From vernacularized commercialism to kidbait: toy review videos on YouTube and the problematics of the mash-up genre

References

• Abidin, C. (2017). #Familygoals: Family influencers, calibrated amateurism, and justifying young digital labour. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Airoldi, M., Beraldo, D., & Gandini, A. (2016). Follow the algorithm: An exploratory investigation of music on YouTube. Poetics, 57, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Blank, G. (2007). Critics, ratings, and society: The sociology of reviews. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S. (2017). “Sharenting”, parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication, 2, 110–125.
   Google Scholar
• Brownlie, D., & Hewer, P. (2011). Articulating consumers through practices of vernacular creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2, 243–253.
   Google Scholar
• Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and beyond. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham, D. (1995). The commercialisation of childhood? The place of the market in children’s media culture. Changing English, 2, 17–40.
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham, D. (2007). Selling childhood? Children and consumer culture. Journal of Children and Media, 1, 15–24.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess, J. E. (2006). Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 2, 201–214.
   Google Scholar
• Burroughs, B. (2017). YouTube kids: The app economy and mobile parenting. Social Media + Society, 2, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Conti, O. (2013). Disciplining the vernacular: Fair use, YouTube, and remixer agency. M/C Journal, 16(4). Retrieved from http://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/685
   Google Scholar
• Danesi, M. (2015). Popular culture: introductory perspectives. In 3rd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Davidsson, P., & Thoresson, A. (2017). Svenskarna och internet 2017: Undersökning om svenskarnas internetvanor. [The Swedes and the Internet]. Stockholm: The Internet Foundation in Sweden (IIS).
   Google Scholar
• Davis, A. (2006). Placing promotional culture. In J. Curran & D. Morley (Eds.), Media and cultural theory (pp. 149–163). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington, S., & Rantisi, N. (eds.). (2009). Spaces of vernacular creativity: Rethinking the cultural economy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, M. (2016). Black ops advertising: Native ads, content marketing, and the covert world of the digital sell. London: OR Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, M., Meese, J., Arnold, M., Nansen, B., & Carter, M. (2015). #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 255–268.
   Google Scholar
• Google. (2019). YouTube partner program overview. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851
   Google Scholar
• Grimes, S. M. (2015). Playing by the market rules: Promotional priorities and commercialization in children’s virtual worlds. Journal of Consumer Culture, 15(1), 110–134.
   Google Scholar
• Harrington, S. (2019). Entertainment values. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hjarvard, S. (2004). From bricks to bytes: The mediatization of a global toy industry. In I. Bjondeberg & P. Colding (Eds.), European culture and the media (pp. 43–63). Bristol: Intellect.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, R. G. (2008). The vernacular web of participatory media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25(5), 490–513.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, R. G. (2010). The vernacular mode: Locating the non-institutional in the practice of citizenship. In B. C. Brouwer & R. Asen (Eds.), Public modalities: Rhetoric, culture, media, and the shape of public life (pp. 240–262). Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, S., & Hudson, D. (2006). Branded entertainment: A new advertising technique or product placement in disguise? Journal of Marketing Management, 22(5–6), 489–504.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2016). Monetizing the mommy: Mommy blogs and the audience community. Information, Communication & Society, 9, 1306–1320.
   Google Scholar
• Jaakkola, M. (2018). Vernacular reviews as a form of co-consumption: User-generated review videos on YouTube. MedieKultur – Journal of Media and Communication Research, 34(65), 10–30.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, H. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (part one). Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2, 23–33.
   Google Scholar
• Johansen, S. L. (2018). Everyday media play: Children’s playful media practices. Conjunctions, 4(1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsten, E. (2017,March 7). Här är svenskarna som bygger egna barn-tv-imperium – På Youtube [Here are the Swedes who are building up their own kid tv imperium – on YouTube]. Breakit. Retrieved from https://www.breakit.se/artikel/6781/de-drar-in-miljoner-pa-hemmagjorda-barnfilmer-pa-youtube
   Google Scholar
• Lange, P. G. (2014). Kids on YouTube: Technical identities and digital literacies. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S. (2013). Online risk, harm and vulnerability: Reflections on the evidence base for child internet safety policy. ZER: Journal of Communication Studies, 18, 13–28.
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018). European research on children’s internet use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New Media & Society, 20, 1103–1122.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, J. (2016). “Unboxing” videos: Co-construction of the child as cyberflaneur. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37, 369–380.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R., & Shepherd, D. (2009). Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre (pp. 263–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Nicoll, B., & Nansen, B. (2018). Mimetic production in YouTube toy unboxing videos. Social Media + Society, 3, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2019). Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility. Nordicom Review, 40, 23–42.
   Google Scholar
• Orlik, P. B. (2016). Media criticism in a digital age: Professional and consumer considerations. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children: From family to global rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pocket.watch. (2018, February 13). Major apparel and toy companies jump on board Pocket.watch media brand. Press release. Retrieved from https://pocket.watch/press/press-release-february-13-2018
   Google Scholar
• Rawlinson, K. (2018, December 4). YouTube’s highest earner: Seven-year-old makes £17.3m in a year. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/03/forbes-seven-year-old-youtuber-ryan-toys-review-made-17m-in-one-year
   Google Scholar
• Ritvars (2018, September 27). How many subscribers do you need to make money on YouTube in 2018? Sellfy. Retrieved from https://blog.sellfy.com/how-many-subscribers-to-make-money-on-youtube/
   Google Scholar
• Robehmet, N., & Berg, M. (2018, December 3). Highest-paid YouTube stars 2018: Markiplier, Jake Paul, PewDiePie and more. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2018/12/03/highest-paid-youtube-stars-2018-markiplier-jake-paul-pewdiepie-and-more/#6e3606ba909a
   Google Scholar
• Schor, J. B. (2004). Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new consumer culture. New York, NY: Scribner.
   Google Scholar
• Seiter, E. (2005). The internet playground: Children’s access, entertainment, and miseducation. London: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Statista. (2019). Most popular children-themed YouTube channels as of January 2019, ranked by number of subscribers (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/785626/most-popular-youtube-children-channels-ranked-by-subscribers/
   Google Scholar
• Strangelove, M. (2010). Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Titchener, C. B. (1998). Reviewing the arts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. London: Collins.
   Google Scholar
• VanDeGraph. (2016, September 15). Why toy videos get hundreds of millions of views on YouTube explained. Medium.
   Google Scholar
• Wiedmann, K. P., Hennings, N., & Langner, S. (2010). Spreading the word of fashion: Identifying social influencers in fashion marketing. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1(3), 142–153.
   Google Scholar
• Wisner, W. (2016). YouTube surprise toy videos are basically toddler crack. Scary Mommy. Retrieved from https://www.scarymommy.com/youtube-surprise-toy-reviews-toddler-crack/
   Google Scholar
• YouTube 2019 to the references list: YouTube (2019). Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html
   Google Scholar