Deep thinkers — journalists, researchers, academics, and nerds — approach writing differently. For them, writing isn’t the goal. It’s the byproduct. They are genuinely curious about the world, and writing just happens to be a way they share ideas with the world.

But here’s the catch: No matter how brilliant the insights, their reach often falls short.

The Internet rewards consistency, not just depth

You’d think ground-breaking ideas would rise to the top. Sometimes they do — but not for long. The Internet isn’t built for depth. It rewards consistency, speed, and frequency.

A deeply researched article spikes in engagement. Then? Silence. The moment fades. The Internet moves on, favouring those who show up often, not just thoughtfully.

And depth comes with a trade-off. The more complex the idea, the smaller the audience. Nuance attracts the dedicated few, but it also limits how far the work spreads.

I see this firsthand. My LinkedIn newsletter, Media Flywheels, has a loyal following. Every new post sparks engagement. Then? It’s a ghost town. Not because the work isn’t valuable, but because attention, once lost, is tough to regain.

So, the question is how do you keep people engaged between deep dives?

Short-form as the bridge

The answer isn’t fighting the Internet’s nature … it’s working with it. That’s where short-form content comes in. It’s not meant to replace depth, but to connect more people to it.

Think of long-form content as the destination. Short-form is the invite. A sharp tweet, a bite-sized video, a meme that distills an idea into a single image; these aren’t distractions. They are breadcrumbs leading to your deeper work.

It’s not about dumbing ideas down. It’s about playing the long game.

How to make short-form content work

One of the primary mistakes is chopping long-form into random fragments using tools like Opus Pro.

Context matters. A sentence pulled from an essay often lands flat, like overhearing half a conversation.

The best creators don’t just repurpose. They reimagine. They craft short-form that stands alone while nudging people toward the bigger picture.

Here’s what makes short-form effective:

• Format matters. Video and audio outperform text. A 60-second clip is effortless to consume. And if that’s not an option? Use memes, the Internet’s native language.
• Speed matters. Short-form content has a short shelf life. Spending a lot of time on it is a waste. The goal is to create content that is quick, lightweight, and frictionless — enough to stay visible without burning out.

Developing a proof-of-concept solution

A few weeks ago, I asked Dhara Shah from The Humane Club to code a proof-of-concept solution for me.

My question was, could we turn long-form insights into compelling short-form videos without spending hours on production?

We followed this process:

• Pick the right insight. Not all ideas work in short-form. We pulled key takeaways from long-form pieces and ran them through GenAI to check if they stood alone.
• Write a script. GenAI got us 80% of the way. It structured the thought and sharpened the phrasing, but it lacked intuition. That’s where the editor stepped in.
• Generate the voiceover. Once the script was ready, AI narrated it in my own voice. (This is a weird experience; eerily accurate, but it still can’t quite pronounce my name, Ritvvij.)
• Assemble the video. Code mixed the cover image, audio, and transcript into a video, ready to publish.

The result was a streamlined, nearly effortless workflow.

What worked (and what didn’t)

We launched two YouTube Shorts series:

• Meditations were designed to make people pause and reflect.
• Facepalms were sarcastic takes on business decisions that backfired.

Meditations worked with 10 shorts in 10 days.

Facepalms need more work, perhaps because GenAI still can’t do sarcasm well. (Maybe that’s a good thing?)

Final thoughts

This isn’t just about AI or automation. It’s about helping deep thinkers find the balance between depth and frequency. It’s about helping deep thinkers find a voice on the Internet.

What’s next for us? Experimenting with better audio scripts, refining voice modulation, and pushing this system further.

This article is adapted from a piece originally published in The Times of India.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .