Browse > Article

Streamer Motives and User-Generated Content on Social Live-Streaming Services  

Friedlander, Mathilde B. (Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.5, no.1, 2017 , pp. 65-84 More about this Journal
Three most popular information services, Periscope, Ustream, and YouNow, vicarious for all Social Live-Streaming Services (SLSSs), are investigated to analyze their streamers' motivations and the user-generated content. Additionally, we collected demographic data (gender and age). More than 7,500 streams by users from the U.S., Germany, and Japan were observed. Main streamer motivations on SLSSs are boredom, socializing, the need to reach a specific group, the need to communicate, and fun. Important content categories on all three SLSSs are chatting, sharing information, 24/7, and 'slice of life.' We were able to identify differences between users from the U.S., Germany, and Japan as well as between the users of Periscope, Ustream, and YouNow. The main motive to stream in the U.S. is to reach a specific group, while in Japan it is socializing, and in Germany boredom. The top content category for both, YouNow as well as Periscope, is to chat; on Ustream it is 24/7 (i.e., webcams).
Social Live-Streaming Services (SLSSs); Social Media; YouNow; Periscope; Ustream; Motivation; Content Analysis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Alohari, A., Kunze, K., & Earle, R. (2016). Run with me: Designing storytelling for runners. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct, Heidelberg, Germany, 12-16 September (pp. 5-8). New York, NY: ACM.
2 Beldad, A. D., & Koehorst, R. (2015). It's not about the risks, I'm just used to doing it: Disclosure of personal information on Facebook among adolescent Dutch users. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), Social Computing and Social Media. 7th International Conference, SCSM 2015 Held as Part of HCI International 2015 Los Angeles, CA, 2-7 August, Proceedings (pp. 185-195). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
3 Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. In A. A. Ozok & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Online Communities and Social Computing. Third International Conference, OCSC 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, 19-24 July, Proceedings (pp.143-152). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
4 Brosdahl, D. J., & Carpenter, J. M. (2011). Shopping orientations of US males: A generational cohort comparison. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13, 548-554.
5 Brouwer, B. (2015). What live streaming means for content publishers. EContent, 38(9), 11.
6 Ainslie, A. (2015). The burden of protecting live sports telecasts: The real time problem of live streaming and app-based technology. Los Angeles, CA: Southwest-ern Law School.
7 Alamiri, D., & Blustein, J. (2016). Privacy awareness and design for live video broadcasting apps. In HCI International - Posters' Extended Abstracts, Toronto, Canada, 17-22 July, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 459-464).
8 Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P.Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1337-1343.   DOI
9 Fietkiewicz, K. J., Lins, E., Baran, K. S., & Stock, W. G. (2016a). Inter-generational comparison of social media use: Investigating the online behavior of different generational cohorts. In Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3829-3838). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
10 Fietkiewicz, K. J., Lins, E., Baran, K. S., & Stock, W. G. (2016b). Other times, other manners: How do different generations use social media? In Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences & Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, 8-11 January (pp. 1-17). Honolulu, HI: Hawaii University International Conferences.
11 Greenwood, D. N. (2013). Fame, Facebook, and Twitter: How attitude about fame predict frequency and nature of social media use. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(4), 222-236.   DOI
12 Hampton, K. N., Shin, I., & Lu, W. (2016). Social media and political discussion: When online presence silences offline conversation. Information, Communication & Society, in press. Retrieved from   DOI
13 Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2013). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50-58.
14 Honka, A., Frommelius, N., Mehlem, A., Tolles, J. N., & Fietkiewicz, K. J. (2015). How safe is YouNow? An empirical study on possible law infringements in Germany and the United States. The Journal of MacroTrends in Social Science, 1(1), 1-17.
15 Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.   DOI
16 Edelmann, M. (2016). From Meerkat to Periscope: Does intellectual property law prohibit the live streaming of commercial sporting events? Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 39(4), 469-495.
17 Joinson, A. N. (2008). 'Looking at', 'looking up' or 'keeping up with' people? Motives and uses of Facebook. In M. Burnett, M. Francesca, T. Catarci, B. de Ruyter, D. Tan, M. Czerwinski, & A. Lund (Eds.), The 26th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Conference Proceedings (pp. 1027-1036). New York, NY: ACM.
18 Kalakoti, P., Maiti, T., Sharma, K., Sun, H., & Nanda, A. (2016). Mobile apps and neurosurgery. World Neurosurgery, 92, 571.   DOI
19 Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zuniga, H. G. (2009). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247-253.   DOI
20 Dowell, C. T., & Duncan, D. F. (2016). Periscoping economics through someone else's eyes: A real world (Twitter) app. International Journal of Economics Education, 23, 34-39.   DOI
21 Faklaris, C., Cafaro, F., Hook, S. A., Blevins, A, O'Haver, M., & Singhal, N. (2016). Legal and ethical implications of mobile live-streaming video apps. In MobileHCI'16, Florence, Italy, 6-9 September (pp. 722-729). New York, NY: ACM.
22 Favario, L., Siekkinen, M., & Masala, E. (2016). Mobile live streaming: Insights from the Periscope service. In IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, Montreal, Canada (6 pp.). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
23 Tang, J. C., Venolia, G., & Inkpen, K. M. (2016). Meerkat and Periscope: I stream, you stream, apps stream for live streams. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4770-4780). New York, NY: ACM.
24 Tasner, M. (2010). Shifting from YouTube to Ustream and beyond. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
25 Tosun, L. P. (2012). Motives for Facebook use and expressing 'true self ' on the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1510-1517.   DOI
26 Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., & Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Human Learning and Memory, 5(6), 607-617.   DOI
27 Wilk, S., Zimmermann, R., & Effelsberg, W. (2016). Leveraging transitions for the upload of user-generated mobile video. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Mobile Video, Klagenfurt, Austria, 13 May (art. no. 5). New York, NY: ACM.
28 Wagner, K. (2016). Meerkat is ditching the Livestream - And chasing a Video Social Network instead. Retrieved from
29 Wang, B., Zhang, X., Wang, G., Zheng, H., & Zhao, B. Y. (2016). Anatomy of a personalized livestream system. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference (pp. 485-498). New York, NY: ACM.
30 Wilk, S., Wulffert, D., & Effelsberg, W. (2015). On influencing mobile live broadcasting users. In IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, Miami, FL, 14-16 December (pp. 403-406). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
31 Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133.   DOI
32 Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(2), 139-158.   DOI
33 Maugery, R., Giammalva, R. G., & Iacopino, D. G. (2016). On the shoulders of giants, with a smartphone: Periscope in neurosurgery. World Neurosurgery, 92, 569-570.   DOI
34 McMillan, S. J. (2009). The challenge of applying content analysis for the World Wide Web. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 60-67). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
35 Scheibe, K., Fietkiewicz, K. J., & Stock, W.G. (2016). Information behavior on social live streaming services. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 4(2), 6-20.   DOI
36 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.   DOI
37 Rugg, A., & Burroughs, B. (2016). Periscope, live-streaming and mobile video culture. Geoblocking and Global Video Culture, 18, 64-73.
38 Sandomir, R. (2015, May 5). A live-streaming app steals a sport's big night. The New York Times, p. 11.
39 Singh, R. P. B. (2015). Practicing geography: Some interdisciplinary reflections on research. In D. De & B. Jirli (Eds.), Research Methods in Extension Science (pp. 319-339). Udaipur, India: Agrotech Publ. Academy.
40 Siekkinen, M., Masala, E., & Kamarainen, T. (2016). A first look at quality of mobile life streaming experience: The case of Periscope. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference (pp. 477-483). New York, NY: ACM.
41 Seymour, C. (2012). Social media and the gender gap. EContent, 35(3), 8-10.
42 Smith-Stoner, M. (2011). Webcasting in home and hospice care services: Virtual communication. Home Healthcare Nurse, 29(6), 337-341.   DOI
43 Pophal, L. (2016). New options and opportunities with live streaming video. EContent, 39(8), 4-5.
44 Stewart, D. R., & Littau, J. (2016). Up, Periscope: Mobile streaming video technologies, privacy in public, and the right to record. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 312-331.   DOI
45 Stohr, D., Li, T., Wilk, S., Santini, S., & Effelsberg, W. (2015). An analysis of the YouNow live streaming platform. In 2015 IEEE 40th Local Computer Networks Conference Workshops (LCN Workshops) (pp. 673-679). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
46 Lin, K.-Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1152-1161.   DOI
47 Kim, D., Kim, J.-H., & Nam, Y. (2014). How does industry use social networking sites? An analysis of corporate dialogic uses of Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube, and LinkedIn by industry type. Quality and Quantity, 48(5), 2605-2014.   DOI
48 Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2010). Cultural differences in motivations for using social networking sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 365-372.
49 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.