Can a legacy news giant like The New York Times truly compete with the likes of TikTok and YouTube for our precious time and attention? It’s a bold move, but one they’re making with conviction. While they may not dethrone the social media giants, the Times is doubling down on video, crafting a strategy that stays true to its identity rather than chasing platform-specific trends. But here’s where it gets intriguing: they’re not just throwing spaghetti at the wall. Instead, they’re weaving video into the very fabric of their brand, from hard-hitting news to mouth-watering recipes, sports analysis from The Athletic, and cultural deep dives. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just about where the videos live—it’s about creating content that feels authentically them, whether it’s on their own platform or syndicated across Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube.
Jordan Vita, VP of Product at the Times, puts it this way: “Our goal is to build the largest, most engaged audience possible, and video is a key tool in that mission.” It’s a shift that’s both strategic and philosophical, acknowledging that while platforms come and go, quality journalism endures. But here’s the controversial part: Is this approach too idealistic in a world dominated by algorithms and viral trends?
Enter the Times’ new ‘Watch’ tab—a curated feed of vertical video stories nestled within their app. Unlike the endless, algorithm-driven scrolls of social media, this feed is handpicked by editors, at least for now. “We want to be a destination,” explains Solana Pyne, the Times’ video director. “Our app should be as satisfying for watching and listening as it is for reading.” It’s a nod to the reality that how we consume news is evolving, and the Times is determined not to get left behind. But here’s the kicker: Are curated feeds the future, or will audiences crave the unpredictability of algorithmic recommendations?
What’s truly fascinating is how the newsroom is embracing this shift. Journalists are proactively collaborating with the video team, recognizing the power of visual storytelling to reach new audiences. “When reporters see their videos getting millions of views, it reinforces their enthusiasm,” Pyne notes. “It’s a way to connect with people we might not have reached otherwise.” The result? A feed that feels distinctly Timesian—elite journalism, explanatory reporting, and cultural commentary, all seamlessly blended with sports highlights and even the occasional Thanksgiving recipe.
But here’s the thought-provoking question: As the Times leans into video, are they risking diluting their brand, or are they simply adapting to the times? Pyne argues that the diversity of content—from NFL highlights to interviews with senators—is what makes the Watch tab so promising. “We have so many strong stories across such a wide range of areas,” she says. “It’s not just the newsroom; it’s the entire company contributing to this mix.”
So, what do you think? Is the Times’ video strategy a masterstroke or a risky gamble? Will curated feeds win out over algorithms? And most importantly, can a legacy brand like the Times truly thrive in a digital-first world? Let’s discuss in the comments—I’m all ears!
