Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process - How Media Logic affects the production ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Examensarbete
15 högskolepoäng, grundnivå
Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects
the production process.
A study about content creators’ usage of norms, methods, and rules
to appeal to the target audience.
Madeleine Persson
Examen: Kandidatexamen 180 hp Examinator: Òscar Coromina
Huvudområde: Medieteknik Handledare: Jakob Svensson
Datum för inlämning: 2021-09-06Sammanfattning Denna studie undersöker hur Media Logik of YouTube och Twitch påverkar content skaparna som arbetar med att skapa content på plattformarna. Det berör de olika strukturerna i Media Logik som finns över sociala medieplattformar och lite om hur de har förändrats genom åren. Viktigast av allt undersöks det hur en innehållsskapare arbetar, hur deras arbetsstruktur ser ut hur samt det påverkas av de olika medielogikstrukturerna. Detta ämne är originellt eftersom det inte tidigare har gjorts andra liknande studier kring just detta ämne. Detta gör det inte bara till en undersökande studie utan ännu viktigare startar konversationen om ämnet. Genom att skriva om detta ämne ger det skaparna en röst som både kan hjälpa andra skapare i framtiden, men även få skaparna att känna sig hörda. I dagens samhälle finns det många innehållsskapare på båda plattformarna och det är en bransch som ständigt växer. Så när man pratar om den kreativa process som skaparna har och hur plattformarna på något sätt påverkar detta, kan det även öppna upp för ännu fler konversationer, till exempel hur tittarna uppfattar content olika beroende på plattformarna Media Logik om hur skaparna uppfattar sig själva på plattformen. Studien har ett övergripande abduktivt tillvägagångssätt och för att samla in information utfördes fem halvstrukturerade intervjuer. Inom dessa intervjuer var det möjligt att få en preliminär inblick i vad några innehållsskapare tycker om sitt jobb och de plattformar de använder sig av i arbetet. Sedan togs denna insamlade data och analyserades tillsammans med informationen som samlats in om plattformarna och teorivalet Medielogik. Därmed var det möjligt att nå en preliminär slutsats. Det visade sig att även om skaparna inte var medvetna om Medielogik till att börja med påverkades de alla indirekt av den. Exempelvis var det genom sättet att strukturera och planera sina videor eller i hur de bestämde sig för att uttrycka sig online; alla fem innehållsskaparna som deltog i studien påverkades på ett eller annat sätt av logiken på plattformarna YouTube och Twitch under deras skapandeprocess. Genom att samla denna information skapar det en stabil grund för framtida forskare som vill undersöka området. Nyckelord: YouTube, Twitch, Produktion, Medielogik, Innehållsskapande.
Abstract This study examines how Media Logic of YouTube and Twitch affects individual creators who works with creating content on the two platforms. It touches upon the different structures of Media Logic that exists over social media platforms and a little bit on how they have changed over the years. Most importantly it examines what a content creators work process and structure looks like and how that is affected by the different Media Logic structures. This subject is original since there is not previously made another likewise study around this particular subject. This not only makes it an exploratory study but more importantly starts the conversation about the subject. By writing about this subject, it gives creators a voice that could both help other creators in the future, but also make creators feel heard. In today’s society there is a lot of content creators on both platform and it’s a growing industry. So, when talking about their creative process and how the platforms in any way impacts that, it can open up for even more conversations such as how viewers perceive content differently depending on the platforms Media Logic of how creators perceive themselves on the platform. The study has an overall abductive approach and to gather the information, five semi-structured interviews took place. Within these interviews it was possible to get a preliminary insight into how a few content creators feel about their jobs and the platforms they use in their work. The collected data was gathered and analysed together with information collected about the platforms and theory of choice, Media Logic. It was then possible to reach a tentative conclusion. The results showed that even though the creators were not previously aware of Media Logic they all indirectly were affected by it. They could be affected through the way they choose to structure and plan their videos or in how they decided to express themselves online; all five of the content creators that participated in the study were in one way or another affected by the logics of the platforms YouTube and Twitch during their content creation process. In collecting this it created a stable ground for future researchers that wants to investigate the area. Key words: YouTube, Twitch, Production, Media Logic, Content creating.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction chapter .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research question .......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Delineations ................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Target Group ................................................................................................................. 3
2 Method .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Research strategy - Interviews ...................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Construction of interview guide ............................................................................ 5
2.1.2 Conduction of interviews ...................................................................................... 5
2.1.3 Presentation of respondents ................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Selection of respondents........................................................................................ 7
2.2 Method of analysis ........................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Interview analysis .................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Method discussion ......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1 Conducting interviews digitally ............................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Source criticism ................................................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Research ethics considerations ............................................................................ 11
3 Theory ................................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 The principles of Media Logic .................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Media logics on social media .............................................................................. 14
3.1.2 Social media interactions .................................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Other social Media Logic structures ................................................................... 15
3.2 Operationalization ....................................................................................................... 164 Desk research ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 YouTube ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Community guidelines ........................................................................................ 18
4.1.2 Copyright laws .................................................................................................... 20
4.1.3 Subscribers and Members ................................................................................... 20
4.1.4 Partnership ........................................................................................................... 21
4.1.5 Algorithms........................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Summary YouTube ..................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Twitch ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.3.1 Community guidelines ........................................................................................ 23
4.3.2 Copyright laws .................................................................................................... 24
4.3.3 VOD – Video on Demand ................................................................................... 24
4.3.4 Subscriptions and Followers ............................................................................... 24
4.3.5 Partnership ........................................................................................................... 25
4.3.6 Monetization........................................................................................................ 26
4.4 Summary Twitch ......................................................................................................... 26
5 Results of Interviews ........................................................................................................... 27
5.1 YouTube Production ................................................................................................... 27
5.1.1 Video performance .............................................................................................. 28
5.1.2 Algorithms - YouTube ........................................................................................ 29
5.1.3 Structuring of thumbnails and titles .................................................................... 29
5.1.4 Summary YouTube ............................................................................................. 31
5.2 Twitch Production ....................................................................................................... 31
5.2.1 Algorithms - Twitch ............................................................................................ 32
5.2.2 Boosting features ................................................................................................. 335.2.3 Summary Twitch ................................................................................................. 33
5.3 Thoughts on Media Logic ........................................................................................... 34
5.4 Comparison ................................................................................................................. 35
5.5 Communications.......................................................................................................... 36
6 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 37
6.1 Structure ...................................................................................................................... 37
6.1.1 Design and Titles ................................................................................................. 38
6.2 Production ................................................................................................................... 38
6.3 Communication ........................................................................................................... 39
6.3.1 Communities ....................................................................................................... 39
6.4 Features ....................................................................................................................... 40
6.5 Media Logic impact .................................................................................................... 40
6.5.1 Guidelines and rules ............................................................................................ 41
6.5.2 Expressions.......................................................................................................... 41
6.5.3 Trends .................................................................................................................. 42
6.5.4 Collaborations and Growth ................................................................................. 42
6.6 The limitations of the study ......................................................................................... 42
7 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 43
7.1 Further development options ....................................................................................... 43
Reference list ................................................................................................................................. 1
Appendix 1 – Interview question guide ........................................................................................ 5Glossary Media Logic: Media Logic can shortly be defined as how information or content are communicated online to be something of interest to the receivers. Factors that play a big part here are norms and rules of a platform, but also user connectivity and popularity. In today’s day and age these factors are constantly changing which inevitably means that there isn’t one definite logic on a platform over time. However, the term Media Logic, and its connected theories, will be further explained in this essay. Content Creator: A content creator is a person that makes content as a job or as a hobby and shares it on a platform such as YouTube. There are different types of content creators, one being those who only publishes premade videos, video creators, and another being those who live stream what they are doing, streamers. Streamers can technically stream whatever they like, as long as it is not violating the platforms community rules. Some stream themselves cooking a meal, playing a video game, or just sitting and talking to the camera. The same goes for video creators, they can post a video of anything but under similar conditions as streamers. It is not allowed to violate the guidelines. A content creator is not just exclusively a creator, they are also users, meaning that they also watch and interact with other creators’ content. Algorithms: Oxford Languages describes algorithms as “a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer” (Oxford Languages, u.d.). In the Cambridge dictionary the term is described as “a set of mathematical instructions or rules that, especially if given to a computer, will help to calculate an answer to a problem” (Cambridge Dictionary, u.d.). Thumbnail: YouTube describes their thumbnail function as this. “A video thumbnail let viewers see a quick snapshot of your video as they are browsing YouTube. After your video is finished uploading, you can choose a thumbnail from the three options YouTube automatically generates or upload your own” (Add video thumbnail, 2021). Clickbait: The definition of the term clickbait is “a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, with a defining characteristic of being deceptive, typically sensationalized or misleading.” Mediatization: Mediatization is a theory that attends to how the media shapes and frames the processes and discourse (conversation) of communication as well as the community and society
where this communication occurs. Some would however argue that mediatization is a non-media centric theory. Shadow banned: Shadow banned is when a user gets banned without their knowledge, this could for example affect video performances since they are not recommended to the public. Discord: Discord is a communication platform where people can create servers for others to join, here they can communicate in different channels within that server. A few examples of channels can be general, announcements, rules, gaming, chatting (usually a voice call) and self-promo. It is common for content creators to create servers for their community to interact with each other. View duration: This is the average percentage of time that the viewers has watch a video or live stream, the most optimal is anything above 50%. Click duration: This is the average percentage of the number of times people have clicked the video or stream after seeing it in their recommended list, the optimal number here is the same as above meaning 50%. Raid: A raid on Twitch means that the live streamer ends their stream with sending their viewers to another streamers channel, streamers do not always do this to end their stream and when they do, they usually send the viewers to their friends’ channel.
Preface First, it is important to inform readers that this in an undergraduate bachelor thesis withing Media Technology at Malmö University in the program “Production Management within Media Technology”. The study is based on the authors’ initial interest in the production side of content creating and then developed into a study about how a platforms Media Logic affect content creators during their production process. The study started in February of 2021, here the main idea for the study came to be and a project plan was conducted. The study was initially meant to be done at the end of May 2021, but due to some complications it got pushed forward to instead be done in the middle of June 2021. The author of the essay would like to thank their supervisor Jakob Svensson for helping with providing useful information and giving great and functional feedback during the writing process. Furthermore, the author wants to say a huge thank you to the content creators that have helped making this study happen, without them some crucial information would have been lost. They gave me information that would not have been able to find online or elsewhere. With their personal experience about both platforms that information became more detailed, helpful, and relevant. At last, the author would loke to thank her family and friends for supporting her during the entire process and for helping her with reading through the essay and helping with spell checking. Without you this study would have been a lot more work.
Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
1 Introduction chapter
The first chapter will discuss the background, purpose, and the research question. This chapter
is also the basis on which the study lies.
1.1 Background
It is no secret that streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ or HBO have become immensely
popular over the last few years, especially last year when these streaming services just kept
growing (Bacon, 2020). But there are streaming platforms, such as YouTube and Twitch, that
offer a slightly different type of content. Those platforms offer content that are predominantly
created and provided by its users. So how popular have those types of platforms become lately?
YouTube and Twitch are both web platforms that offer different types of video services. Whether
that is creating or watching videos, the two platforms have a lot to offer to many people depending
on what their interest are. By pure statistics, Twitch is the largest streaming platform in the world
with around 3.8 million unique streamers in 2020 and an average of 1.33 million viewers every
month (Iqbal, 2020). Kit Smith (2020), states in a marketing report that by just looking at the
statistics YouTube is the second most popular social media platform, it places just below
Facebook who claims first place as the most popular platform. In total YouTube has around 1.9
billion users and every minute approximately 500 videos are uploaded on the platform. It has been
estimated that all the users combined, in average, watch over 1 billion hours of video content on
YouTube every day (Smith, 2020).
What might impact the production of the content on the two platforms are their Logics. Media
Logic is not easily described because of its constantly changing nature. David Altheide and Robert
Snow were the first to ever write about the term Media Logic in 1976. They described Media
Logic as a way of figuring out how to structure information in the most required format for it to
be something of interest, in this case it is the chosen platforms (Altheide & Snow, 1979). Media
Logic is something where there are specific norms, rules, or methods for creating something of
relevance (Asp, 1990). But as mentioned above Media Logic is something that is constantly
changing, which might be the results of why there right now, are few studies made around the
subject. While there is a lot of statistics about YouTube and Twitch available to the public there
is a limited number of scientific studies done about how the logics of YouTube and Twitch
influences the content production.
1Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
1.2 Purpose
The main purpose of this study is to research how the logics of YouTube and Twitch influences
its content creators and in turn their production processes. Specifically, this means that the
purpose is to study how the content creators are affected by the platforms logics and how they
structure their content depending on how they want it to be perceived by their viewers.
1.3 Research question
The main research question for this study is: How much does the platforms Media Logics affect
how the content creators’ videos or livestreams is structured, titled, and designed? In order to
answer this question, the Media Logics of the chosen platforms will first have to be deciphered.
This will be done by attending to the following question: What are the Media Logics, in terms of
norms, rules and methods, of YouTube and Twitch, and how do these affect content creators on
the platforms?
By studying official documents such as terms and issues, but also guidelines and offered functions
it will be possible to answer that question. After that, interviews with five content creators will
take place. These will focus on the logics of the platform but from the creators’ pointy of view,
focusing on their creation (production) process. After the interviews and the desk research it will
be possible to make a comparison between the platforms, this will be answered with the help of
the following question: What are the biggest similarities and differences between the platforms
regarding planning, time, and production?
1.4 Delineations
There are a couple of different platforms with the same purpose as YouTube and Twitch; to
provide entertainment and a work environment for people. Some of these are Daily Motion,
Vimeo, Mixer, and even Facebook Watch. The reason behind not choosing any of those platforms
are that YouTube and Twitch are bigger and more well-known platforms to the public (Stoll,
2021; Brown, 2021). It is also easier to find creators on both YouTube and Twitch that would be
available to participate in the study, since its user and creator rate is quite high. Regarding the
respondents that participated in the study they are narrowed down to the area of Sweden and the
United Kingdom. This is because that the author of the essay knew more content creators in those
areas, and it was therefore easier to get in contact with them. The end sample of respondents are
small, with only 5 participants, so to make up for this the interviews where of the longer calibre.
2Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
1.5 Target Group
The first potential target group for this study might be individuals that want to dive further into
how Media Logic influences a content creators’ production process. Since this is an exploratory
study, it might not come out with a fully finished conclusion, but it might be of help in future
studies on the subject.
Another potential target group could be individuals that work or will work as content creators,
who because of that are interested in the Media Logic of the platform and how that will affect
them. Although the interview samples are smaller than optimal, the content creator target group
might want to take the results more lightly. A third potential target group are other media
researchers that would want to get a better understanding about the two platforms and their impact
on its users and creators and how that affects the content on the platforms.
Besides those three target groups the other sub target groups will be students and teachers within
the technology and society faculty.
3Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
2 Method
In this chapter all necessary information about the methods used in the study will be revised along
with how the method was chosen and used. Besides that, there will be a method discussion over
for instance the execution of methods used and ethical considerations.
2.1 Research strategy - Interviews
When choosing a method to use for collecting data for this study it was important that it would
be able to help analyse the content creators’ experiences with Media Logic. The most optimal
choice would be to do qualitative interviews with the content creators, but there is a lot to think
about before being able to start creating interview questions. In the book “Writing essays with a
qualitative method” Johan Alvehus (2019) describes the method as something that focus on the
meaning instead of the statistics of a study. A qualitative method is often complex, and the point
is that different actions impact the situation in which respondents are associated with. (Alvehus,
2019).
Dag Ingvar Jacobsen (2017) on the other hand describes the qualitative method as something that
focuses on collecting information in a more specific and direct way unlike a quantitative method.
The quantitative method focuses on collecting information that is from a broader perspective.
There are a lot of ways that a qualitative method could be performed, the most common way is
through an interview. Although there are other options such as focus groups and observations
(Alvehus, 2019). Jacobsen (2017) mentions that the interview is the most common choice and
that there are different types of interviews that can be done. When picking what structure to use
the interviewer must consider who they are going to interview and how freely they want the
interview to flow. The different interview types are structured, semi-structured and unstructured
(Jacobsen, 2017). For this study, a semi-structured interview was chosen. This was to be able to
still have interviews that is led by questions made in advance, but also allow the content creators
to be able to speak more freely about their experiences. In choosing this version of the method it
was possible to lead the conversation to areas that fit the specific individual instead of having
them answer a bunch of questions where they were not even sure of the answer. Of course, the
main goal would still be to answer all the questions made in advance, but the focus on each
question might be slightly different for every respondent.
4Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
2.1.1 Construction of interview guide
To construct the interview guide it was important to research the purpose behind this study,
meaning the Media Logic of social media platforms. Harvard University (2020) has created a
report for how a good interview should be structured and executed. They bring up that as an
interviewer it is important to be structured, open, clear, gentle, and balanced. The structure of the
interview guide used in this study is based on those five guidelines. The questions are targeted
towards the experiences and interests of the respondents, which makes for a more flowing,
relaxed, and personal way of approaching the research questions. Harvard (2020) also touched
upon it being of great value to be respectful and engaged in what the respondents have to say.
They explain that the most important thing is not to precisely follow the interview guide but to
follow what the respondents are saying, of course without losing the meaning behind the interview
(Harvard, 2020). To make the interview as smooth as possible the guide starts out with a few
warm-up questions about the respondent, for instance questions about their age and how long they
have worked as a content creator. Alongside these questions was a short description of what
Media Logic is. After the introduction phase there are subcategories for each focus area and within
those there are three to four questions about the subject. The questions can be found in Appendix
1. To break down Media Logic into research questions they were around the four element
structures of social media logic, programmability, popularity, connectivity, and datafication (Van
Dijck & Poell, 2013). Because of that, the respondents’ experiences with Media Logic could be
attended to without them directly talking about Media Logics. However, there were also some
questions that directly touched the subject of Media Logic.
2.1.2 Conduction of interviews
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic all the interviews took place digitally. Although it would
have been more ideal to have the interviews face to face in real life. However, having to do the
interviews digitally did broaden the number of respondents being able to participate in the study.
Most of the respondents are not from Sweden, which was only possible thanks to the interviews
having to be executed digitally. But that also meant that a face-to-face interview would have been
more difficult to do with the same respondents. All interviews took place either over zoom or over
discord, the choice of platform depended on what the respondent felt more comfortable with.
Since both platforms are made for communication, there were not any differences in the quality
of sound and video. The duration of the interviews stretched between 35 to 60 minutes, this all
depended on how detailed the respondents’ answers where to each question and how follow up
questions that was deemed important to ask.
5Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
2.1.3 Presentation of respondents
A content creator could be anyone that has access to a camera, they just need to have a passion
for something and work from there. With that said the age range is from children to elders and
the geographical representative are around the globe. Beyond that there is not much information
on how a content creator are or should be regarding age, gender, or origins.
1. Female, 27 – England
Interview time: 55 min
Followers at time of interview: YouTube – First channel: 265 000 + Second channel 64 500 &
Twitch – 167 000
Has been a content creator for: Created her YouTube channel in 2017 and for a year she
uploaded once a week, after that a little bit more sporadically. Started streaming on YouTube in
2019 and moved to Twitch streaming in spring 2020, here she streams around six hours a day six
days a week.
2. Female, 27 – Sweden
Interview time: 46 min
Followers at time of interview: YouTube – 8 140 & Twitch – 146 000
Has been a content creator for: She has been a streamer for six years but has had it as a job for
three years, she streams about four to five hours a day five times a week. She started uploading
sporadically on YouTube a little over four years ago with only just recently having an upload
schedule.
3. Male, 22 – England
Interview time: 60 min
Followers at time of interview: YouTube – 3 600 & Twitch – 27 700
Has been a content creator for: Has been streaming for two and a half years, right now he
streams between four to seven hours a day five days a week. He has sporadically been uploading
on YouTube for two years.
4. Male, 24 – United Kingdom
Interview time: 35 min
Followers at time of interview: YouTube – First channel: 15.8 million + Second channel: 3.11
million + Third channel: 249 000 & Twitch – 790 500
Has been a content creator for: He has been uploading on YouTube for about 12 years but has
had it as a job for eight years. He started streaming on twitch sporadically about five years ago,
but more regularly since last year.
6Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
5. Male, 26 – England
Interview time: 35 min
Followers at time of interview: YouTube – 2 260 & Twitch – 18 300
Has been a content creator for: Streamed regularly on Twitch between 2014 and 2016, at that
time also posting content on YouTube. After 2016 the streaming consistency slowed down, but
he still posted regularly on YouTube. Due to the covid outbreak and lockdown in March 2020 he
started streaming again and now has it as his main job. He streams between six to eight hours a
day.
2.1.4 Selection of respondents
When choosing the respondents, the main goal was to have a broad target group regarding their
number of followers. With a range between a few 1000 to several million followers on either
platform it was possible to see if the number of followers a creator has changed how they worked
or looked at the platforms. When choosing people, there was a quick realization that the
executioner of this study had more contacts in the United Kingdom than in Sweden, which meant
that it was harder to have people from Sweden participate in the study which resulted in more
British creators participating. It would have been preferred if the creators had more diverse origins
to be able to compare geographical components and experiences.
The work cultures of both platforms could also be similar since they are global platforms. This
could of course be something both helpful and problematic in this case. It is helpful in the way
that it might not matter where the respondents are from for them to have similar experiences, but
it can be problematic in the way that it narrows the experiences. Another big factor when choosing
the respondents was the fact that they had to have some experience on both platforms. This was
to get a fair comparison from the creators’ point of view. With these demands it was more difficult
to find creators that both had the time and the interest of participating in the study.
In the end, despite the content creators being hard to contact and plan with, 5 out of the 15 asked
were available to participate in the study. These five creators spoke from their own experiences,
but also referred to other creators’ opinions and experiences regarding some subjects. With this
in hand there is a small factor of generalizability here, the selection of respondents is not
representative for all content creators. However, since this is an exploratory study, this is not
much of a concern. For future studies it is to recommend having a wider range of respondents,
both in the amount of people participating but also in other factors like geographical placements.
7Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
2.2 Method of analysis
Alvehus (2019) describes the analysis as where the theoretical- and empirical information meets
the research question and creates a conclusion. He states that; usually when thinking about how
to do an analysis it is good to look at how other researchers have done it and not only rely on
books or other documents (Alvehus, 2019). There are three main ways to structure an analysis, a
deductive, an inductive, and an abductive structure (Jacobsen, 2017). For this study, the abductive
method is used, the theoretical and empirical data was collected alongside each other and then
compared to one another for an understanding of the problem to be concluded. The reason behind
this choice was that the researcher did not want to be too heavily affected of one or the other, and
for the conclusion to not be influenced by it.
2.2.1 Interview analysis
According to Graneheim and Lundman (2014) the most common way on handling a qualitative
interview analysis is to first read through the text or re-listen to the recording several times to get
a familiarity and entirety about what is said. When that is done the researcher should pick out
words and phrases that are relevant to the question at issue that the study is focused on. Graneheim
and Lundman (2014) explain that this is a way of shortening down the interview without losing
all content. The two authors mention that after doing this, it is preferable to structure each
interview into different segments and categories to be able to piece all interviews together and
create a red thread through all of them (Graneheim & Lundman, 2014). Downe-Warmboldt (2009)
says that it is preferable to categorise the interview from the beginning, even before a thorough
review of the material to be able to get a better understanding and structure of the interviews.
In the case of this study the interview was categorised even before they were executed (Appendix
1). This makes the analysis of the content and data collected a bit different than what is described
above, but the same thought process was still followed. After every interview was executed, they
were transcribed and with that, key words and phrases were marked out to find the important and
most relevant sections of each interview easier. After this the interviews different categories were
put together to determine any differences or similarities, this is the abductive way of analysing
results.
8Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
2.3 Method discussion
Since there is little to no research done around the subject of the Media Logic of YouTube and
Twitch it seemed like the most optimal decision to do an exploratory study. Harervall and
Langemar (2012) explain that the exploratory method is used when the studies research variables
are unsure, have not been focused on before or is in its starting point. They also say that an
exploratory study is mostly based on having qualitative data to explore a phenomenon, then
collect quantitative data to explain the qualitative data and the connections that might exist there
(Harevall & Langemar, 2012). In this study there has been no quantitative data collected. But the
conclusions drawn from this study could very well form the basis of a quantitative and hence
more representative study. In this sense, as with most explorative studies, it is rather hypothesis
generating, than hypothesis testing.
This study is not a systematic comparative study given its explorative nature. Dag Ingvar Jacobsen
(2017) describes a comparative study as something where cases, hypotheses, situations, or
companies are being compared. Nonetheless, the interview participants did reflect upon some of
the similarities and differences which will be accounted for in the analysis. Even if comparison is
part of the research question and analysis – this should also be viewed from an explorative point
of departure. Nonetheless it is encouraged for future researchers to use the results of this study
for a more rigorous comparison between the two platforms.
To add to the qualitative method desk research was done to gain more understanding about the
two platforms and their Media Logics affects. The Cambridge dictionary describes desk research
as a method where easily reachable data is collected and examined to add to other data collected
(Cambridge, u.d.). In the case of this study the data was collected from official documents such
as terms and issues, but also guidelines and other documents about the offers the platforms have.
2.3.1 Conducting interviews digitally
By just pure technicalities there should be a difference between executing and interview digitally
compared to doing it face to face, but these differences mainly depend on how the digital interview
is done. Peirce (2017) explains that with a camera on and decent sound, quality should not be
much different from an interview in real life. An interview digitally can also open the option for
the respondent to send examples through chat to clarify what they are talking about, most of the
that is not doable in real life because the respondents have not prepared for the questions. Peirce
(2017) says that the main downside with digital interviews are the technical issues that might
occur, for example if a camera is not available. In this instance, the interviewer cannot see the
9Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
respondents’ facial expressions or body language. This can lead to the respondent being
uncomfortable without the interviewer knowing. A digital interview can also be more comfortable
for the respondents since they can do it from the comfort of their own home (Pierce, 2017).
One of the more positive parts of having to do the interviews digitally was that people from
different parts of the world could participate. Even if this was something positive it also created
a problem with time differences and availability for the respondents. Due to the content creators
having busy schedules, like mentioned earlier, it was difficult to get people who was able to
participate. Not only that, but only a few content creators have opened their messages to their
followers, in contrast that means that many creators do not allow their followers to send them
messages online. For the creators that have open messages they get a plethora of messages daily,
which can result in a message get lost amongst all the others. Luckily in this case, all contacted
creators are streamers, which made it possible to both message them privately and remind them
through a message in stream chat.
In the end five people were able to participate in the study, and although that is not an optimal
amount of people, all the needed information was still able to be collected. It would maybe have
given answers in a wider variety if more respondents had participated, but it would also have
made the responses too different to create a summary of the results of the interview. Although it
is mostly interpreted that more respondent can give a wider range of helpful answers, and if this
part of the study could be changed it would be preferred to have interviewed more creators. With
all content and information that was collected during the interviews there were even some
quantitative data gathered; some of the respondents’ answers matched each other either partly or
fully.
2.3.2 Source criticism
Thurén and Werner (2019) say in their book about source criticism that when researching it can
be difficult to know if what is written is partial or objective. An author could seem to be objective
in their report, but when checking their references, they are all partial to one side of the subject.
To make sure that the information collected, both online and in books, are not partial it is crucial
to use references from several different sources that back each other (Thurén & Werner, 2019).
With this study there are not many sources that touches the subject directly, the sources used is
just about one part of the subject, meaning that a lot of the sources are primary.
Alvehus (2019) explains that it is important to look for the legitimacy of the source. One example
is that in the book Media Edge; Media logic and Social reality by David Altheide, 2004, it is to
10Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
be assumed that it is a trusted source. This is because the author was one of the first to ever bring
out and describe the term Media Logic in the book that he wrote in 1979 together with Robert
Snow. The reason behind not mostly using the source from 1979 is that newer sources are more
trustworthy since more research has been done on the subject. With a direct source like YouTubes
own website, it is to be expected that they are at least somewhat partial, since they want to put the
platform in a good light. When using a source like that it is important to take it with a grain of salt
and try backing it, or to double check it, with other sources.
Regarding the qualitative data that is been collected it would want to be assumed that it is
objective and that the respondents are only talking from their personal experiences. However,
there are always a chance that they are influenced of the platforms that they are inevitably working
for. They could have been influenced consciously or subconsciously without them really noticing
it. But this is all part of the study of how the platforms logics influences them. By conducting and
interview study of creators’ experiences, the focus has been on the more conscious influences of
the platforms. After relistening to the interviews and transcribing all of them, it can be assumed
that they all were talking from their own experience and opinions. The reason behind this
assumption is that they all spoke both positively and negatively about both platforms.
2.3.3 Research ethics considerations
When doing studies like this it is important to consider the ethics behind the research, which partly
touches on the question “what is too much to ask?”. As a researcher it is important to establish a
form of trust and honesty towards the respondents, but also to think about respecting the
individual and take responsibility for the research they are about to do (ALLEA, 2018). In addition
to that, there is also the individual protection requirement created by the Swedish Research
Council (2002). This requirement means that no individual should come to any harm, get offended
or involuntarily share personal information. It could be separated into four categories, the
information requirement, the consent requirement, the confidentiality requirement, and the use
requirement. The information requirement is that all respondents must be notified about what the
research is about. The consent requirement is that all respondents must give consent to participate
in the study. The confidentiality requirement is that all the respondents’ private information is put
under secrecy. The use requirement is that the information collected is only allowed to be used in
the research (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002).
11Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
When asking the content creators if they would be available to participate in the study, they were
given a description on what the study would be about. They were informed what the questions
would revolve around and how the information would be collected in the interviews. All
respondents also got the option if they wanted to stay anonymous or not, they all chose to preserve
their privacy. Before every interview they had to give their consent to having the interview
recorded for easier access during this study. The consent for participating in the study exists in
written form, the second consent to have the interview recorded was verbal but they all agreed to
it being okay as long as the information was only used in this essay and for this study.
To respect to the respondents’ privacy and work structure some questions were avoided, if the
respondent themselves did not bring it up, the questions were left out of the conversation. This
was questions such as their economic situation when working as a content creator, the
psychological and mental draining that could occur when constantly being in the limelight or their
personal life, such as family, partners or living arrangements. These questions would not have
added anything to the study and would most likely just have made the respondents uncomfortable.
12Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
3 Theory
Within this chapter all theoretical and necessary information about Media Logic, YouTube and
Twitch will be revised for.
3.1 The principles of Media Logic
Media Logic first got defined in 1979 by David Altheide and Robert Snow, back then it was just
focusing on the media related changes that involved news, politics, religion, sports, and how
people interacted in those establishments. But Media Logic is something that is ever changing
and with further research around the subject during the last three decades, now it is more defined
as the means of a symbolic interactionist perspective of how nature and social interactions
construct reality. Media Logic today is what reflectively shapes interaction processes, orders and
routines that then reflects on the everyday life (Altheide, 2014; Altheide & Snow, 1979).
Altheide (2014) says that Media Logic is defined as a form of communication where the media
process then transmits and communicates information. The principles of Media Logic are the
performances of events, actions and actors reflects by technologies, specific media and formats
that govern communication. Media Logic however is not restricted to traditional media such as
television or mass media, for example magazines, because it has been adapted and modified for
other media platforms. Altheide (2014) means that the main point here is that Media Logic does
not refer to one logic for a specific medium but is more of a concept model for mediatization. It
is not a linear process and does not confide only in the use of formats (Altheide, 2014). Altheide
and Snow (1979) would describe Media Logic in a singular perspective, but since it is not linear
it is more accurate to describe it as multiple logics being merged together (Klinger & Svensson,
2014).
Altheide (2014) describes the usual referral of Media Logic as the assumptions and construction
process of messages within a specific medium, involving grammar, rhythms, and formats. It also
refers to the rules for defining, organizing, presenting, selecting, and recognizing information as
a specific thing. This means that every media platform has specific codes (formats) of, for
example, grammatical rules or symbols that the audience and users then get used to and associates
with the platform, this is something that helps make sense of the media experience. These formats
play a big role of the ecology of communication. Although Media Logic is more of a broader
theoretical construction than ecology of communication, which is more about the interplay among
communication in social interactions and activities (Altheide, 2014).
13Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
3.1.1 Media logics on social media
Klinger and Svensson (2014) say that social media platforms have today established themselves
as the main source for communication and socialization, especially for the younger generation.
There is minimal doubt that this affects the media landscape profoundly. Giving this changing
nature in the media landscape it is possible to change the term Media Logic to Network Media
Logic (Klinger & Svensson, 2014) or Social Media Logic (Van Dijck & Poell, 2013). Van Dijk
(2006) explains a network as a collection of links in a system that tends to organize functions and
processes. It is also said that networks are becoming a system for the society that will eventually
influence our social and personal lives (Van Dijk, 2006). The usages of social media today vary
depending on the social or political context. In the political context social media platforms such
as Facebook or Twitter can be used to communicate false information that can stop protests or
trap political organizers (Altheide, 2014).
3.1.2 Social media interactions
Altheide (2014) very clearly describes how Media Logic has affected social media
communications way to emphasise dramaturgy and self-presentation for public purposes.
Altheide (2014) explains how bloggers, entertainers, and even social control agents – for example,
the police force – use the internet to proclaim their political views or insights. Information like
that is then useful for both traditional media such as tv, radio and newspapers, and electronic
media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (Altheide, 2014). According to Klinger and
Svensson (2014) there are three different segments to look at Media Logic from. These are
production, distribution, and media usage. Below the three segments will be described from the
social media aspects of Media Logic.
Logic of production: Klinger and Svensson (2014) explain that due to the evolvement of social
media the production of news and information has changed and introduced a new way of
producing, hence also a new logic to production. The logic is mostly obvious to the actors, content
producers and content consumers, which suggest that on a social media platform both production
and usage is intertwined. A lot indicates that much of the information that is consumed over social
media is the outcome of individuals who have knowledge but lack expertise or resources. These
individuals usually select the information to something that is personally interesting for them
(Klinger & Svensson, 2014).
14Twitch vs YouTube - How Media Logic affects the production process.
Logic of distribution: According to Klinger and Svensson (2014) the way information is
broadcasted has changed due to the different social media platforms. This has introduced a new
logic of distribution where there are not only professionals, for example journalists, that can filter
and edit information to the receivers (Klinger & Svensson, 2014). A platform where this format
is very prominent is a platform called Reddit, everyone who creates a sub-reddit on this platform
automatically becomes the editor of the page, deciding who can post and what content is allowed
(Van Dijck & Poell, 2013). Klinger and Svensson (2014) say that gaining relevance online relies
on the ability to publish something that other users will forward, comment on and recommend
further. If the information is not formatted or expressed to kindle other users to spread the
information, there is a big risk it will only reach a smaller audience. There is only a small
percentage of social media content that receives a huge amount of attention. But a popular post
also relies on the platforms’ algorithms, meaning its ability to be interacted with and be shared
(Van Dijck & Poell, 2013).
Logic of media usage: Klinger and Svensson (2014) talk about how a new logic of media use has
been created due to social media platforms enabling higher levels of selective exposure. Mass
media is conformed to geographically limited communities, while social media is more limited to
communities of like-minded individuals. Van Dijck and Poell (2013) describe Social Media Logic
as something that is more dependent on the connectivity abilities between the users. The social
media users want to be able to pick who they want to interact with, and by doing that they create
their own social network (Van Dijck & Poell, 2013). Klinger and Svensson (2014) explain that
for mass media audiences this creates a huge disadvantage, an abundance of external information
creates a problem to assign relevance to all information. Therefore sharing and suggesting content
with other like-minded individuals is so influential on the content. When connecting to other
individuals with likewise opinions on social media platforms, users are tailoring the information
they are going to receive (Klinger & Svensson, 2014). In the case of the study this media logic
version is more focused on the production side of things.
3.1.3 Other social Media Logic structures
When Klinger and Svensson (2014) talks about the three logic variants there is online Van Dijck
and Poell (2013) mentions four different structures that affects Media Logic on social media
platforms. These structures are programmability, popularity, connectivity and datafication, below
these four will be described in a bit more detail.
15You can also read
