{"id":10196,"date":"2026-11-08T13:27:53","date_gmt":"2026-11-08T13:27:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=10196"},"modified":"2026-11-08T13:27:53","modified_gmt":"2026-11-08T13:27:53","slug":"video-media-news-tiktok-pivot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=10196","title":{"rendered":"There\u2019s no slowing down media\u2019s pivot-to-video 2.0"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

This is<\/em> The Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more on the pressures of creating content for the internet, follow Mia Sato<\/a>.<\/em> The Stepback arrives in our subscribers\u2019 inboxes on Sunday at 8AM ET. Opt in for<\/em> The Stepback here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Almost exactly a decade ago, the media industry was in the middle of a video revolution \u2014 or so it thought. In the mid-2010s, publications poured money into burgeoning social media video efforts, chasing the promise<\/a> of reaching larger audiences and opening new lines of revenue. Print publications and digital news outlets alike hired teams, pumped out content, and entrusted platforms like Facebook with their reach and distribution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

That pivot-to-video slowly revealed itself to be a lot of smoke and mirrors when it became clear that Facebook had inflated video views<\/a>. Newsrooms cut writers and editors in a move to video \u2014 and then cut those video teams<\/a> when they realized the pivot had not paid off. For many in the media industry, social video brings to mind layoffs and instability rather than the promised abundance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

A \u201cpivot\u201d feels inadequate to describe the current emphasis on social video, not just in newsrooms but in society writ large. Social media companies have reorganized their feeds to emphasize video, spurred<\/a> by the massive growth of TikTok during the pandemic. But the media industry is still playing catch-up, and in some cases it seems to have been slow to jump in (perhaps cautious given past experience). It took years<\/a> for some publishers to start incorporating vertical video on their websites, apps, and stories, for example, and it takes coordination and intention<\/a> to get individual reporters in front of a camera to talk about their work. In the meantime, YouTube has become the most popular streamer<\/a>, commanding nearly 16 percent of TV viewing, according to Nielsen. Twenty percent of Americans regularly get news from TikTok<\/a>, and that number jumps to 39 percent for people 18 to 29 years old, Pew found.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Viewers favor the stripped-down selfie-style video dispatches from personalities<\/a> they trust, even if those creators are not themselves reporting and writing the news. Compared with a decade ago, the barrier to entry and cost of making video content has plummeted: Anyone with a smartphone can become a video creator, no fancy equipment or editing needed. Social video is fast, personality-driven, casual, and, at times, unfiltered \u2014 the exact opposite from what news outlets are used to. A second pivot-to-video is underway, and the media industry once again wants in.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Video is unavoidable on social media, if not an expected part of how people and institutions show up online. TikTok\u2019s influence is felt everywhere: on competitor platforms like Meta\u2019s Reels and YouTube Shorts, of course, but also in unexpected places, like LinkedIn. There are no signs of it slowing down, either: The time spent watching Reels on Facebook was at an all-time high in Q3<\/a>. Early tests in other countries suggest Meta is toying with the idea of dropping users directly into full-screen video<\/a> upon opening the Instagram and Facebook apps. The appetite for video seems insatiable<\/a>, and if news organizations won\u2019t lean in, armies of content creators will be happy to scoop up the audiences.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Some news outlets were relatively early to the short-form social video boom. The Washington Post<\/em>, for example, found notable success on TikTok<\/a> before many peers had even created dedicated accounts on the platform. (Dave Jorgenson, the face of the Post<\/em>\u2019s social video effort, left the paper last year. He now makes short and longform videos under Local News International<\/a> \u2014 perhaps a testament to the trust that viewers place in individual creators.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Beyond having a short-form video presence, some traditional news outlets are leaning into formats and styles popularized in the vertical video era. CNN partnered<\/a> with Jubilee, the popular channel that produces debate-me-style videos on hot-button political topics. The CNN town hall with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico was conducted in the Jubilee style. The New York Times<\/em>, which for years has produced polished documentary-style videos, recently introduced the vertical video series \u201cThe Call.\u201d Unlike the Times\u2019<\/em> more buttoned-up videos, the point of \u201cThe Call\u201d is to create a sense of intimacy, like you\u2019re getting updates from a friend: The show\u2019s host ostensibly makes a video call to a journalist reporting on the ground<\/a> to ask them about what they\u2019re witnessing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

News outlets are also directly hiring or working with content creators. Some outlets like The Washington Post<\/em> have spun up so-called creator networks, where they partner with influencers<\/a> to produce content independent from the newsroom. A new program supported by Poynter and Microsoft pairs content creators with a handful of news outlets<\/a> so they can create content tailored for social media.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And then, of course, there are the clips<\/a>. Podcasts became videos, which became bite-sized clips of podcasts formatted for vertical feeds. TV shows became web shows<\/a>, which gave rise to microdramas<\/a>. News articles \u2014 even major investigations \u2014 are now adapted for vertical video audiences. Individual reporters (myself included) make talking-head clips explaining our reporting. Earlier this year, I called this phenomenon \u201cthe clippening\u201d: the reformatting of all media to be legible in a vertical video feed, even if the original work is neither vertical nor video. It\u2019s hard to fault the people and institutions putting resources into social video \u2014 audiences are<\/em> consuming it \u2014 but it\u2019s also feeling a lot like the past.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

One of the misguided beliefs of pivot-to-video 1.0 was that traction, views, or engagement on social media platforms would be enough to offset (and ideally surpass) the cost of making the content. For many, that ended up not being true, with flawed metrics, of course, being part of the reason: Virality feels nice, but monetizing that attention isn\u2019t always straightforward. These days, social media companies have largely coalesced<\/a> around the \u201cviews\u201d measurement meaning the number of times a post was served up on somebody\u2019s feed, whether they watched the whole thing or swiped away immediately. How many people who watch a clip of a podcast go on to listen to the full episode? Are the people watching my TikToks about my stories actually going to The Verge<\/em> to read it, or buying a subscription to support my work? You can\u2019t eat views.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The hope is that we will find new audiences where they\u2019re already spending time. There are millions of people discussing news that journalists are uncovering \u2014 it\u2019s important that we reach them, build trust, and be part of the conversation. What\u2019s certain is that if reporters and news outlets don\u2019t, a whole slew of creators will be there to take their place.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Just as we\u2019re getting used to short form, the ground is once again shifting under our feet. Not content simply being social media, platforms are looking to be a destination for longer form, higher production quality entertainment. Tech companies know that people watch videos on their phones, but they would also really like users to watch on their televisions, too.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This spring, YouTube\u2019s pitch to content creators (and advertisers) was to make exclusive shows<\/a> for the platform. YouTube is dominating<\/a> the TV streaming wars, but other platforms like Instagram are pushing in that direction, too: Its recently announced \u201cFeatures\u201d effort allows for 90-minute horizontal video uploads<\/a>, and it seems to be specifically angling for television viewing. (Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of questions from creators<\/a> about what they get in return for posting longer content.) Some news outlets are already thinking ahead and eyeing longform. The BBC struck a deal with YouTube<\/a> in early 2026 to create special programming specifically for the platform, then followed it up by announcing<\/a> a 24\/7 YouTube livestream in an effort to reach young people.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Short form isn\u2019t going anywhere, at least right now. But these efforts to move into longer, more resource-intensive video content could be a harbinger of what\u2019s to come \u2014 and what could soon be asked of news publishers and influencers alike. News media have had a complicated relationship with tech platforms. On one hand, it\u2019s where audiences are, and platforms allow publishers to reach those people. On the other hand, tech companies signal to outlets (and creators) what kind of content they should prioritize, and everyone has to scramble to meet the new demand. Just as soon as journalists start getting comfortable with front-facing selfie videos, we may be facing a whole new beast: videos that are horizontal and longer, with a higher production value and higher barrier to entry that we typically associate with TV and streaming.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n