The current situation in influencer marketing through vloggers: The role of the number of subscribers and type of collaboration
Name: Kristine Kok
Student Number: 11431857
Supervisor: Ivana Bušljeta Banks Master’s Program: Persuasive Communication
Date: 28-06-2019
Abstract
Influencer marketing through vloggers has emerged as a popular social media marketing technique. With influencer marketing, two crucial decisions must be made: vloggers and the type of collaboration with the vloggers. The selection of vloggers is often based on the vloggers’ numbers of subscribers. For type of collaboration, brands can choose between paid collaborations and unpaid/earned collaborations. While prior research has investigated the effectiveness of influencer marketing through vloggers compared to other marketing techniques, the existing literature does not provide an overview of the current situation in influencer marketing through vloggers regarding the audience’s engagement with vlogs to explicitly identify the role of the number of subscribers and type of collaboration. This
research, therefore, answers the question: what is the current role of the number of subscribers of vloggers and the type of collaborations with vloggers in the engagement with vlogs? The results of a quantitative content analysis of 606 Dutch YouTube videos revealed that in general, videos of vloggers with a higher number of subscribers generate less engagement than videos of vloggers with a lower number of subscribers. Additionally, the engagement is not significantly higher or lower when there is a specific type of collaboration in a video. The results of this study provide brands with new insights into the role of the choices made during influencer marketing through vloggers regarding engagement.
Introduction
"This new bubble clay face mask from Glam Glow makes your skin so soft and makes all your impurities disappear; you have to try it." This statement can be found in a video on YouTube. There is a significant chance that the creator of the video has been paid to say something positive about the face mask or that the manufacturer has provided the mask for free (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018). In both cases, influencer marketing is occurring. Influencer marketing is a social media marketing technique that has gained popularity over the past few years (Lee & Watkins, 2016). Consumers increasingly obtain information about product and services from user-generated content on social media platforms, which is why social media has become an essential platform for marketers to promote products, services and brands (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). In influencer marketing, marketers identify and target influential social media users to influence the opinions, attitudes, and behavior of consumers through the posts, videos and blogs of these influential social media users (De Veirman, Cauberghe, & Hudders, 2017; Xiao, Wang, & Chan-Olmsted, 2018).
Influential social media users, also called social media influencers, are a relatively new independent party with a substantial number of social media followers who can influence the opinions, attitudes, and behavior of their audience by uploading content on their own social media channels (De Veirman et al., 2017; Freberg, Graham, McGaughey, & Freberg, 2011). A specific type of social media influencer often targeted by influencer marketing attempts are video bloggers (vloggers). Vloggers upload video blogs (vlogs) on their YouTube channels about their daily lives in which they show everyday things like their experiences with products, services or brands (Liu et al., 2019).
The effectiveness of influencer marketing through vloggers has received ample attention in academic literature. Most studies compare the effectiveness of influencer
marketing through vloggers with other marketing techniques. Studies demonstrate that influencer marketing through vloggers has a greater influence on people's opinions, attitudes and behavior than regular advertising (Dehghani, Niaki, Ramezani, & Sali, 2016; Ferchaud, Grzeslo, Orme, & LaGroue, 2018; Frobenius, 2014). The reason for this greater influence is that information about products and services is more likely to be believed and accepted by consumers if the information comes from fellow consumers instead of advertising sources (Goldsmith & Clark, 2008; Reigner, 2007). Because vloggers show their everyday
experiences, they are often perceived as ordinary trustworthy fellow consumers, which is why vloggers are popular targets of influencer marketing (Goldsmith & Clark, 2008). With
influencer marketing through vloggers, marketers try to leverage the power of consumer testimony about products and services by passing the product information through vloggers (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018).
Studies indicate that vloggers are often successful in influencing consumer
engagement (Bayazit, Durmuş, & Yildirim, 2017; Dehghani et al., 2016; Dolan, Conduit, & Goodman, 2016; Frobenius, 2014; Lee & Watkins, 2016). Consumer engagement is a psychological state that arises from interactive consumer experiences with a brand or agent. Engagement is a multi-dimensional concept that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions (Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014). Consumer engagement has positive implications for the consumer decision-making process (Bowden, 2009), consumer behavior (Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, & Ilić, 2011) and brand equity (Schultz & Block, 2011). Hence, consumer engagement is often a goal of influencer marketing campaigns and is frequently used as a key performance indicator to measure a campaign’s success (Bowden, 2009; Voorveld, Van Noort, Muntinga, & Bronner, 2018).
Despite the fact that the effectiveness of influencer marketing through vloggers has received attention in the existing literature, the understanding of how a company’s choices
made during influencer marketing relate to the engagement with vlogs is limited. To use influencer marketing through vloggers, two crucial decisions must be made: vloggers and type of collaboration with them (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018; Liu, Liu, & Zhang, 2015). The selection of vloggers is often based on the vlogger’s fit with the brand, reach of the target market and the number of followers a vlogger has (Booth & Matic, 2011; Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018). Research demonstrates that a good fit with the brand and a wide reach to the target market have positive implications for consumer
engagement (De Veirman et al., 2017; Booth & Matic, 2011). However, while researchers agree that the number of followers is important in the choice of vloggers (Booth & Matic, 2011; Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018), they do not indicate what role the number of followers (on YouTube, subscribers) may play in the engagement with vlogs.
Concerning the type of collaboration, a brand can opt for a paid collaboration or an unpaid/earned collaboration. A paid collaboration is formal; the organization largely has control over the content produced about the product or service. The vloggers are compensated through payment. In an unpaid/earned collaboration, brands create situations for vloggers that could potentially lead to the creation of branded content (Domingues-Aguiar & Van
Reijmersdal, 2018). Organizations can persuade vloggers to create branded content by, for example, proving free products, organizing events and offering trips (Xie, Neill, & Schauster, 2018). No empirical research focuses on the current role of the type of collaboration in consumer engagement with vlogs.
To address the gaps in the existing literature, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current situation in influencer marketing through vloggers with regards to the engagement with vlogs, explicitly identifying the role of the number of subscribers and type of collaboration. The results of this study are relevant to marketers and brands, as the results
can guide their choices of vloggers and type of collaboration to maximize the effectiveness of influencer marketing campaigns. The research question is formulated as follows:
RQ: What is the current role of the number of subscribers of vloggers and the type of collaboration with vloggers in the engagement with vlogs?
Theoretical Background Number of Subscribers and Engagement
Parasocial Interaction Theory. Viewers of entertainment content (e.g. YouTube videos) can develop a seemingly face-to-face relationship with a media figure (e.g. vlogger); this
relationship is a parasocial relationship (Ballantine & Martin, 2005; Tukachinksy, 2015). The strength of a parasocial relationship influences viewers' willingness to engage with the content created by a media figure (Thorson & Rodgers, 2006). The stronger the parasocial relationship with a media figure, the more strongly viewers will engage. The strength of the parasocial relationship depends on two factors: the amount of perceived interactivity and the openness of the media figure (Labrecque, 2014).
The first factor, perceived interactivity, is the extent to which the audience perceives that a media figure listens to and interacts with them (McMillan & Hwang, 2002). To foster perceived interactivity, vloggers use different techniques, many of which have their origins in traditional media, such as the use of subjective camera angles, direct addresses of viewers, and eye contact with viewers (Labrecque, 2014; McMillan & Hwang, 2002). These
techniques make it seem to viewers that there is two-way communication between them and the vlogger though this is not actually the case (McMillan & Hwang, 2002). But where traditional media makes two-way communication impossible, two-way communication on YouTube is possible. Two-way communication on YouTube between a vlogger and viewers occurs when a vlogger responds to viewer comments (Thorson & Rodgers, 2006).
Whereas the techniques that originate in traditional media are used by most vloggers regardless of their number of subscribers, there is a difference in two-way communication between vloggers with a large number of subscribers and vloggers with smaller numbers of subscribers (Ferchaud et al., 2018; Lange, 2007). Vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers can often respond to more comments than vloggers with a larger number of subscribers. When the number of subscribers grows, the number of comments from viewers usually increases, which makes it impossible for vloggers to respond to most comments (Lange, 2007). When viewers of YouTube videos see that a vlogger responds to comments relatively frequently, the viewers will perceive more interactivity, which makes the viewers more willing to engage as well (Labrecque, 2014; McMillan & Hwang, 2002; Rihl & Wegener, 2017; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006). Therefore, the audience of vloggers with fewer subscribers may perceive more interactivity and may be more willing to engage than the audience of vloggers with more subscribers.
In addition to perceived interactivity, the perceived openness of vloggers can also influence the strength of a parasocial relationship and, therefore, the willingness of viewers to engage. The perceived openness of vloggers depends on the extent to which the vloggers reveal personal information about themselves to the audience (Labrecque, 2014). When vloggers reveal personal information, they create a sense of trust and intimacy with their audience (Kim & Song, 2016). The disclosure of personal information by a vlogger makes the viewers feel that they know the vlogger on a more personal level, which reduces feelings of uncertainty about the relationship (Bond, 2016).
When sharing personal information about themselves, vloggers must consider their privacy. Vloggers with a large number of subscribers must be especially careful about
revealing personal information, as these vloggers are more likely to be harassed at home or in public places because of their large fanbase (Chae, 2018). Therefore, vloggers with many
subscribers often do not reveal information about their home address or the destination of their next vacation, while vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers do share this type of information (Chae, 2018). Hence, vloggers with a small number of subscribers may be perceived by the viewers as more open than vloggers with large numbers of subscribers, making the viewers of vloggers with fewer subscribers more willing to engage.
Word of Mouth. Word of mouth (WOM) is positive or negative statements about products, services or companies made by former, potential or actual customers (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). Consumers value WOM statements from fellow consumers more than the information from advertising sources, which makes statements from fellow consumers more effective in influencing consumer behavior, attitudes and opinions (Goldsmith & Clark, 2008).
The popularity of social media networks has strengthened the power of WOM. Social networks enable users to share brand-related messages from one to many, while before the advent of social media, WOM mainly occurred in interpersonal, face-to-face conversations between a small number of people (Riegner, 2007). Social media messages that are perceived as WOM can, therefore, influence the behavior, attitudes and opinions of many people
simultaneously (De Veirman et al., 2017).
Vloggers are commonly seen by their audience as fellow consumers, which ensures that their messages are often perceived as WOM (De Veirman et al., 2017). Hence, vloggers can strongly influence their audiences (Goldsmith & Clark, 2008). However, the effectiveness of WOM is affected by the credibility of the source, as information from credible sources is more likely to be believed and accepted (Liu et al., 2015). When people believe and accept information, they are more willing to engage (Kapitan & Silvera, 2016).
Vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers are often seen as opinion leaders in a specific niche, which may ensure that their opinion is considered credible and reliable (De
Veirman et al., 2017). Additionally, vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers are, unlike many of the vloggers with a larger number of subscribers, not dependent on YouTube for income, which may also ensure that vloggers with fewer subscribers are perceived as more credible (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018).
It seems that as the number a vlogger’s subscribers increases, the interactivity and openness of the vlogger decreases. Because the interactivity and openness of vloggers indirectly influence the willingness of viewers to engage, the viewers of vloggers with relatively lower subscriber numbers will likely engage more (Chae, 2018; Lange, 2007). The audience of vloggers with fewer subscribers may also be more willing to engage because these vloggers are perceived as more credible than those with more subscribers (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018; Labrecque, 2014). Therefore, the following is expected:
H1: The more subscribers a vlogger has, the lower the engagement of the audience with the YouTube videos of the vlogger is.
Type of Collaboration and Engagement
As discussed in the introduction, collaborations between brands and vloggers can be either paid or unpaid/earned. The difference between the two forms of collaboration lies in the amount of control a brand has over the content that is created and the way in which vloggers are compensated for creating branded content (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018; Xie et al., 2018). In paid collaborations, brands have more control over the content that is created about products or services than in unpaid/earned collaborations. Therefore, unlike unpaid/earned collaborations, paid collaborations often require briefs and contracts. In exchange for the control that brands have over the content in paid collaborations, vloggers receive financial compensation. In unpaid/earned collaborations, vloggers are not
products and services or may attend events for free (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018).
Despite the differences between the types of collaboration, it is difficult for the audience to recognize the difference between content that includes paid collaborations, content that includes unpaid/earned collaborations and authentic content (Boerman, Willemsen, & Van Der Aa, 2017). When consumers are unable to recognize advertising content, they can be influenced without being aware of it, which makes some deem it
ethically irresponsible (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas, 2015). To prevent advertising content on YouTube from being considered ethically irresponsible, there are regulations regarding paid collaboration between influencers and organizations in the Netherlands. The rules oblige organizations and/or influencers to explicitly disclose paid collaboration (Stichting Reclame Code, 2019).
In 2017, a group of YouTubers thought that despite the rules, there was still not enough transparency about advertising on YouTube in the Netherlands, so they launched the social code, listing agreements to ensure more clarity about advertising in YouTube videos (De Social Code, 2017a). The code stipulates that the participating YouTubers will mention in the description box of their videos whether they have been paid to advertise a brand, product or service, have received the product or service for free, or whether none of these situations occurred (De Social Code, 2017b). Appendix IV demonstrate how the participating
YouTubers disclose collaboration in the description box of their videos.
Persuasion knowledge. The disclosure of advertising can activate persuasion
knowledge (Boerman et al., 2017; Boerman, Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012; Campbell, Mohr, & Verlegh, 2013; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). Persuasion knowledge is consumers'
knowledge and beliefs about advertising-related issues, such as marketers' goals, techniques used to persuade consumers and the extent to which consumers believe these techniques to be
effective and ethically responsible (Boerman et al., 2017). Persuasion knowledge helps the audience recognize and cope with advertising content (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
When the audience is informed that content contains a paid collaboration, persuasion knowledge is activated. In this case persuasion knowledge often includes the knowledge that when there is a paid collaboration, vloggers are reimbursed for including products/services in their content and that a brand has control over the material produced about the product or service (Boerman et al., 2017; Chapple & Cownie, 2017; Domingues-Aguiar & Van
Reijmersdal, 2018). When the audience is aware that a brand influences the content of a vlog, the audience will not perceive the source (the vlogger) of the sponsored content as very credible (Boerman et al., 2017).
Disclosure of unpaid/earned collaborations also activates persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012). The audience realizes that the vlogger has received free
products/services and that the organization that offered the products/services hopes that the vlogger will say something positive about the product/service in a video (Lee & Watkins, 2016). The audience is usually aware that in an unpaid/earned collaboration the vlogger is free to give an honest opinion about the product/service (Boerman et al., 2012). Hence, vloggers will be perceived as more credible sources in the case of unpaid/earned collaborations than paid collaborations (Xie et al., 2018).
As mentioned earlier, in addition to the type of collaboration, the number of
subscribers can also influence the credibility of vloggers, which may influence the audience’s willingness to engage (Boerman et al., 2017; Chae, 2018; Kapitan & Silvera, 2016; Lange, 2007; Xie et al., 2018). The source credibility of vloggers with a smaller number of
subscribers is higher than that of vloggers with a larger number of subscribers (De Veirman et al., 2017; Labrecque, 2014).
As the number of a vloggers’ subscribers grows, vloggers generally become
increasingly dependent on vlogging for income because they quit their regular jobs or begin to work fewer hours. Therefore, vloggers with many subscribers have to participate in paid collaborations to afford their fixed costs and regular expenses. Vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers are not dependent on their work as vloggers to cover all their costs (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018). Hence, the audience has the idea that
vloggers with fewer subscribers, unlike vloggers with large subscriber numbers, participate in paid collaborations not primarily to make money, but because they genuinely like the
product/service and genuinely want to recommend it to their audience (Xie et al., 2018). The public also thinks that vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers are more likely to present an honest opinion about products and services received than vloggers with a large number of subscribers. Vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers do not depend on the organizations from which they receive products/services to earn their money; therefore, they have more freedom to be honest about a brand (Fietkiewicz, Dorsch, Scheibe, Zimmer, & Stock, 2018).
It is expected that vlogs that contain paid collaborations generate less engagement than vlogs that contain unpaid collaborations, but that vlogs that contain paid collaboration will generate even less engagement when the vlogger has a high number of subscribers instead a low number of subscribers. The following hypotheses are formulated:
H2a: The engagement with vlogs that contain paid collaborations is lower than the engagement with vlogs that contain unpaid/earned collaborations.
H2b: The engagement with vlogs that contain paid collaborations is even lower when the vlogs are from a vlogger with a high number of subscribers compared to a vlogger with a low number of subscribers.
Method Sample
Through searches on YouTube and Google, a list has been compiled with as many Dutch YouTube channels from vloggers as possible (see Appendix VI: List of YouTube channels). The Netherlands was chosen because this country has clear rules regarding advertising disclosure and has an additional code to guarantee transparency about advertising on
YouTube (De Social Code, 2017a; Stichting Reclame Code, 2019). The YouTube channels on the list were divided into three categories: micro (1,000 – 19,000 subscribers), meso (20,000 – 99,999 subscribers) and macro (> 100.000 subscribers) vloggers (Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018). From each category, 15 YouTube channels were randomly selected (see Appendix V: YouTube channels included in the sample). All videos of the 45 selected YouTube channels uploaded between 1 March 2019 and 31 March 2019 were coded. March, 2019 was chosen because the number of subscribers is then more accurate than for months in the past, since this research was conducted in the period April to June 2019. In total, 606 YouTube videos from the 45 channels were coded (see Appendix VIII: Videos included in the sample). Of these, 267 videos did not contain unpaid or earned/unpaid collaborations. These videos were, therefore, not included in the analyses. Five additional videos were removed from the dataset because the engagement could not be calculated because the vloggers disabled the comments of these videos. A total of 334 videos remained in the dataset.
Procedure
To answer the research question of this study, a quantitative content analysis was conducted. A content analysis was chosen because this technique enables researchers to investigate vloggers and their audience in a non-interactive and unobtrusive way (Babbie & Mouton,
1992). With content analysis, behavior can be investigated without the interference of a researcher (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Two coders coded the 606 selected videos. The coders received financial
compensation for their work. Each coder coded 303 videos. The coding took around 15 minutes per video. The total time spent coding was approximately 151 hours. The coding took place between 13 May 2019 and 24 May 2019. The coders were thoroughly trained on 15 videos that were not part of the final sample. The training consisted of reading the coding instructions and test coding several videos. During the training, it was also explained how the variables should be coded using examples. The aim of the training was to develop a common frame of reference for the coders so that they would interpret the category definitions and coding instructions in the same way. During the training, the coders were taught to distance themselves from their views and only to consider the coding guidelines.
The information about the videos was collected via the website www.YouTube.com. The researcher screenshotted the webpage of each video on one day (15 May 2019). Most YouTube videos receive 75% of all likes, dislikes and comments within 48 hours (Schultes, Dorner, & Lehner, 2013). By the time the videos were screenshotted, most had already accumulated the majority of their likes, dislikes and comments. The screenshots provide the number of likes, dislikes and comments for each video and the number of subscribers to the YouTube channel. The screenshots and the links to the videos were saved together in a file accessible to the coders. The coders coded four of the variables based on the screenshots, the number of likes, dislikes, comments and subscribers. To code the variable type of
collaboration, coders had to click on the link to the video, after which they had to read the text in the description box and/or watch the video.
The coding was based on a coding scheme (see Appendix I: Coding scheme). In addition to the coding scheme, a codebook was also available for coders. The codebook
explained where each variable could be found and how to handle doubt about the value of the variable. The codebook can be found in Appendix II.
To investigate whether the coders reliably coded all the variables, a pre-test was performed with 25 videos (see Appendix VII: Videos included in the pre-test). The two coders independently coded each of the videos. For each variable, inter-coder reliability was measured via Krippendorff’s Alpha (Kalpha). The tests indicated that the Kalpha of all variables was acceptable, above .69 (Hayes & Krippendorf, 2007).
Measures
The three main variables of this study are the number of subscribers, engagement and the type of collaboration. The number of subscribers for a YouTube channel is publicly available. For the analyses, the number of subscribers is divided into three categories; 1 = micro vloggers (1,000 – 19,999 subscribers), 2 = meso vloggers (20,000 – 99,999 subscribers) and 3 = macro vloggers (> 100,000 subscribers). The number of subscribers varies from 1200 to 2.2 million. The average number of subscribers of the YouTube channels is 220,609.12 (SD =
477,632.02). The Kalpha of this variable was 0.84, which indicates that the variable is reliably coded.
The engagement rate is used to measure engagement with social media posts. In the existing literature, only the engagement rate for Instagram posts is calculated. This calculation is done by dividing the absolute interactions of the post (likes and comments) by the total number of followers of the Instagram account then multiplying by one hundred (Jayasingh & Venkatesh, 2015). Following this line of reasoning, the engagement rate for YouTube videos has been developed for this study; it is calculated by dividing the absolute interactions of YouTube videos (likes, dislikes and comments) by the total number of subscribers then multiplying by one hundred (Jayasingh & Venkatesh, 2015). The table in Appendix III
describes what the absolute interactions entail. To calculate the engagement rate, several variables were coded, namely the number likes, dislikes, and comments of the YouTube videos and the number of subscribers to the YouTube channels on which the videos were posted. All variables were measured at ratio level. For all variables, the Kalpha was above .69, indicating that the variables were reliably coded (likes: 1.00; dislikes: 0.85; comments: 0.99; number of subscribers: 0.84). The videos had on average 1,320.99 likes (SD =
2,870.94), 33.66 dislikes (SD = 52.75) and 164.52 comments (SD = 340.16). Type of collaboration was divided into two categories; 0 = unpaid/earned
collaborations, 1 = paid collaborations. How the type of collaboration can be recognized is explained in the codebook in Appendix II. Type of collaboration was reliably coded during the pre-test, and Kalpha was 0.94. In the final sample 215 (64.4%) videos contain
earned/unpaid collaborations and 119 (35.6%) contain paid collaborations.
Results The Role of Number of Subscribers
A one-way analysis of variance was performed to test H1. This test could be performed because the groups have equal variances on engagement (equal error variances: F (2, 331) = 80.95, p < 0.053). A significant difference in engagement rates was found between micro, meso and macro vloggers, F (2, 333) = 116.11, p < 0.001, 𝜂2 = 0.41. The videos from micro
vloggers generate the most engagement on average (M = 2.23, SD = 1.19), followed by the videos from meso vloggers (M = 1.23, SD = 0.64). Videos from macro vloggers generate the least engagement (M = 0.59, SD = 0.35). A post-hoc multiple comparison test demonstrates that the differences between micro and meso vloggers (Mdifference = 0.99, p <0.001), micro and macro vloggers (Mdifference = 1.64, p <0.001) and meso and macro vloggers
subscribers a vlogger has, the lower the engagement of the audience with the YouTube videos of the vlogger is can be accepted.
The Role of Type of Collaboration
To determine whether the engagement rate of vlogs that contain paid collaborations is lower than that of vlogs that contain unpaid/earned collaborations (H2a), an independent samples t-test was performed. The average engagement rate of vlogs that contain paid collaborations is 1.38 (SD = 0.98), while the average engagement rate of vlogs that contain unpaid/earned collaborations is 1.20 (SD = 0.98). This difference is not significant: t(332) = -1.55, p = 0.123 [-0.39, 0.05]. H2a can, therefore, be rejected.
The Role of Number of Subscribers and Type of Collaboration
A process analysis has been performed to test H2b. The model was significant F (3, 330) = 75.98, p < 0.001, 𝑅2 = 0.64, so 64% of the variance in engagement is explained by the
number of subscribers, but not by the type of collaboration and the interaction between the number of subscribers and the type of collaboration. The number of subscribers is a
significantly related to engagement, b = -0.87, t(3) = -12.10, p <0.001 [-1.01, -0.73]. If the number of subscribers increases with one category (e.g., from micro vlogger to meso vlogger), the engagement rate decreases by 0.87. According to this model, type of
collaboration is not significantly related to engagement, b = -0.27, t(3) = -1.11, p = 0.268 [-0.74, 0.21]. Neither is the interaction between the number of subscribers and the type of collaboration significantly related to engagement, b = 0.15, t(3) = 1.34, p = 0.1822 [-0.07, 0.36]. Hence, H2b that the engagement with vlogs that contain paid collaborations is even lower when the vlogs are from a vlogger with a high number of subscribers compared to a vlogger with a low number of subscribers, is also rejected.
Discussion & Conclusion
In the present study, the current situation in influencer marketing through vloggers with regards to the engagement with vlogs is investigated. In this study, the role of the number of subscribers and the type of collaboration with vloggers was explicitly identified. This study provides an answer to the main research question: what is the role of the number of a vlogger’s subscribers and the type of collaborations with vloggers in the engagement with vlogs? The results revealed that in general, videos of vloggers with a higher number of subscribers generate less engagement than videos of vloggers with a lower number of
subscribers. The engagement is not significantly higher or lower when there is a specific type of collaboration in a video.
That the engagement with videos of vloggers with fewer subscribers is higher than the engagement with videos of vloggers with more subscribers can be explained by the parasocial interaction theory (Ballantine & Martin, 2005). This theory states that viewers of vlogs can develop a seemingly face-to-face relationship with a vlogger (Tukachinksy, 2015). When this relationship is stronger, viewers are more inclined to engage (Thorson & Rodgers, 2006). The strength of the relationship is influenced by the perceived interactivity and openness of the vloggers (Labrecque, 2014). The audience of vloggers with a smaller number of subscribers generally experiences more openness and interactivity because vloggers with smaller numbers of subscribers can respond to more comments and share more personal information (Chae, 2018; Lange, 2007). It is also possible that vloggers with fewer subscribers are considered more reliable sources because these vloggers are seen as opinion leaders in a specific niche and do not depend the money they earn from YouTube (De Veirman et al., 2017; Domingues-Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018). A higher source credibility often also inspires more engagement (Liu et al., 2015).
Although this study proves that videos from vloggers with a higher number of
subscribers generally generate less engagement than videos of vloggers with a lower number of subscribers, it cannot be assumed that there is a causal relationship between the number of subscribers of vloggers and engagement with vlogs. There may be other factors that could explain the difference in engagement between videos from vloggers with different numbers of subscribers. This study takes a descriptive approach that describes the current situation in influencer marketing; the next step is to test the confirmed hypothesis in an experimental setting. Future research with an experimental design could determine whether the number of subscribers actually influences engagement with vlogs.
There are two possible reasons for not finding a significant difference in engagement between vlogs with paid and vlogs with unpaid/earned collaborations. First, the difference between paid and unpaid/earned collaborations may not be clear to viewers. In most cases, the description of the video states what type of collaboration a video contains, but it is possible that many viewers do not read the descriptions of videos and, therefore, do not see the disclosure about collaboration. Research illustrates that on Instagram, not all disclosures ensure that people recognize sponsored content (Evans, Phua, Lim, & Jun, 2017). It might be useful to experimentally test whether disclosures on YouTube enable viewers to recognize the different types of collaboration. Second, the audience of many vloggers consists largely of children (Molyneaux, O’Donnell, Gibson, & Singer, 2008). The persuasion knowledge of children is less developed than that of adults. Persuasion knowledge is, therefore, activated less quickly in children (Lapierre, 2015). In addition, when persuasion knowledge is
activated, less knowledge may be available for children about different types of collaboration than for adults, as a result of which children may not be able to distinguish types of
distinguish the types of collaboration, the type of collaboration cannot be included in the consideration to like, dislike or comment.
In the present study, there is no distinction made between negative and positive engagement. Dislikes are negative engagement, and comments can also be negative engagement (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). The results do not distinguish the tone of the engagement. When engagement is high, it may not only include positive engagement but also negative. Perhaps the tone of the engagement changes while the magnitude of the engagement does not. Future research that considers both the magnitude of engagement and the tone is needed to paint a more complete picture of the current situation in influencer marketing through vloggers regarding engagement.
In this study, there is not accounted for the fact vlogs might not fully focus on the product/service. The product/service could just be mentioned or visible in the video. For example, a vlogger could be just sipping a particular brand of energy drink while discussing something completely different. It is, therefore, possible that the likes, dislikes or comments indicate engagement with the vlogger instead of the product/service. In future research, the content of the comments could be examined to find out whether viewers mainly engage with the vlogger or the product/service in the vlog.
Despite the limitations of this study, it contributes to the existing literature on influencer marketing through vloggers. The current findings support theories from earlier research and provide more insight into the current situation in influencer marketing through vloggers regarding audience engagement. This study distinguishes itself from existing literature by investigating influencer marketing through vloggers in a non-interactive and unobtrusive way; the engagement behavior of viewers of vlogs is examined as it really is. This provides an honest representation of the current situation on which future research can be based.
In addition to contributing to the existing literature on influencer marketing through vloggers, this research has implications for brands and marketers. The results indicate that when brands focus on creating engagement with an influencer marketing campaign, brands should choose vloggers with a relatively small numbers of subscribers when they want to engage most of the vlogger’s audience. Vloggers with a small number of subscribers create the most engagement, likely because they respond to a relatively high number of comments, reveal more personal information, and are often perceived as being experts in a specific niche, which causes them to be seen as reliable sources (Kim & Song, 2016; Labrecque, 2014; Lange, 2007; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006). However, it cannot be assumed that there is a causal relationship between the number of subscribers and engagement; more factors could play a role in creating engagement. Therefore, the number of subscribers is no guarantee of success. The current situation implies that it does not matter which type of collaboration a brand chooses. Brands can choose a collaboration type based on other factors, such as the amount of control that they want to have over the content that is created about their products/services or the budget available for influencer marketing.
References
Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (1992). The practice of social science. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ballantine, P. W., & Martin, B. A. (2005). Forming parasocial relationships in online
communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 41(1), 197-201.
Bayazit, D. Z., Durmuş, B., & Yildirim, F. (2017). Can vloggers characteristics change online-shopping intentions: The role of word of mouth effect as a communication tool. Academic Journal of Information Technology, 8(26). doi: 10.5824/1309‐ 1581.2017.1.002.x
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & Van Der Aa, E. P. (2017). “This post is sponsored”:
Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82-92. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002
Bond, B. J. (2016). Following your “friend”: Social media and the strength of adolescents' parasocial relationships with media personae. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(11), 656-660. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0355
Booth, N., & Matic, J. A. (2011). Mapping and leveraging influencers in social media to shape corporate brand perceptions. Corporate Communications, 16(3), 184-191. doi: 10.1108/13563281111156853
Bowden, J. L. H. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 63-74. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement:
Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271. doi: 10.1177/1094670511411703
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483-495. doi:
10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.012
Chae, J. (2018). Explaining females’ envy toward social media influencers. Media Psychology, 21(2), 246-262. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312
Chapple, C., & Cownie, F. (2017). An investigation into viewers’ trust in and response towards disclosed paid-for-endorsements by YouTube Lifestyle vloggers. Journal of Promotional Communications, 5(2).
De Social Code. (2017a). YouTubers transparanter over reclame. Retrieved from https://www.desocialcode.nl/2017/11/17/youtubers-transparanter-over-reclame/
De Social Code. (2017b). Richtlijnen. Retrieved from https://www.desocialcode.nl/richtlijnen/ De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram
influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828. doi:
10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
Dehghani, M., Niaki, M. K., Ramezani, I., & Sali, R. (2016). Evaluating the influence of YouTube advertising for attraction of young customers. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 165-172. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.037
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(1), 28-42. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(4), 261-277. doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222
Domingues-Aguiar. T., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2018). Influencer Marketing, SWOCC, Amsterdam.
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising: The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and behavioral intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(2), 138-149. doi:
10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885
Ferchaud, A., Grzeslo, J., Orme, S., & LaGroue, J. (2018). Parasocial attributes and YouTube personalities: Exploring content trends across the most subscribed YouTube channels. Computers in Human Behavior, 80(2), 88-96. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.041
Fietkiewicz, K. J., Dorsch, I., Scheibe, K., Zimmer, F., & Stock, W. G. (2018). Dreaming of stardom and money: Micro-celebrities and influencers on live streaming services. International Conference on Social Computing and Social Media, 10913, 240- 253. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_18
Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31. doi: 10.1086/209380 Frobenius, M. (2014). Audience design in monologues: How vloggers involve their viewers.
Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 59-72. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.008
Goldsmith, R. E., & Clark, R. A. (2008). An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 308-322. doi: 10.1108/13612020810889272
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1(1), 77-89. doi:
10.1080/19312450709336664
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52. doi: 10.1002/dir.10073
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149-165. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 Jayasingh, S., & Venkatesh, R. (2015). Customer engagement factors in Facebook brand
pages. Asian Social Science, 11(26), 19-26. doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n26p19
Kapitan, S., & Silvera, D. H. (2016). From digital media influencers to celebrity endorsers: Attributions drive endorser effectiveness. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 553-567. doi: 10.1007/s11002-015-9363-0
Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236-247. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024
Kim, J., & Song, H. (2016). Celebrity's self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial
relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 570-577. doi: 570-577.10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.083
Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media
environments: The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 134-148. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003
Lange, P. G. (2007). Commenting on comments: Investigating responses to antagonism on YouTube. Society for Applied Anthropology Conference, 31, 163-190.
Lapierre, M. A. (2015). Development and persuasion understanding: Predicting knowledge of persuasion/selling intent from children's theory of mind. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 423-442. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12155
Lee, J. E., & Watkins, B. (2016). YouTube vloggers' influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5753-5760. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.171
Liu, M. T., Liu, Y., & Zhang, L. L. (2019). Vlog and brand evaluations: The influence of parasocial interaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(2), 419-436. doi: 10.1108/APJML-01-2018-0021
Liu, S., Jiang, C., Lin, Z., Ding, Y., Duan, R., & Xu, Z. (2015). Identifying effective
influencers based on trust for electronic word-of-mouth marketing: A domain-aware approach. Information Sciences, 306, 34-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2015.01.034
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365. doi:
10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping
perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29-42. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673674
Molyneaux, H., O’Donnell, S., Gibson, K., & Singer, J. (2008). Exploring the gender divide on YouTube: An analysis of the creation and reception of vlogs. American
Communication Journal, 10(2), 1-14.
Riegner, C. (2007). Word of mouth on the web: The impact of web 2.0 on consumer purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 436-447. doi:
10.2501/S0021849907070456
Rihl, A., & Wegener, C. (2017). YouTube celebrities and parasocial interaction: Using feedback channels in mediatized relationships. Convergence, 13(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1177/1354856517736976
Schultes, P., Dorner, V., & Lehner, F. (2013). Leave a Comment: An in-depth analysis of user comments on YouTube. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 42, 659-673.
Schultz, D. E., & Block, M. P. (2011). Understanding customer brand engagement behaviors in today's interactive marketplace. Micro & Macro Marketing, 20(2), 227-244. doi: 10.1431/35137
Stichting Reclame Code. (2019). Reclamecode social media. Retrieved from https://www.reclamecode.nl/nrc/reclamecode-social-media-rsm/
Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and
interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 5-44. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2006.10722117
Tukachinksy, R. (2015). When actors don’t walk the talk: Parasocial relationships moderate the effect of actor-character incongruence. International Journal of Communication, 9, 17.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Fransen, M. L., van Noort, G., Opree, S. J., Vandeberg, L., Reusch, S., ... & Boerman, S. C. (2016). Effects of disclosing sponsored content in blogs: How
the use of resistance strategies mediates effects on persuasion. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1458-1474. doi: 10.1177/0002764216660141
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., & Buijzen, M. (2012). Effects of prominence, involvement, and persuasion knowledge on children's cognitive and affective responses to advergames. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(1), 33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.04.005
Voorveld, H. A., Van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform type. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 38-54. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754
Xiao, M., Wang, R., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2018). Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 1-26. doi: 10.1080/16522354.2018.1501146
Xie, Q., Neill, M. S., & Schauster, E. (2018). Paid, earned, shared and owned media from the perspective of advertising and public relations agencies: Comparing China and the United States. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), 160-79. doi: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1426002
Appendix Appendix I: Coding Scheme
Variable name Coding
instructions
Coding scores
Coder number Number identifying the coder
1. Coder 1 2. Coder 2 Video number Number identifying
the video Number of subscribers Number of
subscribers of the YouTube channel on which the video is posted
Likes of video Number of likes of the video
Dislikes of video Number of dislikes of the video
Comments on video Number of comments on the video
Type of collaboration The type of collaboration between the YouTuber and an organization 0. Unpaid/earned collaboration 1. Paid collaboration 99. Other
Appendix II: Codebook Coder number
Description Number that represents which coder coded the item Input options 1 = coder 1, 2 = coder 2
Details
Video number
Description Number that represents which video is coded Input options Number
Details The number can be found on the list with hyperlinks to the videos. Numbers are between 1 and 606.
Number of subscribers
Description Number that represents how many people follow a YouTube channel Input options Number
Details Please write down the full number without periods or commas (example: do not enter '12K', but '12000'). To see where the number of subscribers can be found, see image 1 (green box). Code this variable using the screenshot.
Likes of video
Description Number that represents how often a video has been liked by viewers. Input options Number
Details Code this variable using the screenshot. Please write down the full number without periods or commas (example: do not enter '12K', but '12000'). To see where the number of likes can be found, see image 1 (green box).
Dislikes of video
Description Number that represents how often a video has been disliked by viewers. Input options Number
Details Code this variable using the screenshot. Please write down the full number without periods or commas (example: do not enter '12K', but '12000'). To see where the number of dislikes can be found, see image 1 (purple box).
Description Number that represents how many reactions there are on a video Input options Number
Details Code this variable using the screenshot. Please write down the full number without periods or commas (example: do not enter '12K', but '12000'). To see where the number of comments can be found, see image 1 (yellow box).
Type of collaboration
Description Indicates whether the video contains no collaborations, an unpaid/earned collaboration or a paid collaboration.
Input options 0 = unpaid/earned collaboration, 1 = paid collaboration
Details Click on the hyperlink of the video. Code this variable based on the text in the description box of the video and the content of the video.
A video that contains an unpaid/earned collaboration can be recognized in three different ways
1. One of the following words will be mentioned by the influencer or be displayed in the video while the influencer talks about a
brand/product/service or while a brand/product/service is displayed: “free,” “received,” “sample,” “invited by (brand)” or/and “discount” (these words should not be accompanied by the words “no” or “not”).
2. One of the following words is mentioned in the description box of the video: “free,” “received,” “sample,” “invited by (brand)” or/and “discount” (these words should not be accompanied by the words “no” or “not”).
3. One of the following disclosure texts is included in the description box of the video: “this video contains a received product/service,” “this video contains a product/service that has been purchased with a discount.” To see where text can be found, see image 1 (red box).
A video that contains a paid collaboration can be recognized in three different ways
1. One of the following words will be mentioned by the influencer or be displayed in the video while the influencer talks about a
brand/product/service or while a brand/product/service is displayed: “ad,” “advertisement,” “paid
partnership/collaboration,” “sponsored” or/and “sponsorship” (these words should not be accompanied by the words “no” or “not”).
2. One of the following words is mentioned in the description box of the video: “ad,” “advertisement,” “paid partnership/collaboration,” “sponsored” or/and “sponsorship” (these words should not be accompanied by the words “no” or “not”).
3. The following disclosure text is included in the description box of the video: “This video contains a paid partnership with [BRAND NAME].” To see where text can be found, see image 1 (red box).
If the video does contain a paid as well as an earned/unpaid collaboration, enter 1.
Appendix III: Absolute Interactions YouTube Table 1
Absolute Interactions on YouTube Action Description
Like “A like represents a form of user vote or an expression of appreciation of content, the number of likes indicates the popularity of content” (Khan, 2017, p. 238).
Dislike “A dislike is a form of user vote to disapproval of some content” (Khan, 2017, p. 238).
Comment “Comments may vary in length and are an expression of text-based communication to express opinions about a topic” (Khan, 2017, p. 238).
Appendix IV: Disclosure Texts Table 2
The Social Code: Disclosure of Collaborations Type of collaboration Disclosure text
Paid collaboration This video contains a paid partnership with [BRAND NAME]. This entry is part of the Social Code: YouTube. For more information, go to https://desocialcode.nl Unpaid/earned collaboration
(free product/service)
This video contains a received product/service. This entry is part of the Social Code: YouTube. For more
information, go to https://desocialcode.nl Unpaid/earned collaboration
(discount on a product/service)
This video contains a product/service that has been purchased with a discount. This entry is part of the Social Code: YouTube. For more information, go to
https://desocialcode.nl
No collaboration This video contains no paid collaboration. This entry is part of the Social Code: YouTube. For more information about these guidelines, go to https://desocialcode.nl
Appendix V: YouTube Channels Included in the Sample Table 3
YouTube Channels Included in the Sample
Micro vloggers Meso vloggers Macro vloggers
Annemerel Bram de Wijs Esmée Geel Esther Goos Fleur Nijbacker Isa Luna Janette Janne Schuijn Jorg Ruis La Vie Sanne Lizzy van der Ligt Marlieke Koks
Michelle Bollen-Walk Reinders by Julie & Marie Sophie Hol Boncolor Charlotte Blitzblum Claire Lucia Dwayne Zandvliet Jamie Li Josh Veldhuizen Laura Brijde Lotte de Jonge Rebecca Denise Rianne Meijer Saar Koningsberger Sanny Verhoeven Sarah Rebecca Wil & Tien Yara Michels
Anna Nooshin D is for Dazzle Enzo Knol Gio
Jill van Dooren Jip Heldoorn Laura Ponticorvo Manon Tilstra Marije Zuurveld Monica Geuze Niek Roozen Paulien Tilstra Queen of Jetlegs Serena Verbon Vloggloss
Appendix VI: List of YouTube Channels Table 4
YouTube Channels of Dutch Vloggers
Micro vloggers Meso vloggers Macro vloggers
10e A Cup of Life Annemerel Ansjedeliefste Ashley Geerestein Be Lamya Beautychapter Bella Arino Billie Rose Bram de Wijs By Aranka Daddyhox
Daphne in the Trees De Bento’s
Dook van Dijck Edith Dohmen Elise Joanne Esmée Geel Esmee Noelle Esther Goos Fatiha Beauty Fleur Nijbacker Iraishana Isa Luna It is Romane Janette Janne Schuijn Joachim Badejoh Alboe Alice Olsthoorn All about Leonie Annic ten Duis Blonde Tigers Boncolor
Charlotte Blitzblum Claire Lucia
Co with the Flow De Bakkertjes De Huismuts De Nagelkerkjes Delia Skin Master
Destiny & Davy den Arend Diesna Loomans Dwayne Zandvliet Emma Wagemans Enzo Frieser Evi Heemskerk Fadim Kurt Fred van Leer Gwen van Poorten Hans & Shifra Ik vrouw van jou Jamie Li
Josh Veldhuizen Julia van Bergen Kelly Caresse Anna Nooshin Bibi Breijman Boaz Bokado D is for Dazzle De Bellinga’s De Latooys Dee Don Emma Keuven Endless Weekend Enzo Knol Familie Lakap Forever Jade Gewoon Boef Gio Girlys Blog Hanwe I am Theknees Jessie Maya Jill van Dooren Jip Heldoorn Juultje Tieleman Koetlife
La Melanie Laura Ponticorvo Lise van Wijk Manon Tilstra
Jool Jorg Ruis
Kimberly Mutzers Koen Kardashian La Vie Sanne
Laurentine van Landeghem Laurie Scheerder
Leonie ter Veld Lilian Joann Lizzy Perridon Lizzy van der Ligt Marlieke Koks Matijn Nijhuis Michelle Bollen-Walk Minddaisies Moderosa Narisha Moenna Natasha Bhoelai Nur Cali Pim Verlaat Pip Rachel Kromdijk
Reinders by Julie & Marie Roosmarijn Koster Roosmarijn Lisalotte Salima EL Irari Sophie Hol Stacy Sadoe Steven Willem Tonya Mas
Vivian Hoorn & Rien Welsink Whitney Valerie
Kelly Loef LA Sisters Laura Brijde Lisa Michels Lola Lotta Ross Lotte de Jonge Luke Janssen Mees Dix Myriam Ahmadi Nada Merrachi Nellie Sophia Benner Optima Vita Rebecca Denise Rianne Meijer Rosa Sofia Saar Koningsberger Saar Sunshine Sanny Verhoeven Sarah Rebecca Saskia Weerstand Selma Omari Steven Vegter Team Triplets Vet Gezellig Ward
Wil & Tien Yara Michels Marije Zuurveld Monica Geuze Nanne Meijer Nesim Najih Niek Roozen Nienke Plas Nina Houston Onnedi Paulien Tilstra Petrus Qucee Queen of Jetlegs Roy Sabrina Putri Serena Verbon Sjaak Sophie Milzink Stellig
Things Julia Loves UberQuin
Vera Camilla Vloggloss
Vonneke Bonneke YousToub
Appendix VII: Videos Included in the Pre-test 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOuDvKzLxMU 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCwEfqqd5mI 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpcB9Hv_7I 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azrZknl7wLU 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m-nYv3fPts 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1uZReIehyA 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4tznkLrH9Y 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DmvEHoLSqk 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd16pugP4Tg 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B_zPJ-xujY 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF4z4Upxx8g 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sITEjqKvfX8 13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3rz9JFwjxw 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY4_2uyuBwE 15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yib85pgQdRk 16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BzhmLKe1Sk 17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ7XcdTlpYA 18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwRX7auBX4 19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0I4lfmxnfo 20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcBK_eT9zw 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8E4h5vsE4o 22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUFpMMyjgHg 23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MWCbcBJ7_A 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiSD68Zat-M 25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_abbAvwJbIU
Appendix VIII: Videos Included in the Sample 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6gsPVPDRD4 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGv7eVExW3s 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOuDvKzLxMU 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKwLp-Yy6A 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mogAk2j8tk 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFyzU4g4_ws 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdowWmiIJsI 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=070Tkol7WzA 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dclw7PIha5g 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6OaGn0xk9Q 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZP4BPPZdrE 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv68s-E0IKs 13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pnMSB4sdbg 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Kte8qWAo4 15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_l2r_duNyU 16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDxM-OB7WyQ 17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk-NLG5VEwo 18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrCe74k5MkA 19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FNNGHP53eg 20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qOjYu_4JF4 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxcAmGMD5xo 22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AEYdgTYTE4 23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2s47Awjzf0 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIdsnNZE-UE 25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcEpCfB8eDA 26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gPknb5XwNg 27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-DFA6KzhA8 28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlRGleXshY0 29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0peT-58Cbk 30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhOTZAkzFV4 31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGVK-bCFXoE 32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCStp1CIBCM 33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw4Cu1tE8GU 34. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWUS5Uf48Dw 35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygGjmmwYKU 36. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B8Bv7BqguY 37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPWRUtPluKA 38. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gda5BlwQe5w 39. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quBd0D8DCMY 40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYW5lhIDP48 41. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2XUu7M_Mc4 42. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRrm0DfByaA 43. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PR_wVTnv54 44. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5QxEZr8R7M 45. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-8JCrJRTM 46. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCwEfqqd5mI 47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZAcbP6HcXQ 48. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7zM9cGNT_w
49. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpcB9Hv_7I 50. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMlYJ6QNrOw 51. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P0yGaji5OQ 52. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydjgpKnEQKU 53. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v3-n3bA4jY 54. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7pmyFtLSn8 55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5fgAHHQ67w 56. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3vHSpcGLg 57. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFRN7jvgCpg 58. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPIZZHZ0AAY 59. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtV2aS-lMds 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDOo6zyMHx0 61. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV8zgaUONRw 62. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWVnE-KPlz0 63. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rme-7bhno 64. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OllLB6EJ7iQ 65. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vB8rpx1BgM 66. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7lElVwrEAo 67. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azrZknl7wLU 68. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck7zb5h3kPU 69. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7NIwQ3Hk9s 70. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m-nYv3fPts 71. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEH9tvgp9I 72. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M1rQQin32I 73. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRONfY26VfQ 74. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Zg5F10Xdw 75. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjKAghIfakM 76. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBPEAkzUcKs 77. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnQVOWMVRdQ 78. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y0Rq_6wYeA 79. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcWwbKcgV7E 80. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDRruKKBEKM 81. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K6sjAzIXTI 82. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q35VHML_LbE 83. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtWEfHnfcow 84. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP-JA7rB5SQ 85. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6SXPUYaB7w 86. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InmLxxhnjp4 87. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--xAawUVjoc 88. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znWbugWImtQ 89. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDkYjLf4EYQ 90. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Djjs-6LCUA 91. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ccmmCNMi0 92. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46L0BX9mOZ8 93. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4921HkRIE-0 94. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RkJ6lkpOuM 95. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkeYWduoPEI 96. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofT5gfITtAA 97. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiKZ9tIGfgM 98. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L6ajrNAARU
99. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-ZZTzS-gI 100. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0umUEL865g 101. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5qXIwwNlA 102. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnI4gX4FjlM 103. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp_JHPaLyD8 104. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsXtXZWFqvY 105. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1uZReIehyA 106. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9O7jAL9WX8 107. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ccGcY4Q_c 108. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn_wkjG4Hwk 109. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgVOm9el2Gg 110. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLkFiaqBi4E 111. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeUshVWfvcY 112. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-h2OGv2sF0 113. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UQ3cdPHmEE 114. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qylhsaiGGqs 115. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrCWikEQWPg 116. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuKKKzKTNQg 117. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJnNMrAp1M 118. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukG98kED7aI 119. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3TT4SkiUrY 120. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAkCMtn5cBY 121. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M48O4ZEsHKQ 122. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmJFN69JkVw 123. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BysGavW8iOw 124. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHYCebHDNv0 125. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y33S_Rw7GU0 126. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukfZ5HHPB_I 127. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdPEDCDGsYs 128. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga_Uq9RR0os 129. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTRsgdUEWGU 130. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zgtwpws-uk 131. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEG9cd4buU 132. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csMzUHeTxOg 133. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41MyrlhC_tY 134. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFigezqolpY 135. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gehtNIsERGY 136. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gToyHcp48ko 137. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cla56CkwFok 138. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWG24MdY3k 139. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLI-gi_EJHY 140. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEeCd95NiOI 141. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0q6M10x6Jg 142. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIcA2fMUg0w 143. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6l7WiVTAns 144. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY9X-lSZPfY 145. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiI7OM-MnA 146. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFP_u10bovw 147. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI6dwVR48Bs 148. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEeBd9x-TIM
149. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFe1P54eQE 150. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUCanhGw_Q 151. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wINOFcAmxI 152. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Kf0zuXGa8 153. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL8ZEvTrois 154. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSELgr0CX6o 155. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PzFqa0ft2Y 156. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkuOdhRcKFc 157. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhOeLtJ0l8k 158. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYfrGCqKEW4 159. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6yHRBCvTU4 160. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4tznkLrH9Y 161. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4gK0Tp76Y 162. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC7cIJpQQLg 163. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dIp534UrNI 164. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-TcuuN5SXU 165. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeHldJb5zZU 166. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syfmGN6hICI 167. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmHTVnUqD-E 168. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6uyuvSG6Hc 169. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fiwOcucNEo 170. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DmvEHoLSqk 171. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj16LrR694w 172. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JpYY__Ulio 173. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS8y49EPYUw 174. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFx59Jyr_yU 175. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8Cm43E22s 176. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VeMVnyt1IU 177. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89CNGw6_hBM 178. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpnLPJ9MiM 179. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF9bT1BKqws 180. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iOGjkCF00E 181. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_3IPMORvNQ 182. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs54PU-sLig 183. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jiEM--OCOw 184. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFuI201iu_4 185. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBe0DfpfVBs 186. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhsrK6dGfCU 187. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUkkWXeZZOg 188. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po-MLLEFi04 189. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUHH4TiqTs 190. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNj1_68uTE 191. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p68kX3x480 192. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TocclWz7QXQ 193. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGf_oCZq9jg 194. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIFtVDWiZVA 195. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTQU9FyeXk 196. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR3x2H573Sg 197. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcyVypo9x0A 198. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUZYU6ADx0
