Publishers are putting money back into video because traffic from search and social links looks less reliable. This time the focus is short, personality-led clips made for platforms like TikTok, rather than the website video of a decade ago.
What does “pivot to video” actually mean?
“Pivot to video” is industry shorthand for a publisher moving money, staff and attention away from written articles and towards video. In practice, this often means fewer writers and more producers, editors and presenters. Output gets reorganised around clips rather than text. The phrase describes a business strategy, not just a new format. Behind it is a bet about where audiences and advertisers are heading. Publishers rarely drop written journalism altogether. Instead, they change what they rank first, and that affects hiring, commissioning and how a newsroom judges success. The term has some baggage because of the first wave, so it can be used neutrally or with a hint of scepticism.
What happened during the first pivot to video?
The Verge describes the current shift as arriving almost exactly a decade after the original one. In the earlier wave, many digital outlets, especially the fast-growing ones built on social media sharing, announced plans to reorganise around video. Big social platforms were promoting video heavily then, and advertisers would pay more for video slots than for display banners. Several publishers cut writing jobs as part of these changes. Video teams expanded, and output moved towards short captioned clips meant to play silently in social feeds. At the time, the strategy looked like a reasonable reaction to where platforms seemed to be heading. Its success depended on platforms continuing to reward video and on advertising revenue growing to cover the extra production costs.
Why did the first wave go wrong for many publishers?
The first pivot is widely remembered as a cautionary tale. Publishers had built their strategies around platforms they did not control, so when those platforms changed how they ranked or paid for content, the plans fell apart. Facebook admitted it had overstated some video viewing metrics, and that damaged trust in the numbers publishers had used to justify the shift. Video costs more to make than text, and the advertising money often did not grow enough to make up for that. Several outlets later shrank or reversed their video operations. In some cases the journalists cut earlier were not rehired. For many in the industry, the lesson was that relying on one platform is risky.
What is being described as “pivot to video 2.0”?
The Verge uses the label for a new round of video investment across the media industry. It frames the trend as accelerating rather than fading. This time, the attention is mainly on short vertical video of the kind found on TikTok and similar apps. It is less about embedding clips in articles on a publisher’s own website. Outlets are hiring or training staff to appear on camera and building presenter-led formats. Some are encouraging reporters to explain stories directly to viewers. The available material does not say exactly which organisations are involved or how big their investments are, so it is not known how widespread or well funded this wave is compared with the first.
Why are publishers turning to video again now?
The Stepback newsletter places this trend within the wider pressures of making content for the internet. Commonly discussed pressures include less referral traffic from search engines and social networks. Search tools that answer questions directly also mean fewer people click through to articles. Some platforms have deprioritised links to outside sites, while video kept inside their own apps still reaches large audiences. For a publisher, being visible in those feeds can look more achievable than winning back lost web traffic. The source material does not give figures on any of these changes, so how much each factor matters is not established here.
How is this wave different from the last one?
The biggest difference is style. The first pivot mostly produced anonymous, heavily edited clips with text captions. The current wave leans towards presenters and personality. It borrows from independent creators, who build loyal audiences by talking straight to camera. Outlets increasingly want recognisable faces that viewers come back to, not just a brand logo on a clip. Publishers also seem more aware that platforms are unreliable, so some describe video as a way to build brand awareness or bring people to subscriptions and newsletters, not as a goal in itself. Whether that awareness leads to sturdier business models is not yet clear from the available reporting.
Which platforms matter most this time?
The Verge’s coverage points to TikTok as a central reference point for this wave. Short vertical feeds on other major apps work in a similar way. YouTube also matters to publishers producing longer explainers and recurring shows. These platforms differ in how they recommend content, how they share advertising revenue and how much they let viewers move to outside sites. Those differences shape which formats publishers decide to invest in. A clip built to catch attention in a fast-scrolling feed is different from a fifteen-minute explainer. Many outlets try to produce both, and that stretches limited budgets and staff.
What are the risks for newsrooms and journalists?
The main risk is the same as last time: depending on platforms that set their own rules and can change them without warning. A publisher can build a large following on an app and then find its reach cut by a change to the recommendation system, a policy shift or regulatory action against the platform. For individual journalists, being expected to appear on camera is a new demand that some welcome and others resist. It can also put reporters in public view and expose them to harassment. There are open questions about whether video formats can carry nuance, sourcing and corrections as well as written articles can. Budgets spent on video may also come out of other reporting.
What does this mean for audiences?
For readers and viewers, the most obvious change is that more news shows up as short clips in social feeds, often presented by a single person. That can make complicated stories easier to approach and reach people who rarely visit news websites. It can also leave less room for detail and context. It may be harder to check sources than in an article with links and citations. People who prefer reading may find some outlets publish less written material, or put it behind subscriptions. The long-term effect on how well informed people are is not known, and depends heavily on how individual newsrooms handle the change.
What is still unknown about pivot to video 2.0?
Several important questions remain open. The material available does not say how much money publishers are putting into video. It does not say whether they are cutting writing jobs to pay for it, or whether this video brings in enough revenue to sustain itself. It is also unclear how long the platforms involved will keep supporting news content, and whether regulation in different countries will change their reach. Whether the industry has really learned from the first pivot, or is repeating it with a new format, can only be judged over time. For now, the trend is best seen as a reaction to falling traffic, not a proven route to stability.
Sources and further reading
- The Verge, The Stepback newsletter: a weekly explainer column on the renewed pivot to video and pressures on online content creation
- Media industry trade publications: coverage of how newsroom strategy and staffing changed during the first pivot to video
- Reporting on social platform metrics: coverage of the acknowledged overstatement of video viewing figures during the earlier wave
- Academic and institutional research on digital news: studies of audience habits, platform dependence and how news is consumed on social video
Surfaced from the rss:verge signal “media shift to video”. AI-assisted draft, editorially reviewed.
