Fox avatar berated a respected Forbes reporter as a “pettifogger” (and worse):

@jeffbercovici Jeff, that story doesn't say that! It calls membership a "model," not a "pay model." Quit pettifogging.—
Jacob Weisberg (@jacobwe) December 14, 2012

So what exactly does the membership involve? Weisberg didn’t elaborate beyond saying it won’t be unveiled until at least the end of the year and that it will be “more akin to a public radio-type membership model — you give a contribution and in return you get benefits.”

As Slate hashes out these details behind the scenes, it’s also trying to cultivate another revenue stream, in the form of an expanded events business. These include loose mixers that let readers mingle with Slate writers; Weisberg says more than 700 people recently bought tickets for one of its “gab-fests” in Washington. Slate is also hosting small, more formal events hosted by advertisers. One example is a UBS-hosted panel at which Weisberg hosted a discussion on exports with political poohbahs.

Other media outlets have run into ethical challenges with custom events like this — most notably the Washington Post, which in 2009 proposed hosting private “salon events” at the publisher’s house for powerbrokers and journalists. It sparked a newsroom revolt, and the paper ditched the idea before it ever became a reality. Weisberg says Slate, which is independent but shares a corporate parent with the Washington Post, won’t run into similar problems because its events are all public and on the record.

All this still doesn’t answer the question of whether Slate is now profitable. Asked directly, Weisberg said he can’t say because of Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure rules that require companies like the Washington Post Co. to disclose material information through broad public channels.

Ads, yes – but not for the Church of Scientology

Digital publications these days need multiple revenue streams to survive, but their core remains advertising. And here Slate, which has recently built up its own sales force outside of the Post, and others face the same dilemma: an increasing amount of web traffic comes in through mobile devices (about 30% now, and 50% by 2014 is probably a safe bet) but ad rates are low and no one is sure what to do about that.

“I don’t think we’ve figured out anything other people haven’t,” says Weisberg. “You have a rapidly expanding audience but CPM’s that are much lower. The key is distinguishing how and when people are using different types of mobile devices.  Between tablet and mobile, those two will diverge rapidly over time. Tablet ads will become more valuable while handsets gravitate to a performance model.”

While publishers wait for the right mobile ad models to emerge, many are seizing on so-called “native advertising” as the secret to juicing ad prices. It’s debatable whether it’s really new but the basic idea is to produce ads that mimic the editorial content around it – ads that resemble nearby stories, tweets, pictures, etc. It may or not be novel, but for now it is clear that native advertising can go horribly wrong such as when the Atlantic printed a “story” about the Church of Scientology replete with gushing “reader” comments about the cult’s virtues.

Weisberg says the Atlantic tripped up by violating three principles: printing ad that confuse readers; tampering with the editorial process; and accepting an ad from someone the publication shouldn’t have done dealt with in the first place. “They are enemies of free speech, they are persecutors of journalists, they’re litigious. They’re a crazy cult who’s made life hell for journalists who’ve tried to do their job. Why do business with them at all?”

In terms of Slate’s own advertising, the publication says revenue in 2012 grew 26 percent from the previous year. Its advertisers include , most recently, Coke, Lexus and Samsung. As for the ad opportunities offered by aggregation tools like Flipboard, Weisberg is skeptical and says they are “too passive” and less useful now that “Twitter has cracked the news personalization process.”

Slate has also built a strong lineup of videos and podcasts that Weisberg says are lucrative for the site. Slate is now producing nine separate podcasts, some of which rate highly on iTunes; one episode of the show Lexicon Valley recently notched up 650,000 downloads. Slate would not disclose how much ads, which are read by show hosts, bring in but said “advertisers pay some of the highest rates in the industry” for the podcasts.

This podcast and other non-print revenue will help determine whether Slate can join an increasingly data-driven media world while still remaining an influential liberal publication. While the verdict is still out, Slate’s confidence remains high.

“We have the brain of the New York Times and the body of BuzzFeed,” said Weisberg as he prepared to dash off to Switzerland – where he would later tweet, “Wish Pussy Riot was in Davos instead of so many Russian oligarchs & kleptocrats.”

(Images by Slate and Kletr via Shutterstock)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure
• How to navigate the new world of digital advertising
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications

This particular tablet uses an Intel Atom chip combined with the full Windows 8 desktop operating system. It can be used as a tablet for up to 9 hours on a single charge but Acer is also offering an optional dock accessory. With it, the W510 looks like a traditional laptop with a touchscreen display. The dock includes not only a keyboard and trackpad, but also a second battery that extends usage to 18 hours. Acer hasn’t broken out the dock price, but a 64 GB model of the tablet with dock is priced at $749.

When Microsoft debuted its Surface tablets for Windows 8, it declined to provide pricing details, saying only that the devices would be priced similar to Ultrabooks. Those slim laptops typically start around $700 to $799, so Acer’s new Windows 8 tablet is certainly in a reasonable price range by comparison. And Windows 8 RT tablets, which will run on ARM-based chips should be priced even lower than Intel-powered Windows 8 slates; a price of $399 to start is a reasonable possibility.

Acer’s Iconia W510 is certainly less expensive than an Ultrabook if one forgoes the keyboard dock, but I suspect most consumers will contemplate adding the option; after 26 years of Windows, it’s not known as a “touch friendly” operating system. Microsoft is working hard to change that with what it used to call the Metro user interface, but for most consumers, Windows means keyboard and mouse. Still, a positive first impression paired with a price that’s comparable to an iPad could sway purchasers this holiday season.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• The future of notebooks: Following in the footsteps of the MacBook Air
• What the Google-Motorola deal means for Android, Microsoft and the mobile industry

For those looking just to protect their Nexus 7, Google’s own case is a solid choice. But I like consuming various bits of content on my small slate and I don’t always want to hold the device. That’s why I prefer a case like the Blurex model: I can prop up the Nexus 7 in three different angles to watch a movie, read a book or play a game. I’m still not sold on the hand-strap this case offers, but I don’t have to use it, so it’s not bothering me. All in all, this was $15 well spent to protect and enjoy my $249 Android tablet.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Survey: How apps can solve photo management
• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Takeaways from connected consumer’s second quarter

This time, the reluctant dating site star is a Slate contributor who teases us with the headline, “I found my boyfriend’s face on a dating website!”

The story, alas, is less tawdry than we hoped — it turns out both the boyfriend and the writer herself had let a friend sell pics of them to a stock photo agency.

The agency in turn sold the photos to dating site HowAboutWe and, voila, minor internet scandal.

The lesson here seems to be don’t volunteer for stock photos and you won’t end up on the internet. As the writer discovered, model release contracts are fairly bulletproof so there’s not much she and her boyfriend can do.

The story does, though, provide a fun tour of other unexpected photo finds — including a man “who cried when he saw that his leg had been digitally chopped off for a billboard about the dangers of diabetes.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected consumer first-quarter 2013: Analysis and outlook
• Deploying big data: 2012 strategies for IT departments
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated

The Slate Book Review will include “reviews of the newest fiction and nonfiction; essays on reading, writing, and the great (and terrible) books of years gone by; author interviews; videos and podcasts; and much more.” Editor is Slate’s Dan Kois, who tells the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) he’ll use “a mix of staff writers and freelancers” to produce the content.

In launching the book review, Slate says it’s “going against the conventional wisdom” that book reviews aren’t economically feasible. Of course, that “conventional wisdom” generally refers to weekly print book reviews, and the Slate Book Review will be entirely online (and only monthly). It joins other online book reviews, including the Barnes & Noble Review, The Millions, Shelf Awareness for Readers, the romance-focused Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, Bookriot and One-Minute Book Reviews.

In other words, there’s not exactly a dearth of book coverage available online, though Slate brings a trusted brand and some well-known writers to the table. And if it’s not that profitable, well, print book reviews never have been either. I wrote an article about the future of book reviews when I was the editor of Publishing Trends. Here’s my favorite part of that piece:

Book reviews have never made much money. In his 2007 Columbia Journalism Review article “Goodbye to All That,” Steve Wasserman, managing director of the Kneerim & Williams New York office and a former editor of the Los Angeles Times Book Review, recalls asking Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. whether the NYTBR had ever made any money: “He looked at me evenly and said, ‘I think, Steve, someone in the family would have told me if it had.’”

In her book Faint Praise: The Plight of Book Reviewing in America, Gail Pool blames the publishers: “[I]n failing to support reviews with even a minimum of advertising, publishers sent an implicit message: book reviews are expendable.” In his article, however, Wasserman said such arguments were “bogus. Such coverage has rarely made a dime for newspapers.”

In an interview, he told me that “publishers care less and less about reviews. There’s no real evidence that advertising for a book alone helps create additional sales,” and he envisions nonprofit models “closer to NPR” for book review sites; he does not know how online critics will be able to make a living.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Exploring the new frontiers of social reading
• Amazon’s E-book Imprints: Another Big Threat to Publishers
• The State of the Smartbook

Although I’ve only had the device for a short while, I’m concerned that in some ways, HTC Sense may have limited the Flyer. In the video, for example, you can see fewer shortcuts fit on each screen. On the other hand, the 3-D interface used in the new Sense 2.1 for Tablets is slick. So too is the customized lock screen that allows fast access to certain functions. And in a video first, I actually test if the device fits in my back pants pocket, which is how I usually carry my Samsung Galaxy Tab. Aside from providing a look at my behind, this first look video also shows a quirk with the browser; it doesn’t seem to fit the page to the screen, although it’s possible I’ve overlooked a setting.

HTC included a digital pen with the review device, which normally costs $79 here in the U.S. I haven’t used it yet, but will for my full review. The pen and WiFi-only tablet costs $580, which may put some folks off, depending on the experience and performance. Although I haven’t used the pen, I’m already wondering if HTC should have skipped the cost of the N-Trig digitizer in the Flyer — that’s what allows the pen to work — or offered the Flyer in two models: one with the N-Trig digitizer and pen, and one with just a standard touchscreen. Any thoughts as I put this tablet through the paces?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Tablet market to hit over 377 million units by 2016
• Tablets wars: Apple is from Venus, Amazon is from Mars

Related research on GigaOM Pro (sub. req’d): How Microsoft Can Win Back the Tablet Market

What users of the Project Origami UMPCs discovered was the same shortcomings that Windows Mobile owners dealt with for years — once you get past the touch interface and have to deal with the OS underpinnings, things fall apart quickly. The user ends up getting completely frustrated, as he or she leaves the comfort zone of the touch world and enters the big, bad non-touch OS. The HP Slate looks really nice and I can’t wait to see one, but it had better nail the interface.

Related Content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d)

The iPad is exciting because it takes a platform that was designed from the ground up to be used in a slate form, albeit one very small, and is intended to be totally controlled by touch. All user interaction will take place using touch on the screen, and the platform was designed for that in every way. This guarantees that working with the interface will not be frustrating, and a handheld device that is frustrating to use will be a miserable failure no matter how useful it might be for consumers.

You don’t have to take my word for it, there have been failed attempts that demonstrate what I am saying. Microsoft had good intentions with the UMPC/Origami devices, but they failed miserably in the market. You can make an argument that there were a number of reasons behind the Origami failure, but the primary failing was the miserable user experience. The Origami Project was a slate/touch interface plopped on top of the Windows desktop OS, and it didn’t go far enough to turn Windows into a good slate interface. Even enthusiasts desperate for a slate device couldn’t get behind Origami because it was too frustrating to use.

More recently we saw the same failure in the smartphone space. Windows Mobile has always been an excellent platform for handheld devices, but all versions of the OS to date were not designed for slate/touch operation. Third party shells from HTC and Spb Software went a long way in turning the Windows Mobile interface into a better slate experience, but they couldn’t go far enough due to the old school OS sitting underneath it all. Like the Origami Experience, once you went beyond the cool touch shell on top of the OS, things got frustrating really quickly.

Mobile devices like slates, that are used in the hands by the very nature of the form factor, cannot be frustrating to use. A device can be a great form and be very useful for many, but if it is frustrating to use it will fail in the marketplace. Users need slates to be pleasant to use while doing the things they want to do with them, and they will not tolerate frustration of any kind.

I have great hope that the iPad will be such a slate, given its platform. I also believe that other platforms can be leveraged on slate devices with good results. Android is a platform based on touch interaction, and slates can leverage that with good results. I also think that if Google makes a totally touch-friendly version of the Chrome OS due later this year, that we could see some awesome tablets using that platform.

I don’t have good feelings about any Windows-based tablets such as the HP Slate. I like everything I’ve seen so far about the HP Slate, but having Windows under the hood is not likely to make for a good user experience. If HP puts a good touch interface on the Slate it will be interesting, but as soon as you have to dive into the Windows underpinnings, I’m afraid it will be just like the failed Origami Experience.

Let’s hope that tablet makers are thinking about this too. I believe that the technology exists to make great slates, even by companies not in Cupertino. The slates need to have a thin and light form on the hardware side, and couple that with an interface that is totally designed to be manipulated by fingers. And above all else do not frustrate the user; even a little bit.

Related research on GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• How Microsoft Can Win Back the Tablet Market
• How AT&T Will Deal with iPad Data Traffic
• Hot Topic: Apple’s iPad

The first video is more promotional than anything else, but for me it does raises the following question: Will the device be this peppy in terms of performance? My concern is that it won’t, but that’s purely speculative on my part. Well, maybe not “purely” speculative — I’m basing the thought on several years of UMPC ownership as well as on the performance of today’s netbooks.

Why compare the HP Slate to a netbook of today? While there’s no official announcement on what’s powering the HP Slate, we know several things that tell us what’s likely powering it. Given that the device runs on Microsoft Windows 7, I’d guess that like new netbooks, it runs on an Intel N400-series Atom CPU with integrated Intel graphics in addition to a hardware accelerator solution — that last bit is mentioned in the second vid, as pointed out by Engadget. Could HP surprise me and use a different x86 processor? Sure it could — at the cost of battery life — something I don’t think will happen.

The second video focuses on a key differentiator to Apple’s iPad — the ability to run Adobe Flash. I’m still wondering if Microsoft is skating to the puck while Apple skates to where the puck will be on this one. I believe that Flash and HTML5 can easily co-exist in the world, but Flash won’t control nearly as much of the video and gaming web that it does today. And Flash isn’t the only big function difference here — Apple’s iPad won’t natively handle inking and handwriting recognition, although some third-party apps can help out that deficiency.

I’m excited by the HP Slate simply because it appears to be the closest product yet to the exciting and original Project Origami vision from 2006. Once the device hits the market later this year, there’s bound to be plenty of buyers who need that full desktop computer compatibility with a mobile device. I’m just not sure that I’m one of them, given my reliance upon the cloud for nearly all of my work activities — a full desktop operating system on my mobile device adds overhead that I don’t think I need for a device in this class. I’ll have to ponder that a little bit more though. Thoughts?

Image courtesy of HP

Related research on GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

Handwriting Recognition: A Killer App for the iPad?