Content uploaded by Lobna Hassan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lobna Hassan on Jan 12, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Play, Playbour or Labour? The Relationships between Perception of
Occupational Activity and Outcomes among Streamers and YouTubers
Maria Törhönen
Tampere University
maria.torhonen@uta.fi
Hassan Lobna
Hanken School of
Economics
lobna.hassan@hanken.fi
Sjöblom Max
Tampere University
max.sjoblom@tut.fi
Hamari Juho
Tampere University
juho.hamari@tut.fi
Abstract
The increasing digitalization and gamification of
different aspects of our lives has blurred the line
between what we consider work and play. Therefore,
our productivity may increasingly depend on how we
negotiate and view our occupations and work.
Through an online survey (n=382), this study
examines the relationship between the perception of
online video content creation as either work, play or
equally as both, and the activities and income of these
video content creators (streamers and YouTubers).
The results indicate that those who view their content
creation as work had the highest levels of activity and
income, whereas those who associated their content
creation with play, earned more income than those
who regard their content creation equally as play and
work. The results demonstrate the emergence of new
forms of digital entrepreneurial practices in the work-
oriented group, but also the highlight the increasing
workification of our play activities.
1. Introduction
The development of digital technology and the
information society has had a significant impact on
our working environments and cultures. Technology
has advanced our work and communication practices
beyond the borders of physical location, but has also
provided us with the ability to introduce work into our
free time and vice versa. This transition is exemplified
in new forms of online work, such as the gig economy
(e.g. Uber), sharing economy (e.g. Airbnb) and
crowdsourcing (e.g. Wikipedia). But it is also evident
in practices that aim to either merge play with work,
such as gamification [1,2] , or merge work with play
such as playbour [3–6].
Therefore, the attitude and perception we hold
towards our occupation activities might have a strong
effect on our productivity. For example, if an activity
were perceived as work, engagement with it would
usually be expected to be serious and professional
albeit not intrinsically motivating. On the other hand,
if an activity is perceived as leisure, engagement with
it could often be characterized by playfulness and the
pursuit of enjoyment albeit possibly lacking a serious
focus. What is relevant behaviour in one context may
not be relevant in another. Therefore, understanding
how we perceive different activities is of high
importance, in order to understand how we engage
with them and what outcomes we expect from them.
Content creation in digital and social media
formats is often considered a leisure activity, where
individuals produce and share content presumably in
their free time, in order to connect with their social
networks and to explore their creativity [7]. It is an
activity that may lead to enjoyment and a feeling of
sociability among other outcomes [7]. However, as
digital and social media develop and become more
integrated into our lives, the digital economy around
an individual content creator and their content has
begun to evolve.
This has been particularly evident in video content
creation, or personal broadcasting activities, through
digital platforms such as YouTube and Twitch that
have begun to develop sophisticated monetisation
systems and commercial benefits for their content
creators. The introduction of direct income and
commercial incentives to this activity has led to the
increasing professionalisation of this type of personal
broadcasting. Practices, such as scheduling, time-
management and risk-taking, which are often
associated with work, are becoming more common
within the activity. This has led to an increasing
merger of work and play within personal broadcasting
activities. Therefore, these new forms of online work
provide opportune avenues to research how people
view and negotiate their work in the internet era.
The purpose of this research is to understand how
personal broadcasters perceive their video content
creation and how that perception correlates with their
activities and the kinds of outcomes they gain from
their content creation. Data was collected through an
online survey (N = 382) and was analysed in SPSS.
The results allow us to examine this modern form of
digital labour in relation to our traditional political
economy understanding of work and labour. The
results also provide possible opportunities for
Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2019
URI: hps://hdl.handle.net/10125/59694
ISBN: 978-0-9981331-2-6
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Page 2558
personal broadcasters to renegotiate their place in this
digital “work” environment.
2. Background
2.1. The digital workplace and gamification
For the last decades, the complex relationship of
work and leisure has been examined in conjunction
with each other [8], in the context of work-family
balance [9,10], overall work-life balance [11,12], and
the perceptions of an activity as leisure or as work
[13,14]. However, more recently research has begun
to focus more on the digitalisation of our working
environments and the benefits of gameful and playful
experiences in the workplace.
As the reach of games expanded into our modern
society, culture and practices [15], we witnessed the
exponential growth of the gaming industry that went
hand in hand with the gamification of our modern
cultural practices and work [16,17]. Gamification
attempts to redesign processes and practices through
game design so that tedious and repetitive activities
become more perceptually enjoyable [1,2]. Hence,
gamification has been employed to encourage
positive behavioural change such as increased
learning in educational contexts [18], enhancement of
healthy personal habits [19] and improved
productivity in the workplace and work practices [20].
While gamification does lead to enjoyable work
experiences and improvements in individual and
organizational productivity, as pointed out by most of
the empirical research on the gamification of work
[1,21,22], it has also led to increasing merger of work
and leisure.
2.2. Digital labour, playbour and the
workification in the media industry
Ever since the emergence of broadcasting media,
there has been an ongoing debate about the increasing
merger of work like elements into leisure, and the
commodification or workification of media
consumption [23–27]. The debate has been deeply
rooted into our existing understanding of the political
economy and commercial media that have
emphasised the relationship of labour and its direct
economic value [28–30]. For centuries, labour has
been equated in monetary value, which has been the
subjective norm for the generations before us.
However, the emergence of digital media formats
such as television and later on, the internet, have
transformed our underlying perception of labour by
associating it with other types of rewards and
gratifications such as enjoyment, entertainment and
information [31–35].
The emergence of digital outlets and services has
also resulted in the development of the digital
economy, which combines elements from the
postmodern cultural economy and the information
industry [36]. In the digital economy, the prior
identifiers of labour have become debatable as
cultural artefacts and information have become a
currency in their own right [37]. With the
development of new digital media formats, especially
services such as social media, our media consumption
has also transformed into active digital prosumption
[38–41], where the consumer also becomes a
producer of digital content. Prosumer as a term refers
to those individual content creators who are
consumers, yet simultaneously produce content
without direct incentive or association to a
commercial entity [42]. The notion of a prosumer
aims to define the blurring relationship between the
producer of content and the consumer of content,
which is evident in digital environments.
This type of prosumerism has become a typical
activity for digital natives [43], an integrated part of
modern life that provides a two-way communicative
environment as well as a creative outlet for
individuals, but also a facilitator of hybrid forms of
work and play, playbour and digital labour.
The term, and concept, of digital labour has been
associated with different activities within digital
formats and services [24,25,36], whereas playbour
has often been associated with the gaming culture
[3,4,6,44]. The basis for this type of labour relies on
the prosumption of media content in digital formats,
which is considered to generate value [43] through e.g.
identifier data and targeted advertising. Although the
commodifying or exploitative nature of this labour is
a constant discussion among scholars [25,45], many
have argued that the prosumption culture as well as
the development of the digital economy has given our
informative and communicative labour a market value
[24,37]. However, the digital economy has also begun
to transform into a new innovative version of the
traditional labour economy, by allowing the
prosumers of content the ability to gain direct
monetary value from their activities. It is hence
strongly evident that in addition to gamification,
where work is becoming more like play, play is also
becoming more like work. There is a transformation
of playful, leisure activities, towards more
professional characteristics of which a prominent
example is personal broadcasting (e.g. vlogging, live
streaming, game streaming).
2.3. Personal broadcasting and content
creation
Personal broadcasting consists of the production
of video content by private individuals, and the
distribution of said content through one or multiple
commercial digital video sharing services such as
YouTube or Twitch. For better understanding of this
study and the analysed data, it is important to
distinguish the labour of individual content creators
Page 2559
from commercial entities, as the nuances of digital
labour are most evident in the labour conducted by
private individuals. These types of individuals are not
directly associated with any commercial entity, and
generate video content in their private channels, but
may work in cooperation or partnership with brands
and organisations. Table 1 provides further examples
of personal broadcasters and commercial video
content creators.
Table 1. Examples of private and commercial video content
Example
Platform
Entity
Content
Content production
Subscribers/followers
PlayStation
YouTube
Commercial
Commercial content
Professionally
produced
6.7 million
Jenna
Marbles
YouTube
Private
individual
Personal use/content,
commercial partnership
content
Self-produced
17.8 million
PlayStation
Twitch
Commercial
Commercial content
Professionally
produced
233,000
Ninja
Twitch
Private
individual
Personal use/content,
commercial partnership
content
Self-produced
250,000
Personal broadcasting as an activity begun to gain
popularity in the mid 2000’s with the emergence of
the video sharing platform, YouTube. YouTube
provided the opportunity for anyone to “broadcast
yourself” and provide pre-recorded video content to
the world through the internet. This personal
broadcasting activity was furthered through the
development of digital technology, as live
broadcasting, or streaming, was introduced to the
prosumers through streaming services, such as Twitch
and YouTube live. The culture of personal
broadcasting has rapidly grown to represent a variety
of topics and personalities.
Live streaming as a phenomenon and technology
has furthered the incorporation of personal
broadcasting into everyday life. The integration of
live-streaming functionalities to popular social media
services such as Instagram and Facebook has made it
more approachable for individuals to live broadcast
their activities, but it has also promoted new forms of
digital professions and celebrity. For example, game
streaming has provoked new forms of online
interaction through services such as Twitch, and
endorsed digital careers such as “game streamer” [46],
“professional gamer” or “esports player” [47,48]. By
making the activity more approachable for individuals,
live streaming has made the dream of online celebrity
even more tangible, and increased the culture of
personal broadcasting. It has also affected the way we
perceive this activity as work or as leisure.
A novice personal broadcaster is often not
compensated for their video content or activities and
research has found that, similarly to other social
media content creation [7], personal broadcasting is
primarily intrinsically motivated [31]. However, as
the culture and the digital economy around this
activity has developed, the possibilities to gain an
income from the activity have increased and personal
broadcasting has gained more entrepreneurial like
characteristics such as a level of risk-taking [49] and
ambiguity [50,51].
The economy of this digital content creation
activity revolves heavily around the attention of the
viewers and the audiences a personal broadcaster can
gain for their content. In this way the activity has
begun to emphasize the characteristics of the attention
economy [52–54], where the attention of the viewers
is commodified and establishes a certain type of
market value for the attention of the viewers.
Although this attention of the viewers is, at best scarce,
the digital landscape provides a global stage for
personal broadcasters, with the potential to attract the
attention of millions of people.
This potential combined with the allure of this
leisure activity continues to attract more individuals
towards the activity itself. Due to this increasing
popularity of personal broadcasting and the demand
for more diverse content, video sharing services have
begun to develop their own digital economies, and
reward the active and popular content creators for
their activities through sophisticated loyalty
programmes, that offer access to direct monetisation
such as advertising and paid subscription services.
However, in addition to these platform specific
monetisation services, personal broadcasters are also
increasingly involved in influencer marketing
activities [55], which consist of paid marketing and
partnerships deals with brands and organisations.
Through these commercial developments, the activity
of personal broadcasting has begun to combine some
of the elements from our understanding of the waged
economy and capitalism, but also generate new
concepts of digital entrepreneurship and a type of
intrinsic wage.
In this study, we aim to examine how the
perception of personal broadcasting as work, play or
as playbour, affects the activity levels and income of
a personal broadcaster. We consider that personal
broadcasters who do perceive the activity as play, are
more likely to be motivated by gratifications
previously associated with the use of YouTube [31]
and digital content creation overall [7], such as
Page 2560
enjoyment, entertainment and social interaction,
which would further the engagement with the activity.
Therefore, we hypothesise (H1) that a play-oriented
perception will be associated with higher levels of
activity when compared with those having a work-
orientation. As previous research has also indicated
that achievement and goal-oriented behaviour [56–
58] has been associated with a work-oriented
mentality e.g. entrepreneurship [58–60], we also
hypothesise (H2) that a work-oriented perception will
be associated with higher levels of income than those
having a play-orientation. Finally, we cautiously
hypothesise (H3) that a perception of the activity as
playbour will be associated with highest levels of
income and activity, as these individuals may benefit
from both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational forces
simultaneously. However, it may also be possible that
the combination is conflicting in a way that prevents
either orientation to fully flourish.
3. Methods and data
This study is based on data that was collected
through an online survey during 2017. The survey was
distributed through various digital channels such as
Facebook groups and subreddits related to specific
video content genres and distribution services.
Various personal broadcasters were also approached
through email and messaging services of platforms
such as YouTube, Twitch and Vidme (closed in 2017).
The final sample consisted of 382 video content
creators, with more specific demographic information
presented in Table 2.
Each respondent was presented with four statements
(presented in Appendix A) related to their activity,
that measured their perception of their activity as
work or play. The responses were given on a 7-point
Likert scale, where each response item on the scale
reflected a specific experience of the activity as work
or fun. For this analysis, the average value of the
responses to the provided statements were divided
into the three categories, the work-oriented group, the
play-oriented group and the playbour group. Each
group directly identified with one specific statement
on the scale (Work = 1, Playbour = 4, Play = 7), but
in order to ensure a representative group for each
orientation, the cut off places for the work group was
<3.75 and for the play group >4.25.
The analysis was constructed around these
categorical variables, which were used to measure
four dependent variables. The dependent variables
used in the study measured the amount of months that
the personal broadcaster had been active in their
video content creation activities, the estimated hours
they spend on producing and distributing their video
content per week, the average hours they spend
promoting their video content on other social media
platforms and the total income they gained from the
activity. The respondents provided their answers as
estimates based on a list of provided frequencies, out
of which the maximum value was used to interpret the
data.
The data was analysed through a one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA). In order to assure the validity
of the ANOVA, the data was grouped into three
groups with independence of observation [61], and
homogeneity of variance was tested through a
Levene’s test [61,62]. The significance of results
within and between groups was examined using a
post-hoc Tukey’s test.
In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the
measurements, specific measures were also taken in
the construction of the survey. The order of the items
Table 2. Demographic information
N
%
N
%
Gender
Male
280
73.6%
Employment
Part-time
51
13.2%
Female
97
25.1%
Full-time
128
33.7%
Other
5
1.3%
Student
135
35.5%
Unemployed
63
16.3%
Age
< 17
31
8.8%
Retired
5
1.3%
18-24
163
43.0%
24-34
128
33.2%
Primary video
format
Live-streams
25
6.5%
35-44
37
9.6%
Pre-recorded video
content
124
32.1%
44 >
21
5.4%
Both
233
61.4%
Income
Yes
174
46.1%
Geographic origin
US
122
31.9%
No
208
53.9%
Finland
149
39%
Other
111
29.1%
Page 2561
from the work and play scale was randomised in the
online survey, in order to ensure that the respondents
were unable to detect patterns between these items
[63]. This extra measure was also used to decrease the
potential effect of common method bias [64].
Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 24.
Table 3. Comparison of means
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F
df
p
Production hours/week
7,360,223
3,680,111
11.240
2
0.000
Tenure (in months)
1,699,763
849,881
0.801
2
0.405
Social media hours (avg)
1,843,609
921,805
3.997
2
0.019
Total income ($)
15,285,480,111
7,560,721,913
7.444
2
0.001
4. Results
As seen in Table 3, the mean comparison of the
three groups showed interesting differences between
the groups. However, when examining these results
through one-way ANOVAs, the difference between
groups pertaining to production hours/week (p <
0.001), average social media hours (p = 0.019) and
total income (p = 0.001), were clearly significant. The
findings related to the tenure (p = 0.405) variable were
found insignificant based on the results of the one-
way ANOVA seen in Table 4.
The findings of the study were further analysed using
the Tukey’s post-hoc HSD test to examine the
significance of the differences between specific
groups across the dependent variables, as seen in table
5. Significant differences were observed between
the production hours of the work and play group (p <
0.001) and the playbour and play group (p =
0.008). For total income, significant results were
found between work and playbour group (p = 0.003)
and the work and play groups (p = 0.001). There were
no significant findings found between the groups
related to tenure or average social media hours.
5. Discussion/Limitations/Conclusion
5.1. “The Workers”
Examining the results of the study, various interesting
findings emerge related to the perception of personal
broadcasting as work. It seems that individuals who
perceive the activity more as work, are the ones who
spend the most hours per week on video content
creation itself (M = 25.00 h), as well as the most
average time on personal broadcasting related social
media activities (M = 11.88 h). Additionally, they
appear to be earning the most income on average out
of the examined groups (M = $774.85), therefore our
hypothesis (H2) was not rejected. Despite being the
most active in their broadcasting and the highest
earners of the three groups, individuals who perceive
personal broadcasting as work are not the ones with
the most experience from these activities (M = 34.21
months). The findings related to this group indicate
that individuals, who identify the activity as work,
may be taking on a work-like mentality and a strategic
approach to it, which is reflected in their high levels
of production as well as income. While the traditional
approach of political economy has associated work
with direct income [29,30], it could be argued that in
this type of activity, income becomes the element that
transforms play into work, rather than being just the
outcome of such work. Interestingly, the work-
oriented group seems to convey a new, emerging form
of digital entrepreneurial work within personal
broadcasting, where individuals voluntarily
professionalise their leisure activities and express
goal-oriented behaviour as well as motivations for
achievement and self-development, previously
associated with entrepreneurial work [49,58–60,65].
Similar findings have also been reported when
analysing worker types in online environments such
as collaborative crowdsourcing [66].
Table 4. One-way ANOVA
Production
hours/week
Tenure
(months)
Social media
hours (M)
Total income ($)
Work
Mean
25.00
34.21
11.88
774.85
N
48
48
48
48
Std. Deviation
19.46
30.363
18.04
1999.79
Eq. Work
and Play
Mean
20.74
33.95
10.91
145.76
N
66
66
66
66
Std. Deviation
21.28
32.977
21.30
587.66
Play
Mean
13.28
38.67
6.55
179.11
N
268
268
268
268
Std. Deviation
16.97
32.858
12.64
818.15
Page 2562
Table 5. Tukey’s post-hoc HSD test results
Dependent variable
Mean Difference (I-J)
p
Production hours/week
Work
Equal
4.258
0.430
Play
11.724*
0.000
Equal
Work
-4.258
0.430
Play
7.466*
0.008
Play
Work
-11.724*
0.000
Equal
-7.466*
0.008
Tenure (months)
Work
Equal
254
0.999
Play
-4.461
0.657
Equal
Work
-254
0.999
Play
-4.714
0.544
Play
Work
4.461
0.657
Equal
4.714
0.544
Social media hours (avg)
Work
Equal
966
0.940
Play
5.326
0.066
Equal
Work
-966
0.940
Play
4.361
0.093
Play
Work
-5.326
0.066
Equal
-4.361
0.093
Total income ($)
Work
Equal
629.097*
0.003
Play
595.746*
0.001
Equal
Work
-629.097*
0.003
Play
-33.351
0.969
Play
Work
-595.746*
0.001
Equal
33.351
0.969
This strategic and work-like mentality towards
personal broadcasting can also be seen in the high
levels of social media activity that this work-oriented
group engages in. Personal broadcasters often utilize
this type of multichannel approach as a promotional
tool, which enhances their visibility as well as their
overall digital presence and brand. At its core, the
attention economy relies on capturing the attention of
as many individuals as possible for as long as possible
[52,53]. With social media as a promotional tool,
personal broadcasters can attract more viewers and
audiences for their content, which can be associated
with a higher income. This could further explain why
this group of individuals seems to be earning the most
on average.
The results of this study also reveal the strenuous
nature of this activity. As the overall sample of this
study indicates, the majority of the respondents are
also engaged in full-time work or studies, which
implies that personal broadcasting, may take up most
of their free time. This level of work-like activity may
lead to negative effects such as exhaustion and even
depression, which have already been reported by
some popular YouTubers and live-streamers [46,67]
Similar negative traits have been associated with
entrepreneurial work [58,68]. It should be noted that
even for those personal broadcasters, who create
video content as their full-time employment, this level
of activity would constitute nearly half of the weekly
average working hours, which also excludes all
promotional and administrative or organisational
tasks, that are also associated with this type of
independent work. Therefore, some form of
organisation or recognition for this type of profession
would be required, in order to maintain the well-being
of these type of new workers.
5.2. “The Playbourers”
Interestingly enough, it is the group that considers
the activity equally as work and play, or playbour,
who gains the least amount of income from their
activities (M= $145.76). Although this group is
almost as active in their content creation activities as
the work oriented group by investing almost the same
number of hours on the activity itself (M=20.74) as
well as on related social media activities (M=10.91),
their income levels are less than a fourth of that earned
by the work-oriented group. This partly rejects our
hypothesis (H3) and seems to assert our assumption
about the conflict this perception may cause.
It appears that this “playbourer” group may lack a
certain focus or strategy from their personal
broadcasting activities, which has resulted in more
time spent on the activity itself, but less concrete
outcomes gained from it. This lack of focus and
strategy may be affected by the longer tenure within
the activity, during which the professional elements
of the activity have begun to developed and be more
available. In order to better understand this aspect, it
would be valuable to further examine video content
creators with different tenure among the activity and
Page 2563
their perceptions of professionalisation of the activity
and the effects of the development of monetisation in
this activity. On the other hand, personal broadcasting
is a creative activity. Technical and professional skills
needed to perform the activities may have been
acquired after a certain time of engaging with it and
the increased time spent on broadcasting does not
necessarily lead to the development of skills that are
of direct value to income generation. It would be of
value for further studies to examine this possible
correlation between creativity, experience with an
activity, and its outcomes.
The obtained findings about this group may also
reflect the difficult nature of this type of digital labour
and online entrepreneurship, where risk-taking [49]
and ambiguity [50] of the activity are heightened, and
clear objectives and aims, which are often associated
with traditional work environments may be missing.
The independent nature of this type of work, and the
highly competitive environment of the video sharing
platforms, may affect those content creators, who
approach the activity without a clear focus or a strong
passion for the activity.
In order to better understand the characteristic of
this type of work, future research should be focused
on the work-oriented group to define the nature of this
type of digital labour. Finally, these obtained results
for the group divided between work and play further
emphasize how possible blurring of lines between
work and play in digital environments could reduce
worker productivity, income, and possibly overall
well-being as it has in traditional work environments
[69]. Well-being in particular was not examined by
our study and future research is encourage to compare
levels of subjective wellbeing between personal
broadcasters depending on their perceptions of the
activity.
5.3. ¨The Hobbyists”
The final group examined in this research and
incidentally, the largest group identified in our sample,
is the group of content creators who identified the
activity as more play than work. This play-oriented
group has the longest experience from the activity (M
= 38.67 months). However they seem to be by far, the
least active group in regards to their activities, as they
spend nearly half the amount of time on the
production and distribution of video content (M =
13.28 h) and on social media activities (M = 6.55 h),
compared to the work and playbour groups. This
rejects our hypothesis (H1), although the group could
be considered as the most dedicated group based on
their tenure.
This finding related to the activity levels of the
play-oriented group is interesting, since the
association with leisure and play, could be considered
to lead to higher engagement with the activity itself.
When examining previous research on hobbies and
free time, we do however see similar findings, where
the element of “free time” [70] is associated with
various activities and is allocated a specific time from
each day or week [71]. For example, an average US
gamer would spend 7 hours [72] per week on online
gaming, whereas an average person seems to spend
around 135 minutes a day on social media [73]. This
finding may also indicate that this group has a more
casual attitude towards the activity, where it is merely
one part of an individual’s day, whereas the work-
oriented group clearly has a more dedicated attitude
towards the activity, where they are investing much
more time on it.
As it can be argued that as this group perceives
this activity as a leisure activity, it may be motivated
by similar motivations as other types of digital content
creation [7] or the consumption of digital video
content [74], such as enjoyment, entertainment as
well as socialisation. Perceiving an activity as a play
or leisure activity has also been found to be associated
with intrinsic motivators [13].
This underlying heightened appreciation of
intrinsic and hedonic motive, may lead to less focus
on the income that can be derived from the activity,
which could be demonstrated in lower levels of
income for this group. However, the results of this
study do indicate that this play oriented group is still
likely to earn more income (M = $179.11) from their
activity than the playbour group. It may be that the
intrinsic and hedonic experiences gained from the
activity itself, is somewhat reflected in the produced
content as a more enjoyable or entertaining
experience for the consumer. This could attract more
viewers to the content, as viewers have also been
examined to be motivated by entertainment and
enjoyment [74], and lead to the acceleration of the
attention economy and further income for the content
creator.
The average level of income reported in this study
indicates that although the income level of the play-
oriented group is not as high as that of the work-
oriented group, there appears to be potential to
generate income through this activity while engaging
with it as pure play. In a way, this finding contradicts
some of the ongoing debate about digital labour and
commodification of our digital activities, as the
personal broadcaster is gaining compensation from
their activities, which they consider as
play. Interestingly, when examining this finding, the
traditional ways in which we perceive work or labour
[28,30,75], and the practice of gamification [22,76], it
could also be argued that through this activity, we are
trying to workify play, where this type of leisure
activity is taking on characteristics of work, but not
altering the way the activity itself is perceived or the
gratifications derived from it. This type of
workification further alters our understanding of work
and the way the modern worker approaches work-like
tasks, it also provides potential avenues for future
Page 2564
research and practical use, in for example further
development of our gamification practices.
6. Limitations
The data for this study was collected through an
online survey, which provides a specific vantage point
on an individual's perceptions and views of reality
[77]. As this study is focused on understanding
perceptions of personal broadcasting in relation to
specific metrics that indicate levels of activity and
income, a survey was considered a suitable method
for data collection. Nonetheless, future research is
highly recommended to employ a wider array of
research methods in investigating personal
broadcasting from different vantage points such as
through qualitative surveys, focus groups or
interviews.
We also do acknowledge the specific limitations
of using online surveys in data collection. As an
online survey relies on self-reporting of activities in
an unsupervised environment, we have to take into
account the possibility of common-method bias [78]
and acknowledge that the activities measured in this
study are based on estimates and self-reported values.
The common-method bias was addressed by utilizing
a variety of distribution sources for the survey and a
randomized order for items in the survey.
Ethnographic observation methods could provide a
more detailed insight into these activities, but due to
the intensity of the behaviour, and its private nature,
it may not provide accurate results either.
This study grouped together pre-recorded content
creators and live-streamers. While small nuanced
differences may exist between the two groups, many
of the study respondents reported to engage in both
live-streaming and pre-recorded video content
creation. Hence, we examined the overall production
behaviour of the respondents instead of examining
specific broadcasting forms or services. It should also
be noted that the sample is heavily male-focused,
which may limit our findings. The majority of the
respondents were located in the US and Finland,
which does provide variation in terms of the western
culture of personal broadcasting, but it should be
noted that further research should be conducted in
eastern cultures, e.g. in the Chinese market, where the
culture of personal broadcasting is different and
utilizes local services.
The three groups examined in this research were
different sizes, but each group had enough
respondents for them to be compared in this study.
Some of our findings were found insignificant
through further tests and therefore cannot be
considered conclusive.
This work was supported by the Media Industry
Research Foundation of Finland (grant number
20180084), the Finnish foundation for economic
education (grants number 10-5562 and 12-6385),
Business Finland (5479/31/2017 and 40009/16) as
well as project partners, Satakunnan
korkeakoulusäätiö and its collaborators, and
Academy of Finland (Center of Excellence in Game
Culture Studies).
7. References
[1] Huotari K, Hamari J. A definition for gamification:
anchoring gamification in the service marketing
literature. Electron Mark. 2017;27(1):21–31.
[2] Deterding S. The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A
method for gameful design. Vol. 30, Human-
Computer Interaction. 2015. p. 294–335.
[3] Kücklich J. Precarious Playbour : Modders and the
Digital Games. Fibreculture [Internet].
2005;(5):1–8. Available from:
http://five.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-025-
precarious-playbour-modders-and-the-digital-
games-industry/
[4] Sotamaa O. On modder labour, commodification
of play, and mod competitions. First Monday.
2007;12(9).
[5] Sotamaa O. Play, Create, Share? Console Gaming,
Player Production and Agency. Fibreculture J
[Internet]. 2010;(2000):1–13. Available from:
http://sixteen.fibreculturejournal.org/play-create-
share-console-gaming-player-production-and-
agency/
[6] Ferrer-Conill R. Playbour and the Gamification of
Work: Empowerment, Exploitation and Fun as
Labour Dynamics. In: Technologies of Labour and
the Politics of Contradiction. 2018.
[7] Matikainen J. Motivations for content generation
in social media. J Audience Recept Stud.
2015;12(1):41–58.
[8] Blocher DH, Siegal R. Toward A Cognitive
Developmental Theory of Leisure and Work.
Couns Psychol. 1981;9(3):33–44.
[9] Carlson DS, Grzywacz JG, Zivnuska S. Is work—
family balance more than conflict and enrichment?
Hum Relations [Internet]. 2009;62(10):1459–86.
Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0018726
709336500
[10] Grzywacz JG, Carlson DS. Conceptualizing
Work—Family Balance: Implications for Practice
and Research. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2007;9(4).
[11] Parkes LP, Langford PH. Work–life balance or
work–life alignment? J Manag Organ.
2008;14(3):267–84.
[12] Kalliath T, Brough P. Achieving work-life balance.
Journal of Management and Organization.
2008;14(3):224–6.
[13] Juniu S, Tedrick T. Leisure or work?: Amateur and
professional musicians.. J Leis Res [Internet].
1996;28(1):44. Available from:
https://www.nrpa.org/globalassets/journals/jlr/199
6/volume-28/jlr-volume-28-number-1-pp-44-
56.pdf
[14] Juniu S. Downshifting: Regaining the essence of
leisure. J Leis Res [Internet]. 2000;32(1):69–73.
Available from:
https://www.nrpa.org/globalassets/journals/jlr/200
0/volume-32/jlr-volume-32-number-1-pp-69-
Page 2565
73.pdf
[15] Vesa M, Hamari J, Harviainen JT, Warmelink H.
Computer Games and Organization Studies. Organ
Stud. 2017;38(2):273–84.
[16] Khaled R. Gamification and Culture. Gameful
World Approaches, Issues, Appl. 2014;301–21.
[17] Raessens J. Playful identities, or the ludification of
culture. Games Cult. 2006;1(1):52–7.
[18] Nah FF-H, Zeng Q, Telaprolu VR, Ayyappa AP,
Eschenbrenner B. Gamification of education: A
review of literature. In: 1st International
Conference on HCI in Business, HCIB 2014 - Held
as Part of 16th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction, HCI International
2014 [Internet]. 2014. Available from:
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-
s2.0-
84903729964&partnerID=40&md5=0f5ab38ae34
a9a1037dc69faa273b2e4
[19] Hamari J, Koivisto J. Working out for likes”: An
empirical study on social influence in exercise
gamification. Comput Human Behav.
2015;50:333–347.
[20] Kumar J. Gamification at work: Designing
engaging business software. In: Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (including subseries Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes
in Bioinformatics). 2013. p. 528–37.
[21] Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H. Does gamification
work?--a literature review of empirical studies on
gamification. Syst Sci (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii
Int Conf [Internet]. 2014;3025–34. Available
from:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumb
er=6758978
[22] Warmelink H, Koivisto J, Mayer I, Vesa M,
Hamari J. Gamification of the work floor: A
literature review of gamifying production and
logistics operations. Proc 51th Annu Hawaii Int
Conf Syst Sci [Internet]. 2018;(January):10.
Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50026
[23] Smythe DW. Communication: Blindspot of
Western Marxism. Can J Polit Soc Theory.
1977;1(3):1–27.
[24] Terranova T. Free labour. In: Digital Labor: The
internet as playground and factory. 2013. p. 33–57.
[25] Bermejo F. The Internet audience : constitution &
measurement [Internet]. Digital formations ; v. 35.
2007. x, 262 p. Available from:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0617/20060224
50.html
[26] Fuchs C. The political economy of privacy on
facebook. Telev New Media. 2012;13(2):139–59.
[27] Mosco V. The Political Economy of Journalism.
Economia [Internet]. 2016;48:19. Available from:
http://www.academia.edu/download/51081513/LI
VRO_ECONOMIA_POLITICA_DO_JORNALI
SMO1.pdf#page=20
[28] Mosco V. The Political Economy of Labor. In: The
Handbook of Political Economy of
Communications. 2011. p. 358–80.
[29] Foley DK. The Political Economy of Postcrisis
Global Capitalism. South Atl Q [Internet].
2012;111(2):251–63. Available from:
https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-
quarterly/article/111/2/251-263/3579
[30] Smith A, Hollander JH. Adam Smith 1776-1926. J
Polit Econ. 1927;35(2):153–97.
[31] Khan ML. Social media engagement: What
motivates user participation and consumption on
YouTube? Comput Human Behav. 2017;66:236–
47.
[32] Rubin AM. An examination of television viewing
motivations. Communic Res. 1981;8(2):141–65.
[33] Rubin AM. Television Uses and Gratifications :
The Motivations. J Broadcast [Internet].
2011;1:89–109. Available from:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=cax&AN=50038704&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
[34] Nov O. What motivates Wikipedians? Commun
ACM [Internet]. 2007;50(11):60–4. Available
from:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1297797.
1297798
[35] Nov O, Naaman M, Ye C. Analysis of participation
in an online photo-sharing community: A
multidimensional perspective. J Am Soc Inf Sci
Technol. 2010;61(3):555–66.
[36] Scholz. Digital Labor. Digital Labor - The Internet
as Playground and Factory. 2012. 98-111 p.
[37] Terranova T. Free Labor: PRODUCING
CULTURE FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY.
Soc Text [Internet]. 2000;18(2 63):33–58.
Available from:
http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1215/
01642472-18-2_63-33
[38] Toffler A. The Third Wave - The Classic Study of
Tomorrow [Internet]. Bantam, New York. 1980.
448 p. Available from:
http://www.randomhousebooks.com/books/17910
2/
[39] Ritzer G. Focusing on the Prosumer. In: Prosumer
Revisited [Internet]. 2010. p. 61–79. Available
from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-531-
91998-0_3
[40] Ritzer G. Prosumer Capitalism. Sociol Q.
2015;56(3):413–45.
[41] Fuchs C. Digital prosumption labour on social
media in the context of the capitalist regime of time.
Time Soc. 2014;23(1):97–123.
[42] Ritzer G, Jurgenson N. Production, Consumption,
Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age
of the digital “prosumer.” J Consum Cult.
2010;10(1):13–36.
[43] Van Dijck J, Poell T. Understanding Social Media
Logic. Media Commun. 2013;
[44] Sotamaa O. When the game is not enough:
Motivations and practices among computer game
modding culture. Games Cult. 2010;5(3):239–55.
[45] Jhally S, Livant B. Watching as Working: The
Valorization of Audience Consciousness. J
Commun. 1986;
[46] D’Anastasio C. For Twitch Streamers Who Spend
Their Lives On Camera, It’s Hard To Know When
To Stop. Kotaku [Internet]. Available from:
https://kotaku.com/for-twitch-streamers-who-
spend-their-lives-on-camera-i-1792351731
[47] Bányai F, Griffiths MD, Király O, Demetrovics Z.
The Psychology of Esports: A Systematic
Literature Review. J Gambl Stud. 2018;
[48] Tassi P. The U.S. Now Recognizes eSports Players
Page 2566
As Professional Athletes. Forbes. 2013.
[49] Drucker PF. Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2014.
[50] Knight FH. Profit and Entrepreneurial Functions. J
Econ Hist. 1942;
[51] Emmett RB. The Economist and the Entrepreneur:
Modernist Impulses in Risk, Uncertainty, and
Profit. Hist Polit Econ. 1999;
[52] Simon H a. Designing organizations for an
information-rich world. Comput Commun public
Interes. 1971;72:37.
[53] Huberman BA. Social Computing and the
Attention Economy. J Stat Phys. 2013;151(1–
2):329–39.
[54] Huberman B a., Romero DM, Wu F. Social
networks that natter: Twitter under the microscope.
First Monday [Internet]. 2009;14(1):1–9.
Available from:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/twitter
/twitter.pdf
[55] Abidin C, Ots M. The Influencer’s dilemma: The
shaping of new brand professions between
credibility and commerce. “Media Branding
Revised: Participative Audiences and their
Consequences for Media Branding [Internet].
2015;1–12. Available from: http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A85003
3&dswid=473
[56] McClelland DC. Human motivation. Motivation
and Personality. 1987.
[57] McClelland DC. How Motives, Skills, and Values
Determine What People Do. Am Psychol. 1985;
[58] Mcmullen JS, Sheperd DA.
ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTION AND THE
ROLE OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE THEORY
OF THE ENTREPRENEUR. Acad Manag Rev.
2006;
[59] Korunka C, Frank H, Lueger M, Mugler J. The
Entrepreneurial Personality in the Context of
Resources, Environment, and the Startup Process-
A Configurational Approach. Entrep Theory Pract.
2003;
[60] Davidson E, Vaast E. Digital entrepreneurship and
its sociomaterial enactment. In: Proceedings of the
Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. 2010.
[61] Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage
Publication. 2009.
[62] Levene H. Levene test for equality of variances.
Contrib to Probab Stat. 1960;
[63] Campbell D, Cook T. Quasi-experimentation:
Design and analysis for field settings [Internet].
Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. 1979. 420 p. Available
from: http://dickyh.staff.ugm.ac.id/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2009/ringkasan buku quasi-
experimentakhir.pdf
[64] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y,
Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. J Appl
Psychol [Internet]. 2003;88(5):879–903. Available
from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516251
[65] McClelland DC, Burnham DH. Power is the Great
Motivator. Harvard Business Review. 2003.
[66] Kazai G, Koolen M, Kamps J, Doucet A, Landoni
M. Overview of the INEX 2010 book track:
Scaling up the evaluation using crowdsourcing. In:
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including
subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2011.
[67] Alexander J. YouTube’s top creators are burning
out and breaking down en masse. Polygon
[Internet]. 2018; Available from:
https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/1/17413542/bur
nout-mental-health-awareness-youtube-elle-mills-
el-rubius-bobby-burns-pewdiepie
[68] Boyd DP, Gumpert DE. Coping with
entrepreneurial stress. Harvard Business Review.
1983.
[69] Ernst Kossek E, Ozeki C. Work-family conflict,
policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship:
A review and directions for organizational
behavior-human resources research. J Appl
Psychol. 1998;
[70] Valtonen A. Rethinking Free Time : a Study on
Boundaries, Disorders and Symbolic Goods. Aalto
University; 2004.
[71] Olmsted A.D. Hobbies and Serious Leisure. World
Leis Recreat. 1993;35(1):27–32.
[72] ESA. Essential Facts About the Computer and
Video Game Industry [Internet]. 2018. Available
from: http://www.theesa.com/about-esa/essential-
facts-computer-video-game-industry/
[73] Statista. No Daily time spent on social networking
by internet users worldwide from 2012 to 2017 (in
minutes) [Internet]. 2017. Available from:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-
social-media-usage-worldwide/
[74] Sjöblom M, Hamari J. Why do people watch others
play video games? An empirical study on the
motivations of Twitch users. Comput Human
Behav. 2017;75:985–96.
[75] Mosco V. The political economy of
communication. The Political Economy of
Communication. 2009. 1-268 p.
[76] Deterding S, Khaled R, Nacke L, Dixon D.
Gamification: toward a definition. Chi 2011
[Internet]. 2011;12–5. Available from:
http://gamification-research.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/02-Deterding-Khaled-
Nacke-Dixon.pdf
[77] Barker C, Pistrang N. Quality criteria under
methodological pluralism: Implications for
conducting and evaluating research. In: American
Journal of Community Psychology. 2005.
[78] Straub D, Boudreau M-C, Gefen D. Validation
Guidelines for Is Positivist. Commun Assoc Inf
Syst. 2004;
Appendix A.
Items for the Work and Play scale
WP1
I think my
streaming
activities
are....
Extremely serious -
Extremely fun
WP2
Extremely instrumental -
Extremely entertaining
WP3
Extremely work-related -
Extremely leisure-related
WP4
Extremely labour intensive -
Extremely relaxing
Page 2567
