Dynamic Success on YouTube: A Longitudinal Analysis of Click Counts and Contents of Political Candidate Clips during the 2009 German National Election

Abstract

Since the 2008 Obama victory, mass media and academic research have contributed to the widespread notion that modern political campaigns are won in the so-called ‘web 2.0’, more precisely on YouTube. While respective studies were able to identify some major factors for the success of political YouTube videos, some videos ‘failed’ to have the presumed success online. This lack of clarity has not been convincingly explained by cross-sectional designs without taking into account the dynamic aspects of the success of YouTube videos. This study evaluates and validates the impact of presentation, professionalism, topic, age and the typical slope of the website-visits over time on the total amount of page visits. Political YouTube videos were analysed over a five-month period before the 2009 German national election. Most strikingly, one has to ignore some of the YouTube conventions to be successful on the platform during an election campaign, like uploading user-generated content.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sebastian Scherr, MA is a research assistant.

Carsten Reinemann, PhD is a professor of political communication.

Olaf Jandura, PhD is a senior (post-doc) researcher, at the Department of Communication Science and Media Research, at Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich.

Notes

1. Three days after the 2008 US presidential election, on 7 Nov. 2008, Claire Cain Miller resumed on the NY Times Blog ‘How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics’, available from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/ (accessed 20 June 2012).

2. See for Romania: P.A. Aparaschivei, ‘The Use of New Media in Electoral Campaigns: Analysis on the Use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the 2009 Romanian Presidential Campaign’, Journal of Media Research 2/10 (2011), pp.39–60; see for Finland: T. Carlson and K. Strandberg, ‘Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 5/2 (2008), pp.159–74; see for the Netherlands: V. Bekkkers, H. Beunders, A. Edwards and R. Moody, ‘New Media, Micromobilization, and Political Agenda Setting: Crossover Effects in Political Mobilization and Media Usage’, The Information Society: An International Journal 27/4 (2011), pp.209–19; see for Australia: R.K. Gibson and I. McAllister, ‘Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election’, Political Communication 28/2 (2011), pp.227–44.

3. See for an early discussion of the new forms of campaigning through MySpace and YouTube, V. Gueorguieva, ‘Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond’, Social Science Computer Review 26/3 (2008), pp.288–300; see for a comparison between new media and classic media (TV), J. Cha and S.M. Chan-Olmsted, ‘Substitutability between Online Video Platforms and Television’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89/2 (2012), pp.261–78; see for the uses of YouTube during the election campaign, G.L. Hanson, P.M. Haridakis and R. Sharma, ‘Differing Uses of YouTube during the 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Election’, Electronic News 5/1 (2011), pp.1–19; see for the effects of YouTube videos during an election campaign, T.L. Towner and D.A. Dulio, ‘An Experiment of Campaign Effects during the YouTube Election’, New Media & Society 13/4 (2011), pp.626–44; see for YouTube videos in the context of political marketing, T.L. Towner and D.A. Dulio, ‘New Media and Political Marketing in the United States: 2012 and Beyond’, Journal of Political Marketing 11/1 (2012), pp.95–119.

4. Alexa Internet, ‘Top Sites: The Top 500', available from http://www.alexa.com/topsites (accessed 20 June 2012).

5. T. von Pape and T. Quandt, ‘Wen erreicht der Wahlkampf 2.0', Media Perspektiven (2010), pp.390–8.

6. X. Cheng, C. Dale and J. Liu, ‘Statistics and Social Network of YouTube Videos’, Paper Presented at the ‘16th International Workshop on Quality of Service 2008’, Enschede, the Netherlands, 2–4 June 2008, available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4539688 (accessed 16 March 2015).

7. I.B. Dylko, M.A. Beam, K.D. Landreville and N. Geidner, ‘Filtering 2008 US Presidential Election News on YouTube by Elites and Nonelites: An Examination of the Democratizing Potential of the Internet’, New Media & Society 14/5 (2012), pp.832–49.

8. Carlson and Strandberg, ‘Riding the Web 2.0 Wave’.

9. Von Pape and Quandt, ‘Wen erreicht der Wahlkampf 2.0’.

10. M. Emmer, G. Vowe and J. Wolling, Bürger online (Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, 2012).

11. ARD/ZDF Online Studie 2011.

12. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, ‘Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008 Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off', available from http://www.people-press.org/2008/01/11/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008/ (accessed 20 June 2012).

13. J. Davidson, B. Liebald, J. Liu, P. Nandy and T. Van Vleet, ‘The YouTube Video Recommendation System’, RecSys ’10, Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (2010), available from http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1864770&ftid=845500&dwn=1&CFID=643518768&CFTOKEN=42142279 (accessed 16 March 2015).

14. In addition, YouTube videos may also reach their audience via other media channels. For example, in 2007 CNN and YouTube established the CNN/YouTube debates. Viewers were encouraged to put video questions to presidential candidates on YouTube. CNN journalists selected about 40 questions for each of the two parties which were later aired during the CNN/YouTube televised presidential debate. Although a content analysis of the selected YouTube questions revealed that these were less balanced, more personal and failed to reflect a broader set of issues than a journalistically organised debate, the 2007 CNN/YouTube debates underscore the importance that is ascribed to YouTube by the large news networks in the USA. Therefore, it seems plausible that scientific discussions emerge about the possible cannibalisation effects of online video platforms on television. See J. Stromer-Galley and L. Bryant, ‘Agenda Control in the 2008 CNN/YouTube Debates’, Communication Quarterly 59/5 (2011), pp.529–46; J. Cha and S.M. Chan-Olmsted, ‘Substitutability between Online Video Platforms and Television’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89/2 (2012), pp.261–78.

15. Cheng et al., ‘Statistics and Social Network of YouTube’, p.234.

16. M. Bachl, ‘Erfolgsfaktoren politischer YouTube-Videos’, in E. Schweitzer and S. Albrecht (eds), Das Internet im Wahlkampf (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2011), pp.157–80.

17. The authors analysed YouTube videos and found that only 10 per cent of the most popular videos on YouTube account for over 80 per cent of the clicks all videos obtained. Their results are insofar surprising as other online websites do not show such skewness (p.4): see for more details, M. Cha, H. Kwak, P. Rodriguez, Y.-Y. Ahn and S. Moon, ‘I Tube, You Tube, Everybody Tubes: Analysing the World's Largest User Generated Content Video System’, IMC'07 (2007), pp.1–13, available from http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1298309&ftid=461527&dwn=1&CFID=643521517&CFTOKEN=97237279 (accessed 16 March 2015).

18. See for news factors in a message, C. Eilders and W. Wirth, ‘Die Nachrichtenwertforschung auf dem Weg zum Publikum: Eine experimentelle Überprüfung des Einflusses von Nachrichtenfaktoren bei der Rezeption [News Value Research Meets the Audience: Investigating the Impact of News Factors on Reception Processes in an Experimental Setting]’, Publizistik 44/1 (1999), pp.35–57; see for the emotionalising potential of political messages, C. Schemer, Kampagnen für Herz und Verstand: Kognitive und affektive Einflüsse der Massenmedien auf politische Einstellungen [Political Campaigns for the Heart and Mind: Cognitive and Affective Influences of the Mass Media on Political Attitudes] (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009); with regard to basic emotions and emotionalisation, see C. Reinemann, O. Jandura, M. Maurer and T. Zerback, ‘Wer sind die Spätentscheider? Erste Befunde einer Mehrmethoden-Studie zur Bundestagswahl 2009 [Who Are These Late-Deciders? First Evidences of a Multi-Method Study on the 2009 German National Election]’, in H. Oberreuter (ed.), Am Ende der Gewissheit. Wähler, Parteien und Koalitionen in Bewegung [Final Certainties: Voters, Parties and Coalitions on the Move] (München: Olzog, 2011), pp.247–70; see with regard to authenticity, W. Donsbach and O. Jandura, ‘Chances and Effects of Authenticity: Candidates of the German Federal Election in TV News’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8/1 (2003), pp.49–65; see with regard to negative campaigning, S. Ansolabehere and S. Iyengar, Going Negative: How Political Advertising Divides and Shrinks the American Electorate (New York: Free Press, 1997).

19. See, for example, M. Missfeldt, ‘Google Ranking Factors' (2012), available from http://t3n.de/news/seo-google-ranking-faktoren-2012-390841/google-ranking-faktoren-komplett/ (accessed 20 June 2012).

20. A. Maireder, ‘Twitter in Österreich: Strukturen, Formen und Themen österreichischer Tweets’, available from http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:52301 (accessed 20 June 2012).

21. K. Wallsten, ‘“Yes We Can”: How Online Viewership, Blog Discussion, Campaign Statements, and Mainstream Media Coverage Produced a Viral Video Phenomenon’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7 (2010), pp.163–81.

22. Ibid.

23. For identifying videos on YouTube, the platform alternatively offers the possibility to search for videos by several categories. Among others, there is also a category ‘news and politics’ to which videos do not necessarily nor correctly need to be assigned by the authors.

24. Thus search terms were: ‘Merkel + CDU’, ‘Steinmeier + SPD’, ‘Westerwelle + FDP’, ‘Gysi + Linke’, ‘Lafontaine + Linke’, ‘Özdemir + Grüne’, ‘Künast + Grüne’.

25. E.g. Bachl, ‘Erfolgsfaktoren politischer YouTube-Videos'.

26. H.-M. Kepplinger, K. Gotto, H.-B. Brosius and D. Haak, Der Einfluss der Fernsehnachrichten auf die politische Meinungsbildung (Freiburg: Alber, 1989).

27. The final sample of 241 videos that have been content analysed consisted of 48 videos of Westerwelle (FDP), 46 videos of Steinmeier (SPD), 40 videos of Gysi (Die Linke), 34 videos of Lafontaine (Die Linke), 29 videos of Künast (B90/ Die Grünen), 23 videos of Özdemir (B90/Die Grünen) and 21 videos of Merkel (CDU).

28. The categories ‘personalisation’, ‘location’ and ‘reach’ were operationalised as 0 (very small/no personalisation), 1 (small personalisation), 2 (large personalisation), 3 (largest personalisation); ‘personal influence’ was operationalised as 0 (no person was mentioned), 1 (regional and institutional or group-related political influence), 2 (national influence), 3 (international political influence).

29. With regard to the different categories, the codes for the content analysis stem from: Eilders and Wirth, ‘Die Nachrichtenwertforschung’ (with regard to news values); Reinemann et al., ‘Spätentscheider’ (with regard to basic emotions and emotionalisation); Donsbach and Jandura, ‘Effects of Authenticity’ (with regard to authenticity); Ansolabehere and Iyengar, Going Negative (with regard to negative campaigning).

30. K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introductions to Its Methodology, 2nd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), p.215.

31. See R. Baron and D. Kenny, ‘The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51/6 (1986), pp.1173–82.

32. See A.F. Hayes, ‘Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium’, Communication Monographs 76/4 (2009), pp.408–20; D.P. MacKinnon, C.M. Lockwood and J. Williams, ‘Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods’, Multivariate Behavioral Research 39/1 (2004), pp.99–128.

33. K.J. Preacher and A.F. Hayes, ‘SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models’, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36/4 (2004), pp.717–31; K.J. Preacher and A.F. Hayes, ‘Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models’, Behavior Research Methods 40/3 (2008), pp.879–91; P.E. Shrout and N. Bolger, ‘Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations’, Psychological Methods 7/4 (2002), pp.422–45; J. Williams and D.P. MacKinnon, ‘Resampling and Distribution of the Product Methods for Testing Indirect Effects in Complex Models’, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 15/1 (2008), pp.23–51; Preacher et al. (2007) recommend bootstrap confidence intervals as the most powerful method to assess the significance of indirect effects: see K.J. Preacher, D.D. Rucker and A.F. Hayes, ‘Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions’, Multivariate Behavioral Research 42/1 (2007), pp.185–227.

34. D.P. MacKinnon, C.M. Lockwood, J.M. Hoffman, S.G. West and V. Sheets, ‘A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects’, Psychological Methods 7/1 (2002), pp.83–104.

35. Since it is generally possible that click growth dynamics change over time (e.g. a ‘flatliner’ video that becomes a late starter), we exploratory analysed the dynamics of all videos in our sample to check for the empirical prevalence of variances in growth type within a single video. No video changed its click count growth type over time, thus the assignment of one growth type to each YouTube video has been regarded as empirically justified.

36. We believe this aspect to be highly relevant for the activation of shrinking electorates as the mediation of political and civic discussion will face shifts in the future. For instance, some scientists especially focus on the shift from hard news to soft news and have named the positive effect of ‘soft news’ on some voters’ political knowledge as the ‘Oprah Effect’. See for more detail, M.A. Baum and A.S. Jamison, ‘The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently’, Journal of Politics 68/4 (2006), pp.946–59.