CHAPTER THREE identity of the uploader (whether a traditional media CI III 'I small-to-medium enterprise or independent producer, a , YouTube's Popular Culture ment organization, cultural institution, or the like, or :111 :11 user). 3 Our concern with the appearance ofthese videos, wi 1('1 appear to come from and what they appear to be, is JI1ulival desire to understand how content might be perceived :111<11,1 within YouTube's ecology; by focusing on the appar('11 1 11,11 the content coded, the study does not discriminate, JiJl' I'X

Accounting for Popularity between 'pure' user-created efforts and supposedly IISl'l I videos produced for viral marketing purposes or those st'i ~l' In this chapter we draw on a survey of some of YouTube's most by marketing campaigns. In practice, these are often ilidisl iII popular content to establish some baseline knowledge about able, and to some participants, the role they perform is 1111' :-1: the range of uses people are making of the site. Understanding Our survey concentrated on the most popular vid{'os \ what YouTube might be for, and moving beyond moral panics the time period of the study, partly because it hdpl'd 10 about young people, the destruction of existing media business, our sample, but also because we were trying to undn'sla lld copyright infringement, or the trivialities ofuser-created content, of the dominant patterns in popular uses of YouTulll'. WI requires contextualizing YouTube's content with everyday media through these patterns, in this chapter we attem pt to loql practices. Simply looking at content on YouTube doesn't give us 'YouTube-ness' of You Tube - its shared and parlit:lliar ('01 the whole picture, of course - YouTube videos circulate and are culture - while respecting its complexity and diversily. W made sense of on other websites; they are embedded in blogs, not only at the mix of content that moves through Ihl' l-l

discussed in living rooms, and they are produced in rich every­ but at the particular patterns of relations between vid,'()s I day or professional contexts. But combining this knowledge with website and the organization of You Tube itself. an analysis of the way particular types of videos move through But understanding how popularity works on Yoululll' \'(', YouTube as a system allows us to identify some of the most sig­ more than simply identifying and describing whid"1 uf' till' ' nificant and interesting patterns in YouTube's popular culture. have been watched the most. Is the 'popular' simply a \lUI This content survey draws on a sample of videos from four degree - how popular a particular cultural product is, lilt'; of YouTube's categories of popularity - Most Viewed, Most by its reach or sales? Or is it a matter ofkind - the CIIII ilia I Favorited, Most Responded, Most Discussed. Across these catego­ that are loved intensely, or that are 'of the people'? l~v~ ' 11 ' ries, 4,320 videos were gathered by sampling from six days across YouTube itself, content is represented as being more () I " ,~ two weeks in each ofthree months of2007 (August, October, and ular according to a range ofdifferent measures, inciudillfU November).1 A coding system was developed to categorize these videos according to textual and extra-textual features, coding for most viewed, most respon.ded, most discussed, top rateel, 1I111,\''/n origin, uploader, genre, and themes.2 previously popular, and most active 4 This coding scheme involved two primary categories: the appar­ And it offers a range of different time periods: ent industrial origin of the video (whether it was user· created or the product of a traditional media company), and the apparent today, this week , this mon.th, an.d all time 38 I ..­ ~.. '" YouTube:$=Pi ,~,~. :.. ' 41

We concentrated on four of these categories of popularity _ this is not all they do. They are not representations of reality, but Most Viewed, Most Favorited, Most Responded, Most Discussed technologies of re-presentation. Because they communicate to - because we (correctly, as it turns out) hypothesized that compar­ the audience what counts as popular on YouTube, these metrics ing across them would give us a sense ofthe way different kinds of also take an active role in creating the reality ofwhat is popular on video content are made popular by audiences in different ways. YouTube: they are not only descriptive; they are also perforrnative. Each ofthese measures ofpopularity orders YouTube according Michel Callon (1998) makes the argument that economic theo­ to a different logic ofaudience engagement. While all ofthese meas­ ries of markets 'format' real markets by making them calculable, ures rely on quantitative assessments - they all count things - the and therefore affecting the choices of real actors who participate categories Most Responded, Most Discussed, and Most Favorited in those markets. This is not the same as saying that the 'dis­ provide a way to access measures ofattention other than those that courses' of markets 'socially construct' our choices; rather, our have predominated in the broadcast era. Whereas Most Viewed models and understandings ofmarkets function technologically, most closely resembles the aggregate measures of attention uti­ producing knowledge that can be used in practice, but only within lized by mainstream media industries as a way ofcounting 'eyeballs the constraints of the ways this knowledge is structured and pre­ in front ofthe screen,'s each ofthe other three measures provides sented. Much more modestly, the various measures of videos' some account ofpopularity based on activities that signal a degree popularity within YouTube function similarly: to a certain extent ofparticipation in the YouTube community - ifnothing else, all of they make calculable and measurable a simplified and atomized them require the user to have an account. The Most Favorited cat­ model of audience engagement - based on the raw frequencies egory aggregates the videos popular enough to be added to a user's of views, comments, response videos, and additions to users' profile, and Most Discussed aggregates the videos that generate the favorites. In turn, these metrics shape the character of the most most comments, whereas Most Responded records the videos that popular content; users can either deliberately attempt to produce viewers were most frequently prompted to post a video response content that will achieve mass attention according to the preset to, either by filming their own material or linking to another video criteria, or they can ignore them altogether (and receive attention in the system. Because it compares types of popular video content from dramatically smaller audiences). As with the mainstream across these measures of popularity, this content survey doesn't media interpretations of what YouTube is for, this produces a simply tell us what is 'on' YouTube. Each of these ways of identi­ feedback loop between the perceived uses of and value logics of fying YouTube's popular culture ends up constituting a different YouTube; and its 'actual' uses and meanings. version ofwhat YouTube is, and what it is for. Because we were looking at a sample ofthe most popularvideos, The Two YouTubes the results ofthis content survey are not simply a reflection ofthe collective tastes ofthe YouTube audience as a whole. The picture The constructions of YouTube discussed in the previous chap­ of what YouTube is and how it is used that emerges from the ter somewhat simplistically represent videos on the website as study is also partly shaped by the way popularity is measured, and coming either from inside established media practice6 or outside the way popular content is represented on the YouTube itself ofit.7 In doing so, YouTube is imagined as a space where these two Ofcourse, in some ways , the popularity metrics do just what we categories co-exist and collide, but do not really converge: where might think - they measure the relative popularity of individual familiar forms of mass media content will be encountered along­ videos over a given time period, according to various criteria. But side amateur oddities; where television, cinema, music videos, 4.2 ·-~J~~~i·:· r ~e~s;1?opu1ar Culture ------~----

and advertising, appear next to bedroom, boardroom, or back-yard True to the 'Broadcast Yourself' promise of YouTube, the productions. This dichotomy between the 'user-created' and 'tradi­ survey of the most popular content looks to be weighted, just tional media' content is of course problematic for understanding slightly, in favor ofuser-created videos. Just over halfthe material, YouTube as a site of new convergences and mutations of these or 2,177 videos, were coded as coming from user-created sources categories, and so employing it analytically (as we have done) is an - content produced outside of the mainstream, broadcast, or oversimplifYing move. Nevertheless, it provides a useful organiz­ established media. A majority of these videos were vlogs (nearly ing framework within which to begin a large-scale content survey, 40 percent), the conversational form that is somewhat emblem­ and our baseline division of the content into the categories 'user­ atic of YouTube's user-created content. Other genres included created' or 'traditional media' produced some interesting results: user-created music videos (15 percent) - including fanvids, and anime music videos;8 live material (13 percent) - musical performances, sporting footage, and 'slice of life' footage; and Number of MOST MOST MOST MOST TOTAL informational content (10 percent) such as newscasts, video­ Videos FA VORl TED VIEWED DISCUSSED RESPONDED game reviews, and interviews. Scripted material (8 percent) such Traditional 511 717 276 -= 308 1812 as sketch comedy, animation, and machinima - animation made User-Created 466 277 751 683 2177 using video-game engines often created by capturing and edit­ Uncertain 103 86 53 89 331 . ing choreographed gameplay - all made up a small part of the Totals 1080 1080 1080 1080 4320 sample. New or unclassifiable genres, many of them exhibiting a fascination with the manipulation of technique rather than fol­ lowing any established form (discussed below) made up around 10 percent of the sample. But contrary to the emphases ofthe mainstream media and some academic work on online video (see for example Aufderheide and Jaszi, 2008), there was a surprisingly small number of amateur, mundane, 'slice of life' videos in the sample - despite the myth, we just didn't come across very many cat videos at all. Nor were there any videos of children brutalizing each other, 'happy slap­ ping' innocent victims, or 'hooning' around the neighborhood. This is not to deny the presence of this material on YouTube (clearly, it is there somewhere, along with knitting videos and vintage documentaries), but it did not appear in this sample of YouTube's most popular videos, which suggests to us its preva­ lence and popularity is generally overstated . • Traditional User-Created Content • Uncertain Almost 42 percent of the sample (1,812 videos) appeared to come from traditional media sources .,- videos originally produced within the established media industry, and frequently taken from Figure 3-1. Content Type Overall an original source such as a television broadcast or a DVD, and then uploaded to the website without a substantial amount of Most of the videos seemed to have been uploaded by people editing. Popular genres here included informational programing outside established, mainstream media companies (see Figure (3 0 percent), which collected clips from major news services in 3.2). This group - coded as 'users' - was responsible for contrib­ the US , the UK, and Latin America, particularly material featur­ uting a majority ofthe content in the sample - around 60 percent. ing 2008 US Presidential candidates, celebrity interviews, and Traditional media companies and large rights holders, a group appearances on talk shows, as well as portions from reality tel­ that includes television networks such as NBC and organizations evision programing. Scripted materials (21 percent) made up the such as the NBA (National Basketball Association), who have next largest category, and included sketch comedy, animation, traditionally patrolled their intellectual property rights fiercely and segments from soap operas from Turkey and the Philippines. on YouTube, made up only a fraction of the uploaders - about 8 Videos from traditional media sources also included live content percent. Between these two categories was a group described as (17 percent) - predominantly sports footage, clips from US pri­ 'Small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) or Independent producers mary debates and music videos (13 percent), which came mostly (indies),' those working within the professional media industry from US Top40 artists. The final significant category included but outside the domains of big-media organizations. This group promotional materials (II percent) - trailers for films and adver­ accounted for nearly 20 percent ofthe content uploaded. tisements for products. Based on their titles and other studies When we compare user-created and traditional media across of copyright content on YouTube,9 it is probably the case that measures ofpopularity, some striking differences in how popular most ofthe videos that could not be coded because they had been content is used begin to emerge (see Figure 3.3) . removed came from traditional media sources. '500 9%

'250

'000

750

2% 500

61%

MOST VIEWED MOST FAVORfTED MOST RESPONDED MOST DISCUSSED

.Traditional OSMEllndia .Organization OUser • Uncertain • Uncertain Traditional • User-created Figure 3.2. Uploader Types Figure B. Content Types across Popularity Category ouTube's PODuiar Culture YouTube's

While user-created content dominates the sample overall, and of the videos coded here had been removed from YouTube, and 'users' appear to comprise the largest group ofpeople contributing were undiscoverable on other video-sharing sites or elsewhere to the system, not all ofthe categories ofpopularity are dominated across the Internet. Others were from media systems coders by user-created content. Though traditional media and large rights were not familiar with - perhaps in a language other than holders make up a small percentage ofthe overall uploaders _ not English, Spanish, or Chinese - and coders were unable to read surprising given the generally suspicious and cautious attitude the formal, aesthetic, and extra-textual markers to determine the taken by the majority oftraditional media players we discussed in video's origin. Finally, some videos were coded as 'uncertain' in the previous chapter - content from broadcast and mass media instances where coders could not clearly determine whether the Sources comprises a significant proportion of the videos coded content was user-created or the product of professional media in the Most Viewed and Most Favorited (see Figure 3-3) . Indeed, producers, based on the content ofthe video and details provided material from broadcast and mass media sources make up two­ in any intertextual or extra-textual sources, such as the profile thirds (66 percent) of the Most Viewed category, where the of the uploader, hypertext links that might be provided to other largest genres were informational material - particularly news sites on the Internet, or discussion in industry, press, or other footage, political discussion, celebrity gossip, and interviews; publications regarding the videos. live content - especially sports footage and live musical acts; and These 'uncertain' videos reveal some of the most interesting scripted programming - clips from television series, soap operas, difficulties that arise when classifying the content ofYou Tube. In and dramas, as well as animation and some sketch comedy. This practice, there is a great deal ofslippage between the categories of content came mostly from television, but was mostly uploaded by 'traditional media' and 'user-created content' in our survey, and users rather than by the traditional media and large rights holders making determinations between them relies as much on how the themselves. User-created content in the Most Viewed category material is positioned by extra-textual and intertextual material as predominantly took tl1e form of vlog entries, though there was it does on markers within the content itself. But these problems also some instructional content, user-created sketch comedy, and were also very productive: the coding process revealed some ofthe musical performances - either footage from shows or users at specific sources of uncertainty around the distinctions between home (or in the studio) performing directly for the camera. professional and user-created content in YouTube. The Most Favorited category - videos users have added to their personal profiles - was nearly evenly split between traditional (47 percent) and user-created content (43 percent). 'Favoriting' Clips and Quotes: Uses ofTraditional something is an act both of self-expression and identity perform­ Media Content ance; when videos are added to a user's list of favorites, they're Like all media, YouTube only really makes sense when under­ not just saved for later viewing; they are published as markers of stood as something that people make use of in everyday life. personal taste and implicitly communicate recommendations to other users. Bruns (2007) notes participatory culture and digital tools mean audiences no longer need to resort to auxiliary media forms to A portion ofvideos in each category ofpopularity was coded as respond to the culture around them, suggesting the everyday 'uncertain'; these videos, comprising roughly 10 percent in the experience of media audiencehood might need to be rethought case of both Most Favorited and Most Viewed, included videos to include new forms of cultural production that occur as part of the coders were unable to make a definitive decision about. Many ordinary media use. Participants in YouTube clearly do engage in new forms of' publishing,' partly as a way to narrate and commu­ There were several instances in this sample where the type of nicate their own cultural experiences, including their experiences uploads media companies such as Viacom seem to dread most as 'citizen-consumers,' which are bound up with commercial appeared - entire episodes of programming divided into sec­ popular media. John Hartley (2008a) describes this mode ofcul­ tions. In particular, the sample included two soap opera series, tural meaning making as 'redaction' - 'the production of new one each from the Philippines and Turkey. Not only was this material by the process of editing existing content.' For Hartley, material flagged as copyright-infringing fairly quickly but, in both redaction is: instances, the videos made for a poor-quality viewing experience. a form of production not reduction of text (which is why the Although in early 2008 YouTube had begun to make announce­ more familiar term 'editing' is not quite adequate). Indeed, the ments about the introduction of high-resolution video,12 to date current moment could be characterized as a redactional society, the low quality ofY ouTu be videos, 13 and the ten -minute time limi t indicating a time when there is too much instantly available imposed on uploads, have made it a poor technology by which to information for anyone to see the world whole, resulting in a 'illegally' distribute copyrighted content,14 especially compared to society that is characterized by its editorial practices. (Hartley, 2008a: II2) protocols such as BitTorrent, and compression technologies such as DivX and Xvid supported by some other video-sharing services. Hartley (2008a: 19-35) argues the origin ofmeaning has migrated While YouTube's size makes it a significant site to explore the along the 'value chain' ofthe cultural industries, from the 'author,' ramifications of digital distribution on the relationship between the 'producer,' and the text, to the 'citizen-consumer,' so that 'con­ national boundaries and audience communities (Green, 2008), sumption' is a source ofvalue creation, and not only its destination. the uploading of traditional media content to the website is part Media consumption, under such a model, has moved away from of a more sophisticated range of cultural practices than simply being a 'read-only' activity to becoming a 'read-write' one. the attempt to 'fileshare' or to avoid nationally or commercially This concept of redaction provides an alternative to the dis­ bound distribution systems. courses of copyright infringement that dog the debates and YouTube is filled with short 'quotes'IS of content - snippets corporate negotiations around the posting of traditional media of material users share to draw attention to the most significant content to YouTube. While some of the videos coded 'uncer­ portion ofa program. In terms ofcultural analysis, the practice of tain' discussed above have either been made private or removed quoting is quite distinct from that ofuploading entire programs. by users,IO the majority are unavailable as a result of copyright Understanding YouTube as a redactional system, uploading infringement claims by various parties, notably those identified is a meaning-making process, rather than an attempt to evade as traditional media. A small portion is also unavailable appar­ the constraints of mainstream media distribution mechanisms. ently due to Terms ofUse violations. This could signal a violation Particularly through this practice of uploading media 'quotes,' ofYouTube's (very loosely defined) policies around offensive con­ YouTube functions as a central clearing house service that people tent, or (more likely) it may be the result of the user uploading use as a way to catch up on public media events, as well as to copyrighted content - also a violation of the YouTube Terms of break new stories and raise awareness, as in the 'citizen journal­ Use. Therefore the amount of material from traditional media ism'model. sources is probably larger than our results suggest, given that When video ofcampus police using a Taser on UCLA student during the delay between capturing and coding the data, a number Mostafa Tabatabainejad was posted to YouTube in November of ofvideos were removed due to copyright claims. II 2006, the citizen jounalism potential ofYouTube was elevated I YouTube's t"opULan ...Ull:un: .....

to the attention of the US national press. Frequently, however, usefulness coming from its dual status as a marker of individu­ quoted materials in the Most Viewed category, tend to reflect the alism and a signifier of group participation. Music has likewise topics already at the top of public agendas rather than breaking been central to the formation of other social networking serv­ new stories. So we see, for instance, quite a number of high­ ices (boyd, 2007) where it plays a significant role as a marker lights packages from qualifying matches for the 2008 UEFA of identity in user profiles, particularly of teens. The appearance European Football Championship, qualifying for which started in August 2007. of music videos as a significant content type of Most Favorited videos matches the identity forming function music plays, func­ Unsurprisingly, the 2008 US Presidential election campaign­ tions supported by social networking sites. ing was well represented in the sample, in the form ofcampaign The patterns of cultural tastes and practices observed in our materials, debates, press clips, as well as commentary, discus­ study are undoubtedly related to those associated with the domi­ sion, and debate. This is to be expected given the increasingly nant forms of contemporary US popular culture more broadly significant role YouTube has played as a site for both top-down - characterized by an engagement with dominant media events and grass-roots political campaigning (Jenkins, Forthcoming; like the 2008 US Presidential Election; and by a preference for Shah and Marchionini, 2007). The presence of such material humor, vernacular video, TOP-40 music and teen idols, tabloid could be taken as an indication of a significant degree ofengage­ culture, and celebrity gossip. Butthere is a certain 'YouTube-ness' ment in US politics by the YouTube community, and on popular to these patterns as well. The intensity of engagement around rather than official terms. But arguably, the forms of political particular bands, artists, celebrities, and video genres is at least engagement hinted at in these videos have just as much to do partly produced within YouTube itself - how else to explain the with celebrity culture (Couldry and Markham, 7) as they have 200 fact Ron Paul was, at times, more important to YouTube's atten­ to do with capital-P political culture - in the same way as the tab­ tion economy than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; or loid mainstream media focus on individual candidates as media the Jonas Brothers more adored than any other pop artist? The personalities. Highlighting the effects on political life of the patterns that emerged from the content survey hint at the shape heightened and personalized media attention John Thompson of YouTube's common culture - a 'structure of feeling' neither (2005) calls the 'new visibility: politicians' stances on issues unique to You Tube nor synonymous with web culture or popular and their positions on the political spectrum in some ways are culture more broadly, however those categories are understood. nothing but backstory for the front-stage drama of their media appearances and 'gotcha' moments; and in the case of the minor Republican US presidential candidate Ron Paul, for a concerted Vaudeville to Vlogs: User-Created Content attempt to drive up the popularity of an underdog candidate in It is often assumed that YouTube is a platform built for amateur defiance ofthe priorities set up by the mainstream media and the creativity and that it thrives on user-created content. How much of Democratic and Republican parties themselves. this content is represented as part ofYou Tube's popular culture? In the light ofour earlier discussions about the importance of User-created content makes up more than two-thirds of the understanding YouTube as part ofeveryday media use, it is espe­ content coded in both the Most Responded and Most Discussed cially significant that music videos were prominent in the Most categories, where it comprises 63 and 69 percent respectively - a Favorited category. Frith (I996: nO-II) argues music plays a cen­ dramatically higher percentage than traditional media content, tral role for postmodern identity formation, its significance and ! especially when compared to the Most Viewed category, where the situation was reversed. 16 As noted above, the sample included They show a particular fascination with Saturday morning car­ some but not large numbers of many of the prototypical user­ toons from the 1990S (particularly 'low' American cartoons such created video forms. There were a few mundane videos, short as The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!) and television commercials, films, fanvids, or hypercreative mashups, but there were also though there are also 'poops' made for anime series21 and videos quite a few anime music videos, instructional video-game walk­ from YouTube itself.22 The edits are often abrupt and jarring, and throughs, as well as some examples ofmachinima. the audio is manipulated through quick cuts, changing speeds, Whatever the specific form, there were several observable aes­ and the introduction of alternative sound tracks. The result fre­ thetic trends across the range of user-created content, indicative quently foregoes narrative and resembles something most akin of the kinds of practices and values associated with an emerging to parody or video art. Throughout the user-created content in medium. Frequently, the aesthetics of these user-created videos our survey, regardless of the techniques used, the sample points were especially concerned with experimentation with the video clearly to a logic of cultural value centered for the most part form, an explicit foregrounding of the medium itself that has around novelty and humor. historically been associated with the emergence of new media But it was vlog entries that dominated the sample, making up technologies, which Jenkins (2006c) suggests resembles the nearly 40 percent of the videos coded at Most Discussed and just technological and aesthetic experimentation ofvaudeville. over a quarter ofthe videos coded at Most Responded. The preva­ In many of the most popular user-created videos there was a lence ofvlog entries is significant given it is an almost exclusively noticeable focus on video as a technology, and on the showcaSing user-created form of online video production. Vlogging itself is of technique rather than of artistry. There was a large number not necessarily new or unique to YouTube, but it is an emblem­ oftrick videos - using green screen technology, split screens, or atic form of YouTube participation. The form has antecedents reversed footage, as well as the use of techniques to foreground in webcam culture, personal blogging, and the more widespread the technology itself, for example the use of sound processing 'confessional culture' (Matthews, 2007) that characterizes televi­ to produce 'silly' comic voices. Two good examples of the crea­ sion talkshows and reality television focused on the observation tive combination of a trick concept with the capabilities of video of everyday life. The success of Ze Frank (real name Hosea Jan recording and editing techniques are 'What Song is This?' in Frank) was important in publicly defining the genre and estab­ which the Star Spangled Banner is sung backwards live, and then lishing its possibility as a bona fide mode ofcultural production, the footage is reversed to reveal the song; 17 and 'The Original despite the fact it did not appear on YouTube. His 12-month vlog­ Human TETRIS Performance by Guillaume Reymond,'18 a stop­ ging project, 'the show with ze frank' which ran from 16 March motion animation in which a group of people dressed in various 2006 to 16 March 2007, established some ofthe formal character­ colors arrange and rearrange themselves in formation to imitate istics ofthe genre as it has been taken up in YouTube, particularly the progress of a game of Tetris, accompanied by an accurate a in terms ofrapid editing and snappy performance to camera. cappella version ofthe Tetris soundtrack.19 Jenkins (2006c; see also Butsch, 2000) notes vaudeville func­ Another good illustration of this fascination with the techno­ tioned as a relatively open platform for a wide range of short acts, logical capabilities ofdigital video editing is the category ofvideos each ofwhich was kept under twenty minutes, and without direc­ referred to by their producers as 'YouTube POOp.'20 Emerging as tors, actors chose their own material and refined their skills based a genre of their own, these often-frenetic videos piece together on direct audience feedback. There was a reliance on the emotional found television footage into irreverent, often nonsensical works. in order to create the memorable and the spectacular. Vlogging ! shares this emphasis on liveness, immediacy, and conversation and it is also important in understanding the particularity ofYouTube. Some artists represented by large labels have taken up this mode The vlog reminds us of the residual character of interpersonal as a way to engage and manage their fan communities. English/ face-to-face communication and provides an important point of Portugese singer-songwriter Mia Rose is a good example of this. difference between online video and television. Not only is the Rose represents herself as an independent artist, using YouTube vlog technically easy to produce, generally requiring little more to sell her content by reaching out across the social network to 24 than a webcam and basic editing skills, it is a form whose persist­ connect with her audiences. In April 2008, after the sample had ent direct address to the viewer inherently invites feedback. While been captured, she signed to the NextSection Lifestyle Group and television content - news, sketch comedy, clips from soap operas is now a rrianaged artist with a major label. Her channeJ25 remains - may draw people to the service for a catch-up, traditional media unchanged, however, still projecting the same home-grown brand content doesn't explicitly invite conversational and inter-creative image with which it began. She remains, for all intents and pur­ (Spurgeon, 2008; Meikle, 2002) participation, as might be meas­ poses, an independent artist who is also a user of YouTube. 26 ured by the numbers ofcomments and video responses. It seems that, more than any other form in the sample, the vlog as a genre Beyond the Professional and Amateur Divide ofcommunication invites critique, debate, and discussion. Direct response, through comment and via video, is central to this mode YouTube's popular videos are contributed by a range of profes­ of engagement. Vlogs are frequently responses to other vlogs, sional, semi-professional, amateur, and pro-amateur participants, carrying out discussion across YouTube 23 and directly addressing some of whom produce content that is an uncomfortable fit with comments left on previous vlog entries. Patricia Lange ( 7 ) the available categories ofeither 'traditional' media content or the 200 a notes particularly engaged YouTubers directly address negative vernacular forms generally associated with the concept of 'ama­ comments and 'hating' through their vlogs, many seeing this as teur' content. University lectures and educational materials, such an inherent part ofthe form itself. It is this conversational charac­ as those uploaded by institutions including the University of New 27 ter that distinguishes the mode of engagement in the categories South Wales and the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley,28 online dominated by user-created content from those dominated by presentations developed by Google for forthcoming products,29 traditional media. or footage of military aircraft landing uploaded by the Royal 3o Two other significant genres in both Most Discussed and Most Australian Air Force - each of these are examples of content Responded were informational content and music videos. The which strain to fit anywhere in relation to the traditional medial former includes user-created newscasts, interviews, documenta­ user-created content dichotomy. ries and a number of videos which would bleed over into the vlog This dichotomy also fails accurately to characterize uploaders category - they frequently critique popular media or comment on like Ford Models, who use YouTube for both promotional purposes 3 'YouTube dramas' through visual juxtaposition, or by adding com­ and to identify talent. ] Ford, much like Google, the RAAF , colleges mentary or on-screen graphics. Many user-created music videos and universities, is not a traditional media player; its presence on also adopt a conversational mode, as artists preface their work with YouTube capitalizes on the same self-publishing and conversa­ a discussion of the motivations or context for the piece they have tional opportunities as other non-media participants, despite their written or will perform, respond to suggestions and feedback, often size. The material Ford produces - makeup tips, model profiles, 32 drawing the audience into the intimacy afforded by direct address. fashion guidelines, and modelling tutorials - could conceivably I be packaged for broadcast as fashion programing on cable or broadcast television. Outside ofthe broadcast flow and contextual­ ized within a branded YouTube channel, these videos appear as participation within YouTube's communicative ecology as it is organic YouTube content; it is only the professional quality of the the savvy with which they produce content, and they are virtuosic content and the corporate size of the uploader that would mark in their mastery of YouTube's home-grown forms and practices. Ford Models as a traditional media player. To understand YouTube's popular culture, it is not helpful Similarly, the category of 'user' is complicated by web-tv start­ to draw sharp distinctions between professional and amateur ups, such as JumpTV Sports, who put together sports packages production, or between commercial and community practices. and deliver content to a range ofsports sites around the world, and These distinctions are based in industrial logics more at home in NoGoodTV, who produce vaguely risque, masculinist, program­ the context of the broadcast media rather than an understanding ming. Many of these uploaders resemble traditional television of how people use media in their everyday lives, or a knowledge producers using the Internet as a way to distribute niche program­ of how YouTube actually works as a cultural system. It is more ming or specialized content without needing to negotiate cable or helpful to shift from thinking about media production, distribu­ television distribution deals. NoGoodTV's content, for instance, tion, and consumption to thinking about YouTube in terms of a resembles the laddish programming regularly seen on cable continuum of cultural participation. channels in the US such as Spike (a Viacom brand) and the video­ This requires us to understand all those who upload, view, game oriented G4 TV. It is a mixture of music videos, celebrity comment on, or create content for YouTube, whether they are interviews, sketches, informational programing, and miscellanea, businesses, organizations, or private individuals, as participants. wrapped in on-screen graphics. Its resemblance to television con­ For one thing, content is circulated and used in YouTube without tent points to the way digital delivery options such as YouTube and much regard to its source - it is valued and engaged with in spe­ the increasing move ofmaterial online are destabilizing medium­ cific ways according to its genre and its uses within the website as dependent definitions ofmedia forms (Green, 2008). well as its relevance to the everyday lives ofother users, rather than So too, although videoblogging is a dominant form of user­ according to whether or not it was uploaded by a Hollywood studio, created content and fundamental to YouTube's sense of a web TV company, or an amateur videoblogger. All contributors of community, not all vlogs are personal journal entries created content to YouTube are potential participants in a common space; in bedrooms. Indeed, a number of prominent vloggers, such as one that supports a diverse range of uses and motiva tions, but that has a coherent cultural logic - what we refer to as the YouTube­ Nalts,33 Charlestrippy,34 and Blunty3 000 35 are quite clearly using YouTube as a business venture. They participate in YouTube's ness of YouTube. Likewise, this model asks us to understand the advertising sharing scheme and draw revenue from their pres­ activities ofnot only content creators but also audiences as practices ence on YouTube. But unlike users like NoGoodTV who seem of participation, because the practices of audiencehood - quoting, to bring to YouTube the same one-way model of participation favoriting, commenting, responding, sharing, and viewing - all we know from broadcasting, these producers are active partici­ leave traces, and therefore they all have effects on the common cul­ pants in the YouTube community. Even though uploaders like ture ofYouTube as it evolves. Those who insist on h'eating YouTube Charlestrippy use their vlogs and YouTube pages to advertise as if it is a broadcasting platform are probably less likely to achieve their expertise - in his case, creating viral videos 3G _ they are also the aims oftheir participation, whatever they may be. active participants in the YouTube community. Their online suc­ cess is as much due to their grounded knowledge ofand effective I