Here are, for your consideration, some anecdotes and observations from the past few weeks:

*****

While out on a story several weeks ago, I met a reporter for a local Patch.com site; Patch is a web-based news operation brought to you by the folks at AOL. This reporter had her cell phone out, prepared to use it as a video camera.

We talked briefly about online video, and she made the following statement:

“My editors tell me my video can’t be any longer than 15 seconds. Anything longer than that, and people won’t watch.”

*****

While out on a different story, I met a newspaper reporter who is investing his time in a video piece to put online. He has spent many days, often on weekends, investing in a mini-documentary that currently stands at ten minutes. He said he will likely finish the piece in the next few months.

The only problem? He cannot find anyone who wants to use it — or, more specifically, any media outlet that knows what to do with it.

*****

A non-industry friend and I were recently discussing my job, and she asked if I treated my stories differently depending on which show would use it. In other words, would I tell a story for the 11 pm news differently than I would tell that same story for our morning show?

I said, while I did make certain concessions and alterations for the show-specific audiences, I ultimately had to assume that the story would see its greatest interaction online. For the most part, web readers and viewers do not care about the show in which the story ran; they watch the story independently of that.

*****

In the month of May, the biggest stories at my station, WXIA-TV in Atlanta, were seen by more viewers online than on the air.

*****

All of these observations are to make two points:

1) Video, as an abstract theme, appears to be the next big media battleground on the Internet.

2) Most media outlets are positioning themselves to make short — super-short, even — videos, as opposed to longer, more in-depth clips.

This second point becomes even clearer when one points out the success of bite-sized video services like Vine, which at last check has picked up 13 million users in less than six months.

I have studied the online landscape quite a bit recently, and I often wonder how traditional media will choose to stake their claim on this new frontier. At my station, many of my co-workers have started using Vine; most do so sporadically — like myself, for example — but a few have integrated it into their daily workflow. That said, we still possess the equipment and storytelling skill that allows us to make our greatest contributions in the usual sense: 90-second packages, live-streams, and the occasional web extra.

In fact, our most unique services are typically the long-form ones: emotional stories or in-depth investigations that we can produce far more effectively than the general public. Do videos like these fit into a landscape where the mantra seems to be “15 seconds or less”?

Long story short, we — like most media outlets — are still figuring this out.

I will say this: at the present time, I see value in both the Vine-type clips — they are fast to watch and easy to spread socially — and the long-form videos — they tend to be more emotionally powerful and culturally relevant. And for anyone trying to predict the future? I say, good luck.

But that’s how it always seems to go. Storytellers need to keep one eye on the changing landscape of media, but for the most part, they simply need to keep telling stories — and powerful ones, at that.

====
FOLLOW THE TELLING THE STORY BLOG ON TWITTER!
SUBSCRIBE TO THE TELLING THE STORY PODCAST ON ITUNES!
====

Matt Pearl is the author of the Telling the Story blog and podcast. Feel free to comment below or e-mail Matt at matt@tellingthestoryblog.com.