Content uploaded by Maria Törhönen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Törhönen on Mar 01, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
Available online 24 December 2020
1567-4223/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Streamers: the new wave of digital entrepreneurship? Extant corpus and
research agenda
Maria T¨
orh¨
onen
a
,
*
, Johann Giertz
b
, Welf H. Weiger
c
, Juho Hamari
d
a
Gamication Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Finland
b
Department of Marketing and E-Business, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Goettingen, 37073, Germany
c
College of Business, Alfaisal University, P.O. Box 50927, Riyadh 11533, Saudi Arabia
d
Gamication Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Finland
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Streaming
Entreprenurship
Work
Digital economy
Professionalization
YouTube
Twitch
ABSTRACT
Video content creation by “amateur” private users has taken on professional (i.e. work) characteristics. The
emergence of user-centric video sharing services (e.g. YouTube, Twitch, Mixer) has set the scene for the rise of
micro-celebrities and inuencers making video content creation a valuable source of income. The development of
occupational and commercial elements within the activity has gained a signicant amount of attention from the
mainstream media but also from academic research. This paper presents a literature review that aims to examine
the nature of the available literature (75 articles) on the occupational characteristics of video content creation.
The literature review examines the development of research and terminology of this topic, the theoretical and
conceptual frameworks utilized in the examined research, and how the elements of work have been examined
and perceived in the examined literature. The results reveal an ongoing development of entrepreneurial aspects
in the activity and highlight the need for further research on video content creation in a work context.
1. Introduction
The pervasive growth of information and communications technol-
ogy fuels the convergence of work and leisure. The development of
digital economies (e.g. sharing economy, platform economy), digital
environments (e.g. virtual worlds and games) and the digital collabo-
rative culture (e.g. social media and participatory culture) has enabled
the rise of entrepreneurial-like content creation and distribution
through digital platforms. Consequently, work and occupational life is
becoming more game-like (i.e. gamication) (Huotari and Hamari,
2017; Vesa et al., 2017), while leisure activities start to take on work-
like characteristics where work and play are transforming into a
hybrid form, frequently coined as playbour (Fuchs, 2014; Kücklich,
2005) or digital labour (Fuchs, 2014; Kücklich, 2005; Scholz, 2012;
Terranova, 2000).
“Amateur” video content creation by private individuals (such as in
YouTube and Twitch) has become a popular area of such forms of hybrid
entrepreneurship, which is afforded by digital platforms that have
become characterized by their long-tail nature (Anderson, 2006) and
provide legitimate business opportunities for these amateur individuals
(Tassi, 2018). The production and distribution of this type of asyn-
chronous (pre-recorded video) and synchronous video content (live
video content) became a popular co-creative activity for private amateur
individuals through the emergence of dedicated video sharing platforms
such as YouTube in the late 00’s. YouTube as a platform provided a way
for individuals to express themselves through (asynchronous, pre-
recorded) video formats and offered social recognition through the
platform. With the development of YouTube advertising in 2010, the
content creators were granted access to advertising revenue, which
allowed the activity to begin to develop more professionalized features.
Further developments of synchronous “live streaming” technology and
innovative streaming and video sharing services such as Twitch and
Mixer, have enhanced the professionalization and revenue potential for
content creators through dedicated support/partner programs and sys-
tems. This has generated a global phenomenon around digital video
content and nurtured the development of professionalized video content
creator culture, as one of the most advanced manifestation of playbour
(Fuchs, 2014; Kücklich, 2005).
Income generated from video content creation is typically a combi-
nation of different revenue streams derived from platform-specic
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: maria.torhonen@tuni. (M. T¨
orh¨
onen), jgiertz@uni-goettingen.de (J. Giertz), wweiger@alfaisal.edu (W.H. Weiger), juho.hamari@tuni.
(J. Hamari).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/elerap
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.101027
Received 19 May 2020; Received in revised form 7 December 2020; Accepted 21 December 2020
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
2
monetization services, external partnerships and collaborations, poten-
tial merchandise sales and cross-platform content syndication and
interaction (Rose, 2019). The platform-specic monetization structures
are one of the main sources of income for video content creators and
have become more and more versatile during the last decade. Most of
these revenue sources are made accessible through different forms of
partnership and afliate programs, which are based on a contractual
exchange between the creator and the platform. For example, Twitch
provides two different forms of collaboration for their creators, the
afliate program (lower-level access to revenue and services) and
partnership program (higher-level access to revenue and services). Ac-
cess to these programs is based on specic visibility, viewer engagement
and activity metrics on the platform, and in Twitch is heavily gamied to
incentivize creators to develop their presence and retain them on the
platform (Siutila, 2018; Twitch, 2020). Most platform-specic partner-
ship programs offer variations of similar revenue sources including,
advertising revenue share, donations, and subscription services.
Advertising revenue share is derived from ad placements during the
creator’s content delivery, donations are either hard currency or virtual
currency gifts from viewers and subscription share is derived from
different types of subscription packages provided by the platform and
the creator.
In addition to platform provided revenue streams, video content
creators also increasingly take on the role as a spokesperson for different
brands (Lancaster, 2018), and generate additional revenue through
sponsorships, endorsements, and other means of brand collaborations as
another prevalent commercial aspect of video content creation. Video
content creators may generate these opportunities on their own, which
requires signicant entrepreneurial effort, or they can join a multi-
channel network, that represents content creators and establishes, e.g.
commercial collaborations, for them (Kozlowski, 2013). Content crea-
tors also sell merchandise related to their activities and have begun to
further utilize cross-platform interaction to develop a level of digital
“celebrity”, also known as “micro-celebrity” or “inuencer culture”
(Khamis et al., 2017), by utilizing other social media platforms such as
Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat etc. to build a community and to further
monetize their content creation (Aleti et al., 2019). However, the
increasing occupational elements of such activities are still not
acknowledged as legitimate forms of work, regardless of the increasing
media coverage of issues related to the entrepreneurial aspects of this
activity such as increasing fatigue and mental health issues related to
work load as well as fame and fortune resulting from engaging in such
activities (Parkin, 2018). Indeed, extraordinarily little support and
organizational structures are provided for content creators at large.
These elements of commercialisation, merged with the hedonistic
and expressive nature and background of these activities, make this form
of playbour highly strategic and entrepreneurial at its core, but at the
same time emphazises the elements of commodication of the activities
and individuals, resulting from the multitude of different revenue
models available. This dichotomy between creative entrepreneurial
work (Banks and Deuze, 2009; Bruns, 2009; Fish and Srinivasan, 2012;
Senft, 2009) and commodifying labour (Postigo, 2016; Scholz, 2012;
Smythe, 1977; Terranova, 2000; Van Dijck, 2009) has been a topic of
debate around digital content creation for numerous years and high-
lights the complex nature of hybrid work, where labour and leisure
merge.
Video content creation represents a novel hybrid form of work and
play that has been enabled by developments of digital technology as well
as trends in culture, economy, and society. It represents the most pop-
ular manifestation of playbour, which warrants the need for a thorough
understanding how it may act as legitimate forms of work/profession
and for further investigation into its current established forms and
structures. To increase the knowledge about this complex phenomenon
and the merger of work and play involved, this systematic literature
review will examine existing literature (75 papers) highlighting occu-
pational, commercial or strategic aspects of this activity, and analyse the
elements and structures of work and labour emerging from the reviewed
sources. The research will aim to provide an overview of the available
literature on this subject and the nature of the collected literature. By
examining the types of sources and literature included in the data of the
paper (research interest, domain of research) and the associated termi-
nology utilized in the examined literature, this research will aim to
provide an answer to the following research questions:
RQ1: How has the research on the occupational elements of video
content creation developed?
RQ2: How are the occupational elements of video content creation
evident in the development of associated terminology?
The associated terminology as well as the associated denitions will
be analysed for nuances of work and occupational developments. The
terminology was selected for the analysis, as it is considered a reection
of the conceptual organization of a special subject as well as a necessary
medium of expression and professional communication (Cabre, 1989).
Therefore, the terminology could provide information about the current
framing of the activity as work, but also reveal if the already established
terminology for this activity is associated with the occupational aspects
and developments of the activity.
The theoretical frameworks and outcomes of each examined paper
were also analysed in order to examine the framing of this activity as
work and the types of theoretical and conceptual foundations that may
have been used to examine elements of work within video content cre-
ation. The outcomes of the sources were categorized and analysed, and
the perception of the activity as creative entrepreneurial work or as
commodifying labour was examined to answer the following research
questions:
RQ3: What theoretical frameworks have been utilized in the exam-
ination of video content creation as an occupational activity?
RQ4: How are the occupational activities related to video content
creation perceived within the examined literature in relation to the
discussion of the activity as exploitative work or as an entrepreneurial
form of creative labour?
A further understanding of the development of the professional
practices, socio-economic relationships and innovative services related
to video content creation provide valuable information about the pro-
cesses and motivations behind this form of digital labour where the el-
ements of leisure and work collide, and where the likelihood of stability
and success are still relatively small. These insights could legitimize and
provide structure for video content creation as a digital profession and
extend our understanding of modern work and the contrasting processes
related to the transformation of work such as gamication.
2. The review & methods
2.1. The review procedure
As the development of video content creation has largely been
labelled by technology and popular global platforms, there is a lot of
fragmentation in the terminology used to depict the activity. Most
common terminology seems to be associated with specic processes or
activities (e.g. delivery of asynchronous or synchronous video content)
and specic platforms or content types (YouTuber, vlogger etc.) and the
existing knowledge of the terminology associated with this activity was
Table 1
Terminology associated with video content creation.
Asynchronous
video content
creator
Asynchronous
video content
creation
Synchronous
video content
creator
Synchronous
video content
creation
Generic
terms
Vlogger Vlogging Live streamer Live
streaming
Inuencer
YouTuber Streamer Streaming
Twitch
streamer
Twitch
streaming
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
3
used to develop the search string for this literature review. In order to
depict the commercial or professionalised aspects of this activity, the
researchers also utilized the term “inuencer” as a more commonly used
term associated with strategic and commercial aspects of digital content
creation (Khamis et al., 2017). The terms identied for the literature
review, can be found from Table 1 below.
This literature review was conducted as a combination of a scoping
review (Par´
e et al., 2015) and a theoretical review (Par´
e et al., 2015), in
order to gain further insight into the research questions of this study and
collect a representative sample for the analysis. A scoping review is
primarily used to gain further insight into the nature and range of
research on a specic topic (Par´
e et al., 2015). The utilization of the
scoping review process allowed the researchers to gain an understanding
of the current extent of research on this topic as well as the nature of the
research. The scoping review process was utilized to answer RQ’s 1, 2
and 4. In order to extend the review, the scoping review was combined
with elements of a theoretical review, to answer RQ 3. The theoretical
review processes allowed the research team to identify, and analyse
relevant theoretical frameworks within the texts (Par´
e et al., 2015) and
extend the understanding of the topic based on them. The search for
relevant literature was conducted using the identied search words
(Table 1) on the title, abstract, keywords and full text, in order to gather
an extensive sample of relevant literature. The search words were used
to perform queries using the Scopus notation and the following search
string for the data collection: ((ALL (streamer) OR ALL (youtuber) OR
ALL (vlogger) OR ALL (inuencer)) AND (ALL (twitch) OR ALL (you-
tube))). The search string development proved challenging due to the
dispersed terminology associated with the activity, as well as the hom-
onymous nature of specic terms such as “stream*” and “Twitch”. Some
of these homonymous terms and more generic terms such as “live” had
to be either removed from the string or further specied, in order to
gather more relevant results for the topic of this research. In the end, the
terms “Twitch” and “YouTube” were utilized as identiers in the search
string to specify relevant sources to the topic. The Scopus database was
selected to be used in this literature review, as it offers a comprehensive
abstract and citation database of international peer-reviewed resources.
This allowed the researchers to focus on one database with extended
coverage rather than numerous more specialized databases.
The initial search identied 893 sources, of which 126 were selected
for further review based on their title and abstract. The title and abstract
had to reect a commercial or occupational association to video content
creation or structures that support the commercial or occupational
development of video content creators (e.g. viewer engagement prac-
tices). These sources were further examined using a pre-determined
selection criterion (peer-reviewed papers in an international publica-
tion, available in English, focusing on the occupational activities/as-
pects of private video content creators) and a nal sample of 84 sources
were identied for further analysis. During the nal review of sources, 9
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the analysis process.
Fig. 2. The comparison of amount of publications per year and Twitch partners per year, and the corresponding trendlines.
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
4
papers were also removed as they were not full articles. The full review
process can be seen in Fig. 1.
Each source was reviewed and coded by the members of the research
team based on pre-determined units, which consisted of bibliometric
identiers (Authors, Title, Year, Source title, Volume, Issue, Art. No. and
Abstract), paper type units (empirical/non-empirical paper, method,
theoretical/conceptual framework), and topic or outcome specic units
(domain of research, theme of outcome). Each article was also reviewed
individually for common terms used to describe the activity of video
content creation and the denitions for the content creator or the con-
tent creation activities. The analysis of terms and denitions was con-
ducted using mixed methods, by combining more quantitative data
analysis and content analysis (Bryman, 2012; Shelley and Krippendorff,
1984) to identify emerging themes and connections.
3. Results
3.1. Research interest
This section responds to RQ1 (How has the research on the occupa-
tional elements of video content creation developed?). The research interest
related to video content creation has developed signicantly during the
last decade, with signicant growth in the number of relevant publica-
tions appearing after 2014 and continuing to signal positive growth, as
seen in the trendline for relevant publications per year in Fig. 2.
The increase in publications per year can be seen to follow a similar
Table 2
Type of studies analysed.
Non-Empirical papers N =9
(Berryman and Kavka, 2017; Brownlee, 2016; Cunningham and Craig, 2017; Jerslev, 2016; Keating, 2013; Partin, 2019; Raun, 2018; Wang et al., 2019; Zhao,
2016)
Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Method
Papers N Papers N Papers N
Survey data (Chen and Lin, 2018; Gerhards, 2019; Gros et al.,
2017; Lee and Watkins, 2016; Lee et al., 2019;
Lessel et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Munnukka
et al., 2019; Rihl and Wegener, 2019; Sj¨
oblom and
Hamari, 2017; T¨
orh¨
onen et al., 2019; Xiao et al.,
2018; Zhao et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2019)
14 0 (Biel and Gatica-Perez, 2013; Hou
et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2018; Tang
et al., 2016; Wohn et al., 2018)
5
Platform data (Arnett et al., 2019; Churchill and Xu, 2016; Jia
et al., 2018; Kaytoue et al., 2012; Koch et al.,
2018; Tu et al., 2018; Wattenhofer et al., 2012;
Zhu et al., 2017)
8 0 (Ashman et al., 2018; McRoberts
et al., 2016)
2
Interview data 0 (Boxman-Shabtai, 2019; Johnson, 2019; Johnson
and Woodcock, 2019a, 2019b; Li et al., 2018;
Martínez and Olsson, 2019; Wang, 2020;
Woodcock and Johnson, 2019)
8 (Bishop, 2019; Cunningham et al.,
2019; Friedl¨
ander, 2017; Hou
et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2018; Tang
et al., 2016)
6
Video content (Aran et al., 2014; Ferchaud et al., 2018;
Fietkiewicz et al., 2018)
3 (Beers F¨
agersten, 2017; García-Rapp, 2017,
2016; Garcia-Rapp and Roc-Cuberes, 2017;
Harley and Fitzpatrick, 2009; Hou, 2019; Jorge
et al., 2018; Mardon et al., 2018; Nicoll and
Nansen, 2018; Postigo, 2016; Scolari and
Fraticelli, 2019; Wotanis and McMillan, 2014)
12 (Bhatia, 2018; Biel and Gatica-
Perez, 2013; Friedl¨
ander, 2017;
McRoberts et al., 2016)
4
Observations/
ethnography
(Sj¨
oblom et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2018) 2 (Faas et al., 2018; Garcia-Rapp and Roc-Cuberes,
2017; Guarriello, 2019; Hou, 2019; Johnson,
2019; Johnson and Woodcock, 2019b; Postigo,
2016; Wang, 2020; Woodcock and Johnson,
2019; Zhang and Hjorth, 2019; Zimmer, 2018)
11 (Ashman et al., 2018; Bishop,
2019; Friedl¨
ander, 2017)
3
Other digital
content
0 (Cullen and Ruberg, 2019; Deller and Murphy,
2020; Garcia-Rapp and Roc-Cuberes, 2017; Hou,
2019; Pellicone and Ahn, 2017; Postigo, 2016;
Scolari and Fraticelli, 2019; Siutila, 2018;
Wotanis and McMillan, 2014)
9 (Bhatia, 2018; Bishop, 2019;
Cunningham et al., 2019;
Friedl¨
ander, 2017)
4
Table 3
Domains of research.
Domain Total of studies % Empirical studies % Non-empirical studies %
Behaviour & interaction 18 24 18 27.3 0 0
Media production – content practices and performance 18 24 15 22.7 3 33.3
Celebrity/popularity in video content creation 12 16 10 15.2 2 22.2
Work/entrepreneurship 7 9.3 5 7.6 2 22.2
Digital media - formats & structure 6 8 6 9.1 0 0
Commercial effects (branding & advertising/marketing) 6 8 6 9.1 0 0
Online communities 4 5.3 3 4.5 1 11.1
Economy & industries 4 5.3 3 4.5 1 11.1
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
5
trend to the development of professionalised aspects of video content
creation, which is highlighted in Fig. 2, through the examination of
growth in Twitch partners per year (Twitch Tracker, 2020). Annual
growth in the number of publications related to occupational aspect of
video content creation and the growth in the number of Twitch partners
indicate a similar trend in the development of the phenomenon, but it
should be noted that the increase in research interest may also reect the
slight lag associated with academic publishing.
The examined research articles were mostly based on empirical ev-
idence as seen in Table 2, and the non-empirical papers were primarily
conceptual papers, focusing on larger concepts (e.g. celebrity, economy)
through specic examples/cases and themes, or papers developing
frameworks or models, but with no clear empirical data. A full list of
publications and their details can be found in Table A1. The empirical
articles examined in our review were primarily based on survey data,
platform-specic data collected through API’s and video content anal-
ysis. Interviews, other digital content analysis (e.g. forums, prole
pages), and observations/ethnography were also popular data in the
examined publications. It should be noted that some publications
examined more than one data set, which is reected in Table 2. All
empirical and non-empirical papers were included in the further anal-
ysis due to their relevance to the topic of this research.
Each paper was also categorized based on the research domain of the
focal/underlying topic and its relation to the phenomenon of video
content creation as seen in Table 3. Most empirical research articles
examined behaviour or psychology behind activities related to video
content creation. Such papers either examined the behaviour of the
video content creators themselves such as motivation (Gros et al., 2017;
Hou et al., 2019; Sj¨
oblom and Hamari, 2017; T¨
orh¨
onen et al., 2019;
Zhao et al., 2018; Zimmer, 2018), or the interaction and behaviour of
Fig. 3. Number of terms for content creator and content creation per year displayed in columns and yearly growth of publications examined on the trendline.
Table 4
Terminology frequency.
Terminology Synchronous Frequency Terminology Asynchronous Frequency Terminology Both/unidentied Frequency
Terminology content creator
Streamer 24 Vlogger 18 Streamer 5
Broadcaster 10 YouTuber 17 YouTuber 3
Live streamer 4 YouTube Celebrity 6 Vlogger 4
Live-streamer 1 Content creator 3 Content creator 2
Livestreamer 2 YouTube creator 3 Live streamer 2
Creator 3
Uploader 2
Terminology content creation
Streaming 16 Vlogging 13 Content creation 2
Live streaming 14 Upload video 7 Live streaming 5
Broadcasting 13 Post video 4 Streaming 5
Live-streaming 6 Produce video 2 Broadcasting 2
Livestreaming 2 Upload content 2 Upload video 2
Upload vlog 2
Broadcast 2
Amateur video making 2
Video blogging 2
Produce vlog 2
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
6
the viewer in relation to the video content creator (Lee et al., 2019;
McRoberts et al., 2016). Another major domain of research was the
media production of video content. Papers in this domain examined
themes such as the practices of video content creation (Aran et al., 2014;
Bishop, 2019; Scolari and Fraticelli, 2019; Tang et al., 2016) as well as
the performance elements (Bhatia, 2018; Wotanis and McMillan, 2014;
Zhang and Hjorth, 2019) within video content. Different digital media
formats and structures were also examined in relation to video content
creation and papers in this category primarily focused on the structures
(e.g. economy, restrictions) and elements in different video sharing
platforms (Cullen and Ruberg, 2019; Lessel et al., 2018; Postigo, 2016;
Siutila, 2018; Sj¨
oblom et al., 2019; Wattenhofer et al., 2012) or the way
in which elements such as popularity can be formed within these
structures and services (Jia et al., 2018; Koch et al., 2018).
More direct characteristics of work and occupational elements were
examined in the domain categories related to celebrity, the commercial
aspects of video content creation and work and entrepreneurship. Ce-
lebrity was examined in particular in the context of micro-celebrity and
through examination of specic examples and channels (Garcia-Rapp
and Roc-Cuberes, 2017; Jerslev, 2016; Raun, 2018; Rihl and Wegener,
2019). The commercial aspects of video content creation primarily
focused on the brand effect of video content creators (Munnukka et al.,
2019; Xiao et al., 2018) and advertising or marketing such as the value
of video content creators in advertising and marketing efforts (Gerhards,
2019; Xiao et al., 2018), whereas the papers in the work and entrepre-
neurship domain examined the value and structure of work and entre-
preneurship in video content creation.
3.2. Terminology & denitions
This section answers RQ2 (How are the occupational elements of video
content creation evident in the development of associated terminology?). For
this study, the collection and analysis of terms and associated denitions
of those terms was conducted to examine if elements of work, or the
professional structures within the activity were evident in the develop-
ment of the terminology, or within the established terminology. Ter-
minology and terms are often used to describe human activities and
possess the communicative power to organise and structure activities
and reveal relationships forming within them (Cabre, 1989). In order to
distinguish and analyse the terminology used in the scope of digital
video content creation, the papers were categorized based on the type of
content or content creation they examined (synchronous, asynchronous,
both or undened), and terminology for content creation and content
creator was collected from each paper. While some sources used
different terminology synonymously to describe the same activity or the
creator, these variations were also collected for analysis. The develop-
ment of the terminology was contrasted to the number of publications
per year and most prominent terms per year (Fig. 3). Table 4 also lists
the most frequently used terminology. The full list of analysed terms per
year can be found in Table A2.
The early terminology, as seen in Fig. 3, reects the emergence of the
activity, with lesser fragmentation in terms from 2009 to 2015. Greater
fragmentation of terminology appears with the increased research in-
terest in the topic in 2016 as clearly seen in Fig. 3. The terminology
becomes more nuanced and descriptive of synchronous technology (live
streaming) and popular platforms (YouTuber) or content (Vlogger). The
development of terminology seems to reect the increased popularity of
the term “streamer” (29) or “streaming” (21), which have also become
popular descriptive terms for video content creation in mainstream
media. Upon closer examination of the available denitions, these terms
seem to be used to describe the wider cultural context of video content
creation (Sj¨
oblom et al., 2019; Sj¨
oblom and Hamari, 2017). Other
established, specialized terms frequently examined in the reviewed
literature, are Vlogger/Vlogging (which is abbreviated from Video blog-
ger/video blogging) and YouTuber, which depict specic content types
or the use of specic platforms and have been associated with the more
established occupational content creation activities within mainstream
media (Gutelle, 2016).
The term “broadcaster/broadcasting” seems to be the most prominent
term within the analysis with a direct association with our previous
understanding of media work (Newby, 2006), where the term has been
used to describe a broadcast media professional or the activity of
delivering media content. In the collected data, the popularity of the
term stays consistent with the increasing fragmentation and develop-
ment of terminology, and from the occupational terms seems to be
consistently used to describe the activity of creating video content.
Based on the examination of available denitions for the terms, it seems
to also be used as a descriptive term for the activity of media content
delivery and the provider of content, for example: “Unlike other social
media, the content on a live streaming platform is broadcast and viewed
synchronously. Broadcasters can broadcast their own screens and receive
live comments from viewers around the world.”(Zhao et al., 2018). The
examined denitions did not reveal a connection between the occupa-
tional characteristic of this specic term and the activity of video con-
tent creation within this review.
Other occupational or commercial terms associated with the content
creator/content creation were terms reecting celebrity (YouTube ce-
lebrities), the inuencer culture (YouTube inuencer) and entrepreneur-
ship (entrepreneurial broadcasters, entrepreneurial online video creators,
entrepreneurial content creators). The inner conict of professional-
amateur work within this activity is evident with the prominence of
the term “amateur” (amateur lmmaker, amateur videographers, amateur
video making) and hybrid terms such as “semi-professional” and “amateur-
experts”. The occupational nuances seem to be more evident in the ter-
minology for the content creator, also known as the professional, and the
terminology for video content creation seems more fragmented and
mechanically descriptive of the process of video content creation with
terms such as upload video, create video content, post video and produce
video.
A further analysis of the available denitions for the terms seem to
have various ways in describing the occupational elements of this ac-
tivity, and most are associated with the commercial aspects rather than
the elements of organised work. For example, various denitions reect
the interaction with viewers and the revenue through interaction e.g. “In
the live streaming platforms, online streamers can interact with viewers
via various objects like audio, video, and text, and they attract a large
scale of viewers by singing, chatting or shout-wheat. In return, every
viewer can purchase and send virtual gifts during the live process, which
is one of the most important business models in these live streaming
platforms.” (Tu et al., 2018). And other denitions highlight the brands
Table 5
Theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Theoretical framework N
Uses and Gratications theory 5
Affordance theory 2
Field theory 2
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 2
Other theoretical frameworks and approaches:
Big ve personality traits, Social comparison theory, Genre theory, Credibility
theory, Cognitive transactional theory, Balance theory, Media richness theory,
Social presence theory, Cognitive load theory, Critical Media Industry Studies
(CMIS), Neoliberal theory (Foucauldian perspective), Moral emotions (Haidt’s
theory), The Unied Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT),
Self-presentation theory, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Flow theory
Conceptual framework N
Parasocial interactions 4
Parasocial relationships 3
Other conceptual frameworks and apporaches
Concept of persona, concept of mimesis, social support provision, affective
labour, algorithmic gossip, Hochschildt’s concept of emotional labour,
parasocial attributes
Note: Nine studies utilized more than two theoretical or conceptual frameworks.
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
7
collaborations and commercial partnerships appearing in video content
“Vlogger enjoys public recognition and uses this recognition on behalf of
a consumer good, service, or brand by appearing with that good, service,
or brand in a vlog post” (Munnukka et al., 2019).
3.3. The theoretical and conceptual frameworks
This section responds to RQ3 (What theoretical frameworks have been
utilized in the examination of video content creation as an occupational
activity?). The examined literature presented great fragmentation in
terms of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, which could be asso-
ciated with the relatively novel and developing nature of the topic of
video content creation as a hybrid form of labour and its commercial
aspects. Only three frameworks were directly associated with elements
of labour or work (Foucauldian neoliberal theory, affective labour,
Hochschildt’s concept of emotional labour), which requested for a more
thorough examination and analysis of the other theoretical and con-
ceptual frameworks currently associated with the hybrid playbour
evident in video content creation.
The prevalence of behavioural and psychological research within the
examined literature was also evident in the analysis of theoretical and
conceptual frameworks and the most frequent theoretical and concep-
tual frameworks (see Table 5) primarily focused on the psychological
understanding of this phenomena or the examination of interactions and
relationships within in the activity such as parasocial interaction (PSI)
(Horton and Richard Wohl, 1956) or parasocial relationships. The
theoretical understanding of motivation was also evident in utilized
theoretical frameworks such as Uses and Gratications and Self-
determination theory. In order to investigate the type of behaviour
examined in relation to video content creation, and its association to
work, the empirical studies that utilized the most used motivation the-
ories to examine specic motivational aspects, were analysed further.
Upon further inspection (see Table 6), out of the seven papers that
examined motivation, three papers examined the motivation behind
video content creation (e.g. Task enjoyment, social interaction, enjoy-
ment etc.) and each of those papers also examined motivations related to
work (e.g. income or extrinsic reward from the activity, challenge and
skill or career development).
The rest of the examined papers focused on the viewing/consump-
tion behaviour on video content platforms and its relation to video
content creators. The examined motivational aspects examined in
viewers primarily focused on the elements that motivate further viewing
and engagement behaviour, and only one of the papers (Wohn et al.,
2018) had examined the motivation to view and endorse a video con-
tent, which would provide direct monetary value for the content creator.
3.4. The outcomes and the nature of occupational video content creation
This section responds to RQ4 (How are the occupational activities
related to video content creation perceived within the examined literature in
relation to the discussion of the activity as exploitative work or as an entre-
preneurial form of creative labour?). As discussed earlier in this paper,
digital content creation activities associated with digital economies such
as the platform economy (Andersson Schwarz, 2017) have also been
associated with commodifying or exploitative features (T. Scholz, 2012;
Smythe, 1977; Terranova, 2000), as they are often seen as “free” and
afford several enjoyable/entertaining experiences, and create di-
mensions with social and communal aspects. However as the occupa-
tional elements and user centric revenue models of online platforms
develop, these activities have also been increasingly considered as novel
forms of creative work in related research (Banks and Deuze, 2009;
Fuchs, 2014; Van Dijck, 2009). As the development of this type of
framing can extend our understanding of this digital activity as work,
the outcomes of the examined sources were categorized based on their
perception of the activity as commodifying/exploitative work, as pro-
ductive creative work or as other/neutral.
Although the debate around exploitative/commodifying aspects of
digital platforms and interaction has been ongoing for the last decade
(Fuchs, 2014; Postigo, 2016; Scholz, 2012; Smythe, 1977; Terranova,
2000; Van Dijck, 2009), the development of this perspective in the
context of video content creation seems to have stabilized in the last few
years (see Table 7). From the analysed papers, ten provide outcomes
related to the exploitative nature of the activity, with three papers
highlighting issues related to commodifying the increased sense of in-
timacy generated through video content creation and the digital envi-
ronments, and three papers focus on the commercial impact of video
content creators on children or young people. The papers draw on
concepts such as affective labour (Woodcock and Johnson, 2019) and
neoliberal work (Ashman et al., 2018) but also utilize more novel con-
cepts such as parasocial intimacy (Woodcock and Johnson, 2019) and
autopreneurs (Ashman et al., 2018) to reect on the commodifying
nature of the activity.
Instead the perception of video content creation as a novel form of
creative work has gained signicant popularity over the last few years,
and signicant growth in this perception can be seen during 2019. The
examined papers in this category highlighted themes such as new forms
of celebrity, through concepts such as celebrication (Jerslev, 2016) and
Table 6
Studies examining motivation.
Paper Theoretical/
conceptual
framework
Topic of
examination
Motivations examined
(Zhao et al.,
2018)
Self-
determination
theory
Video content
creation
Challenge, Task enjoyment,
Self-presentation, Extrinsic
reward, Self-esteem, social
benets, feedback
(T¨
orh¨
onen
et al.,
2019)
Self-
determination
theory
Video content
creation
Relaxation, Self-expression,
Social interaction,
Altruism, Skill
development, Career
Development, Reputation,
income
(Zimmer,
2018)
Uses and
gratications
Video content
creation
Entertainment,
Information, Social
interaction, Self-
presentation (Celebrity)
(Hou et al.,
2019)
Uses and
gratications
Viewing/
consumption
Interactivity, Social status,
Humour, Sex appeal
Uses and
gratications
Viewing/
consumption
Flow, Entertainment, Social
interaction, Endorsement
(Sj¨
oblom
and
Hamari,
2017)
Uses and
gratications
Viewing/
consumption
Affective (entertainment),
Cognitive (learning&
information gathering),
Personal integrative, social
integrative, tension release
(Gros et al.,
2017)
Uses and
gratication
Viewing/
consumption
Entertainment,
information, socialisation
(Wohn et al.,
2018)
Social support Viewing/
endorsement
Entertainment, support
(content improvement),
learning, attachment,
interaction, support (ofine
actions)
Table 7
Research outcome perspective.
Year Commodifying digital labour Neutral/other approach Creative work
n % n % n %
2019 3 30 13 28.3 11 57.9
2018 3 30 15 32.6 4 21.1
2017 1 10 7 15.2 2 10.5
2016 2 20 5 10.9 2 10.5
2014 0 0 2 4.3 0 0
2013 1 10 1 2.2 0 0
2012 0 0 2 4.3 0 0
2009 0 0 1 2.2 0 0
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
8
micro-celebrity, and also the branding effect and role of video content
creators as unique inuencers to their audiences. The papers in this
category also examined practices and performance elements within
video content creation, as well as strategies involved in the activity. The
papers considered as neutral/other, either did not present the activity as
purely work or did not represent either of the ends of the dichotomy
between exploitative work or creative work.
The outcomes of the examined literature were also categorized based
on the underlying theme of the examined outcome and the nal cate-
gories were grouped based on their alignment to three groups: occupa-
tional/commercial/other. It should be noted that some outcomes
represented more than one thematic category, this was most prominent
in papers examining behaviour or social interaction and the effects of
those on elements such as commercial gain or popularity.
The analysis discovered numerous outcomes highlighting commer-
cial aspects and occupational strategies as seen in Table 8. The themes
presented in the occupational category primarily highlighted the
development of professional strategies and practices that could further
the occupational elements of this activity, such as incorporation stra-
tegies related to collaborations, cross platform use and algorithms
(Arnett et al., 2019; Bishop, 2019; Koch et al., 2018). Similarly, the
commercial category highlighted ndings related to the different ele-
ments enabling commercial gain from video content creation such as
platform elements and (Sj¨
oblom et al., 2019) and the impact of re-
lationships and interaction in relation to commercial gain, such as the
role of parasocial interaction and relationships on commercial gain
(Munnukka et al., 2019; Rihl and Wegener, 2019; Wohn et al., 2018;
Woodcock and Johnson, 2019).
4. Discussion
This literature review examined the existing literature on the
increasing professionalisation of video content creation (75) and the
perceptions of the activity as a form of labour or work, by analysing the
research interest, the development of terminology, theoretical and
conceptual frameworks utilized in the existing literature and the
outcomes of the literature. Although the ndings indicate a signicant
development in the research interest in this topic, they also reveal
fragmentation in the associated terminology as well as the theoretical
and conceptual frameworks utilized to examine the topic. The results
also indicate some overarching narratives, especially in relation to the
importance of social interaction and their impact on the commercial
development of the activity as well as the development of this activity as
a form of entrepreneurial work.
4.1. The development of occupational video content creation
The increasing popularity and development of amateur video con-
tent creation can be seen in the development of the research interest on
the occupational, commercial and strategic aspects of this activity. The
amount of empirical and non-empirical research papers has clearly
increased after 2016 and the research highlights an interest in the
domain of social interaction and behaviour within the activity as well as
on the media production aspects of the activity.
The terminology for video content creation was found to be frag-
mented. Moreover, the increase in publications has enhanced this
fragmentation, instead of providing clarity and structure to the terms
associated with the activity. The terminology analysis revealed various
nuanced terms related to the occupational and commercial aspects of the
activity (e.g. celebrity, entrepreneurship, amateur content production)
and the ndings seem to indicate an ongoing development of termi-
nology for this nascent phenomenon, which may be associated with the
emergent nature of this activity and the occupational aspects associated
with it.
However, the ndings yield interesting observations about the cul-
ture of occupational video content creation, by underlining the devel-
opment of a hybrid form of work and play in terms mixing the “amateur”
and “professional” elements e.g. “semi-professional” and “amateur-ex-
perts”. The fragmentation and overlap of terminology for video content
creation as a leisure activity and the more occupational aspects of video
content creation may point to a certain trade-off between work and
leisure terminologies. This suggests the way future hybrid forms of work
may be represented but may also lead to issues in recognizing the ac-
tivity as more legitimate form of work, or the lack of necessary visibility
and support for the occupational sides of the activity, which may lead to
issues related to work life balance (Parkin, 2018).
4.2. The commercial agenda within video content creation
The analysis of theoretical frameworks utilized to examine the
occupational and commercial elements of video content creation within
the examined sources, also revealed fragmentation in the development
of more theoretical and conceptual understanding of this activity and a
lack of theoretical and conceptual frameworks directly related to the
examination of occupational structures and elements within this activ-
ity. Similarly, as in the research domains, most theoretical and con-
ceptual frameworks emphazised the analysis of behaviours and social
interactions within video content creation, which were also evident in
the outcomes of the examined sources. However, a deeper analysis of the
use of the theoretical frameworks and the outcomes of the sources
revealed commercial and occupational implications and uses.
Analysing the motivational theories used in the sources revealed that
most of those papers examined some occupational elements as motiva-
tions to generate video content. Similarly, papers using the conceptual
framework of parasocial interaction or parasocial relationships were
found to deliver implications related to the commercial impacts of these.
Although the analysis indicated that various sources examined this po-
tential commercial impact of social interaction and behaviour, the
ndings also revealed that the activity was primarily perceived as
neutral or creative entrepreneurial work, rather than commodifying at
its core. However, it should be noted that the sources that examined the
more commodifying elements of video content creation did emphazise
Table 8
Thematic categories of outcomes.
Occupational
aspects of video
content creation
n Commercial aspects
of video content
creation
n Other n
Professional
strategies and
practices
13 Commercial
elements within
video content
creation
10 Motivation (to
produce or
consume)
7
Elements/creation
of popularity
9 The commercial
effect of interaction
or relationships
7 Content structure 4
Occupational
elements/
structures
7 Authenticity and its
commercial effects
2 Interaction within
video content
creation
4
Celebrity (forms
and structures)
5 Economic
structures
2 Performance
elements of video
content creation
3
Video content
creation as work
5 Video content
creation and
identity
3
Video content
creation and
regulations
3
Video content
creation and
community
2
Social impact of
video content
creation
1
Video content
creation and
learning
1
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
9
the added commodifying impact generated by the intimate nature of
video content creation and the social relations present in the activity.
Based on the ndings of this study and the overall fragmentation
seen in the results, the occupational structures of video content creation
seem to be developing rapidly, but further research on this topic is
necessary in order for more legitimate professional aspects and struc-
tures to develop within the digital economies and environments. There
is a clear need for more economic research on the structures of video
content creation in different regions and within the digital spheres. It is
also evident that the management of parasocial relationships and the
audience is becoming a more signicant determinant in the pursuit of
commercial gain and a career in video content creation, increasing the
level of strategy, entrepreneurial skill as well as social skill required in
this hybrid digital profession. As the occupational characteristics of the
activity develop and more services become available with user-centric
revenue share and interactive features, there is a need to extend the
understanding of social interaction (e.g. parasocial interaction and
parasocial relationships), the value and workload associated with
managing them. This calls for more research focusing on the value
creation and the digital economy forming around the activity, as well as
the organizational structures, managerial and entrepreneurial aspects of
the activity. This type of research could alleviate some of the current
evident issues in the occupational endeavours of video content creators,
such as mental health issues, fatigue and unstructured work conditions
(Parkin, 2018). They could also enhance the understanding of the ma-
terial and the immaterial value associated with this type of content
creation, as well as audience work/interaction associated with the
attention economy. This in turn could provide more information about
what these types of hybrid forms of work, such as playbour, mean in the
future and how they contribute to the future organization of work and
also to the power-balance between different entities involved in the
commercial processes related to these activities.
5. Conclusions
Online video content creation as an amateur media production ac-
tivity, merges elements of work and play. Whereas the research interest
in the characteristics of work within video content creation has clearly
increased within the last decade, there seems to be a need for more
variety in research but also more structure in the type of research that is
conducted related to this emerging digital profession. This is especially
evident in the ndings related to the domains of research, the theoretical
and conceptual frameworks and outcomes examined in the reviewed
literature, which highlight a trend in the examination of social inter-
action and behaviour within the activity but also their association and
impact on the commercial objectives of the activity. These ndings
emphazise the importance of social interaction in the creation of com-
mercial gain, which require a level of strategy and community man-
agement from the video content creator and extend the entrepreneurial
aspects of this activity, however more research is needed in the future,
examining how these activities are organised, where the value of this
type of activity is formed and the power-balance of different entities (e.
g. platforms, service providers, content creators and audiences).
The ndings of the study also found that video content creation as an
occupation is increasingly perceived as creative entrepreneurial work,
instead of commodifying labour, but it should be noted that this paper
primarily focused on examining the perception of the activity of video
content creation, not the activity of consuming video content creation or
being susceptible to commercial content within it. The commodication
of the audience is another aspect of this activity that could be examined
further in the future, as the platforms for sharing video content become
more user centric in their approach. Further research is therefore needed
on the economic structures surrounding video content creators as en-
trepreneurs and their forms of work, but also on the material and
immaterial value of their audiences.
The examination of terminology and denitions within the reviewed
literature indicates the emergence of dedicated terminology for the ac-
tivity, that has taken on descriptive terms of our previous understanding
of media production work. However, the terms examined in the
reviewed literature describe the activity instead of specic occupational
activities or clearly emerging professions. The term “Streamer/stream-
ing” seems to have established itself as a term to depict the overall
cultural context for the activity at large, whereas more specic terms
such as “vlogger/YouTuber/live streamer” depict the development of
sub-cultures within this activity. The fragmentation of terminology also
examined in the reviewed literature, presented some limitations to this
study, as the fragmented terminology used in the context of video con-
tent creation, especially regionally, limits the results of this study to
examine sources found based on the most popular terms for the activity.
However, it should be noted, that this study aimed to examine the most
common terminology and the nuances of work within the development
of that terminology. The use of English in this study also limits the
terminology to only English sources, and therefore may limit the cultural
and geographical context of this study.
As the literature review for this study was conducted as a combina-
tion of a scoping review and theoretical review, the aim of the study was
to gather a representative sample of available literature which would
provide an initial indication of the nature of the research available of
this topic (Par´
e et al., 2015). It should be noted that the sample may not
include all available literature on this topic, and a systematic literature
review should be carried out as this activity develops further and gains
more extensive research. Furthermore, this study did not include
research on the amateur video work within the eld of mature video
content. Mature video content creation was excluded from this study to
better dene the activity into amateur video content creation that is
accessible and allowed for wider audiences and that can be distributed
through the most prominent video sharing platforms such as YouTube
and Twitch. We acknowledge that the occupational characteristics of
video content creation are evident in mature amateur video content, but
the characteristics, platforms and regulations would require a separate
examination in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Maria T¨
orh¨
onen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Data curation, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Johann Giertz: Conceptual-
ization, Methodology, Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Welf H.
Weiger: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation,
Writing - review & editing. Juho Hamari: Conceptualization, Method-
ology, Supervision, Validation, Project administration, Writing - review
& editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
10
Table A1
Reviewed publications.
Publication Journal Conference Empirical Non-
empirical
Qualitative Quantitative Mixed Survey Platform
data
Interview Video
analysis
Content
analysis
Ethnography/
observations
(Aran et al., 2014) x x x x
(Arnett et al., 2019) x x x x
(Ashman et al., 2018) x x x x x
(Beers F¨
agersten, 2017) x x x x
(Berryman and Kavka, 2017) x x
(Bhatia, 2018) x x x x x
(Biel and Gatica-Perez, 2013) x x x x x
(Bishop, 2019) x x x x x x x
(Boxman-Shabtai, 2019) x x x x
(Brownlee, 2016) x x
(Chen and Lin, 2018) x x x x
(Churchill and Xu, 2016) x x x x
(Cullen and Ruberg, 2019) x x x x
(Cunningham and Craig, 2017) x x
(Cunningham et al., 2019) x x x x x
(Deller and Murphy, 2020) x x x x
(Faas et al., 2018) x x x x
(Ferchaud et al., 2018) x x x x
(Fietkiewicz et al., 2018) x x x x
(Friedl¨
ander, 2017) x x x x x x x
(García-Rapp, 2017) x x x x
(García-Rapp, 2016) x x x x
(Garcia-Rapp and Roc-Cuberes,
2017)
x x x x x x
(Gerhards, 2019) x x x x
(Gros et al., 2017) x x x x
(Guarriello, 2019) x x x x
(Harley and Fitzpatrick, 2009) x x x x
(Hou et al., 2019) x x x x x
(Hou, 2019) x x x x x x
(Jerslev, 2016) x x
(Jia et al., 2018) x x x x
(Johnson, 2019) x x x x x
(Johnson and Woodcock, 2019b) x x x x x
(Johnson and Woodcock, 2019a) x x x x
(Jorge et al., 2018) x x x x
(Kaytoue et al., 2012) x x x x
(Keating, 2013) x x
(Koch et al., 2018) x x x x
(Lee and Watkins, 2016) x x x x
(Lee et al., 2019) x x x x
(Lessel et al., 2018) x x x x
(Li et al., 2018) x x x x
(Liu et al., 2019) x x x x
(Lu et al., 2018) x x x x x
(Mardon et al., 2018) x x x x
(Martínez and Olsson, 2019) x x x x
(McRoberts et al., 2016) x x x x x
(Munnukka et al., 2019) x x x x
(Nicoll and Nansen, 2018) x x x x
(Partin, 2019) x x
(Pellicone and Ahn, 2017) x x x x
(Postigo, 2016) x x x x x x
(continued on next page)
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
11
References
Aleti, T., Pallant, J.I., Tuan, A., van Laer, T., 2019. Tweeting with the stars: automated
text analysis of the effect of celebrity social media communications on consumer
word of mouth. J. Interactive Market. 48, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2019.03.003.
Anderson, C., 2006. The long tail: how endless choice is creating unlimited demand.
Word J. Int. Linguist. Assoc.
Andersson Schwarz, J., 2017. Platform logic: an interdisciplinary approach to the
platform-based economy. Policy and Internet. 9, 374-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/
poi3.159.
Aran, O., Biel, J.-I., Gatica-Perez, D., 2014. Broadcasting oneself: visual discovery of
vlogging styles. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 16 (1), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TMM.2013.2284893.
Arnett, L., Netzorg, R., Chaintreau, A., Wu, E., 2019. Cross-platform interactions and
popularity in the live-streaming community, in: Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems – Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312900.
Table A2
Terminology development by year.
Year Terminology content creator Terminology content creation
2009 Vlogger Broadcasting (2), vlogging, video
blogging,
2012 Content broadcaster, commenter,
user, YouTube celebrity, streamer
Upload video/content, streaming,
2013 Amateur video-maker, vlogger Amateur video making (2), post a
video, Amateur lm-making,
vlogging
2014 YouTuber, YouTube performer,
vlogger
Create video content, vlogging,
video creation, produce vlogs
2016 Youtuber (3), vlogger (2), YouTube
celebrities (2), streamer (2), amateur
lmmaker, amateur videographers,
YouTube vlogger, video blogger,
entrepreneurial online video
creators, entrepreneurial content
creators, video creators, content
provider, content creators, diaosi,
content producer, Blogger,
broadcaster, YouTube author,
YouTube creator, commentator
Broadcast (3), post videos (2),
upload video (2), streaming (2),
amateur lmmaking, amateur
creative production, uploading
video, content production, creative
content production, vlog content,
author video live streaming, live
broadcasting, production, making
videos, lifestreaming, create video
2017 Streamer (5), YouTuber (4), vlogger
(3), video creator, creator, YouTube
Inuencer, content creator, YouTube
user, internet celebrities, online
creator, broadcaster
Streaming (4), Live streaming (3),
broadcasting (3), vlogging (2),
upload vlog, upload content,
posting video, video-sharing,
produce materials, upload, live-
streaming
2018 Streamer (11), YouTuber (7),
vlogger (7), content creator (4),
broadcaster (2), uploader (2), live
streamer (2), YouTube personalities
(2), amateur experts, actor,
producer, SLSSs’ streamers, video
blogger, Youtube inuencer, online
streamer, content makers, Youtube
celebrities, amateur performers,
YouTube creators, creator, content
producer, professional-amateur,
digital creator, semi-professional
video producer
Streaming (7), live streaming (6),
broadcast (6), Vlogging (4), live-
streaming (2) upload video (2),
posting video, amateur content
production, video blogging, upload
material, broadcast live videos,
streaming video, upload & share
video, produce vlog, upload vlog,
live video streaming, broadcast live
content, online video streaming,
sharing UG video, upload content,
produce video, share video, content
production
2019 Streamer (10), broadcaster (7),
vlogger (7), YouTuber (6), live
streamer (4) YouTube celebrities (2),
livestreamer (2), showroom hosts,
content providers, YouTube creators,
amateur video creators, video
creators, creators, entrepreneurial
broadcasters, Online video content
creators, video content creators,
social video content creators,
vBlogger, amateur producers,
creator, live video streaming
platform user, live-streamer,
YouTube stars, amateur content
producers, amateur content
producers, YouTube bloggers,
vidders, YouTube video blogger
live streaming (9), streaming (7),
vlogging (5), live-streaming (3),
upload video (3), produce videos,
broadcasting (3), livestreaming (2),
content creation (2), video content
creation, social video content
creation, amateur video-sharing,
lifelogging, live video streaming,
host daily streams, video sharing,
upload content
Table A1 (continued )
Publication Journal Conference Empirical Non-
empirical
Qualitative Quantitative Mixed Survey Platform
data
Interview Video
analysis
Content
analysis
Ethnography/
observations
(Raun, 2018) x x
(Rihl and Wegener, 2019) x x x x
(Scolari and Fraticelli, 2019) x x x x
(Siutila, 2018) x x x x
(Sj¨
oblom and Hamari, 2017) x x x x
(Sj¨
oblom et al., 2019) x x x x
(Tang et al., 2016) x x x x x
(Tu et al., 2018) x x x x
(T¨
orh¨
onen et al., 2019) x x x x
(Wang, 2020) x x x x x
(Wang et al., 2019) x x
(Wattenhofer et al., 2012) x x x x
(Wohn et al., 2018) x x x x
(Woodcock and Johnson, 2019) x x x x x
(Wotanis and McMillan, 2014) x x x x x
(Xiao et al., 2018) x x x x
(Yu et al., 2018) x x x x
(Zhang and Hjorth, 2019) x x x x
(Zhao, 2016) x x
(Zhao et al., 2018) x x x x
(Zhou et al., 2019) x x x x
(Zhu et al., 2017) x x x x
(Zimmer, 2018) x x x x
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
12
Ashman, R., Patterson, A., Brown, S., 2018. ‘Don’t forget to like, share and subscribe’:
digital autopreneurs in a neoliberal world. J. Business Res. 92, 474–483. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.055.
Banks, J., Deuze, M., 2009. Co-creative labour. Int. J. Cultural Stud. 12 (5), 419–431.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877909337862.
Beers F¨
agersten, K., 2017. The role of swearing in creating an online persona: the case of
YouTuber PewDiePie. Discourse, Context & Media 18, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dcm.2017.04.002.
Berryman, R., Kavka, M., 2017. ‘I Guess A Lot of People See Me as a Big Sister or a
Friend’: the role of intimacy in the celebrication of beauty vloggers. J. Gender Stud.
26 (3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1288611.
Bhatia, A., 2018. Interdiscursive performance in digital professions: the case of YouTube
tutorials. J. Pragmatics 124, 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pragma.2017.11.001.
Biel, J.-I., Gatica-Perez, D., 2013. The YouTube Lens: crowdsourced personality
impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 15 (1), 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2012.2225032.
Bishop, S., 2019. Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New
Media Soc. 21 (11-12), 2589–2606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854731.
Boxman-Shabtai, L., 2019. The practice of parodying: YouTube as a hybrid eld of
cultural production. Media Cult. Soc. 41 (1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0163443718772180.
Brownlee, S., 2016. Amateurism and the aesthetics of lego stop-motion on YouTube. Film
Crit. 40 https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.13761232.0040.204.
Bruns, A., 2009. From prosumer to produser: understanding user-led content creation.
Transform. Audiences. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.508181.
Bryman, A., 2012. Social research methods Bryman. OXFORD Univ. Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Cabre, M.T., 1989. Terminology: Theory, methods a.nd applications. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Chen, C.-C., Lin, Y.-C., 2018. What drives live-stream usage intention? the perspectives of
ow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement. Telematics Inform. 35 (1),
293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.003.
Churchill, B.C.B., Xu, W., 2016. The modem nation: A rst study on Twitch.TV social
structure and player/game relationships, in: Proceedings - 2016 IEEE International
Conferences on Big Data and Cloud Computing, BDCloud 2016, Social Computing
and Networking, SocialCom 2016 and Sustainable Computing and Communications,
SustainCom 2016. 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1109/BDCloud-SocialCom-
SustainCom.2016.43.
Cullen, A.L.L., Ruberg, B., 2019. Necklines and “naughty bits”: Constructing and
regulating bodies in live streaming community guidelines, in: ACM International
Conference Proceeding Series. https://doi.org/10.1145/3337722.3337754.
Cunningham, S., Craig, D., 2017. Being ‘really real’ on YouTube: authenticity,
community and brand culture in social media entertainment. Media Int. Australia
164 (1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X17709098.
Cunningham, S., Craig, D., Lv, J., 2019. China’s livestreaming industry: platforms,
politics, and precarity. Int. J. Cultural Stud. 22 (6), 719–736. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1367877919834942.
Deller, R.A., Murphy, K., 2020. ‘Zoella hasn’t really written a book, she’s written a
cheque’: Mainstream media representations of YouTube celebrities. Eur. J. Cultural
Studies 23 (1), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419861638.
Faas, T., Dombrowski, L., Young, A., Miller, A.D., 2018. Watch me code: Programming
mentorship communities on Twitch.tv. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 2.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3274319.
Ferchaud, A., Grzeslo, J., Orme, S., LaGroue, J., 2018. Parasocial attributes and YouTube
personalities: exploring content trends across the most subscribed YouTube
channels. Comput. Hum. Behav. 80, 88–96. https://doi.org/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 Inuencers on Live Streaming Services.
Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_18.
Fish, A., Srinivasan, R., 2012. Digital labor is the new killer app. New Media Soc. 14 (1),
137–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811412159.
Friedl¨
ander, M.B., 2017. Streamer motives and user-generated content on social live-
streaming services. J. Inf. Sci. Theory Pract. 5, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1633/
JISTaP.2017.5.1.5.
Fuchs, C., 2014. Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the
capitalist regime of time. Time Soc. 23 (1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0961463X13502117.
García-Rapp, F., 2017. Popularity markers on YouTube’s attention economy: the case of
Bubzbeauty. Celebrity Studies 8 (2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19392397.2016.1242430.
Rapp, F.G., 2016. The digital media phenomenon of YouTube beauty gurus: the case of
Bubzbeauty. IJWBC 12 (4), 360. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2016.080810.
Garcia-Rapp, F., Roc-Cuberes, C., 2017. Being an online celebrity: Norms and
expectations of YouTube’s beauty community. First Monday 22. https://doi.org/
10.5210/fm.v22i7.7788.
Gerhards, C., 2019. Product placement on YouTube: an explorative study on YouTube
creators’ experiences with advertisers. Convergence 25 (3), 516–533. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1354856517736977.
Gros, D., Wanner, B., Hackenholt, A., Zawadzki, P., Knautz, K., 2017. World of
streaming. Motivation and gratication on twitch, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence and Lecture
Notes in Bioinformatics). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58559-8_5.
Guarriello, N.-B., 2019. Never give up, never surrender: game live streaming, neoliberal
work, and personalized media economies. New Media & Soc. 21 (8), 1750–1769.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819831653.
Gutelle, S., 2016. “YouTuber” Is Now A Word In The Oxford English Dictionary.
Tubelter.
Harley, D., Fitzpatrick, G., 2009. Creating a conversational context through video
blogging: a case study of Geriatric1927. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25 (3), 679–689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.011.
Horton, D., Richard Wohl, R., 1956. Mass communication and para-social interaction:
observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19 (3), 215–229. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049.
Hou, F., Guan, Z., Li, B., Chong, A.Y.L., 2019. Factors inuencing people’s continuous
watching intention and consumption intention in live streaming: Evidence from
China. Internet Res. 30, 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2018-0177.
Hou, M., 2019. Social media celebrity and the institutionalization of YouTube.
Convergence 25, 534–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517750368.
Huotari, K., Hamari, J., 2017. A denition for gamication: anchoring gamication in
the service marketing literature. Electron Markets 27 (1), 21–31. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z.
Jerslev, A., 2016. In the time of the microcelebrity: Celebrication and the YouTuber
Zoella. Int. J. Commun. 10, 5233–5251.
Jia, A.L., Shen, S., Li, D., Chen, S., 2018. Predicting the implicit and the explicit video
popularity in a User Generated Content site with enhanced social features. Comput.
Netw. 140, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2018.05.004.
Johnson, M.R., 2019. Inclusion and exclusion in the digital economy: disability and
mental health as a live streamer on Twitch.tv. information. Commun. Soc. 22 (4),
506–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1476575.
Johnson, M.R., Woodcock, J., 2019a. ‘It’s like the gold rush’: the lives and careers of
professional video game streamers on Twitch.tv. Information. Commun. Soc. 22 (3),
336–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1386229.
Johnson, M.R., Woodcock, J., 2019b. The impacts of live streaming and Twitch.tv on the
video game industry. Media Cult. Soc. 41 (5), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0163443718818363.
Jorge, A., Marˆ
opo, L., Nunes, T., 2018. “I am not being sponsored to say this”: a teen
youtuber and her audience negotiate branded content. Observatorio 2018, 76–96.
Kaytoue, M., Silva, A., Cerf, L., Meira Jr., W., Raïssi, C., 2012. Watch me playing, i am a
professional: A rst study on video game live streaming, in: WWW’12 - Proceedings
of the 21st Annual Conference on World Wide Web Companion. pp. 1181–1188.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2187980.2188259.
Keating, A., 2013. Video-making, Harlem shaking: theorizing the interactive amateur.
New Cinemas 11, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1386/ncin.11.2-3.99-1.
Khamis, S., Ang, L., Welling, R., 2017. Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of
Social Media Inuencers. Celebrity Studies 8 (2), 191–208. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292.
Koch, C., Lode, M., Stohr, D., Rizk, A., Steinmetz, R., 2018. Collaborations on YouTube:
from unsupervised detection to the impact on video and channel popularity. ACM
Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 14 (4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3241054.
Kozlowski, L., 2013. Multi-Channel Networks 101 [WWW Document]. Forbes. URL
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorikozlowski/2013/08/30/multi-channel-networks-
101/#4da98daf54f0.
Kücklich, J., 2005. Precarious Playbour: modders and the digital games. Fibreculture
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7523-9.50022-2.
Lancaster, B., 2018. Glam or sham: how the big brands cash in on YouTube’s beauty
vloggers. Guard.
Lee, J.E., Watkins, B., 2016. YouTube vloggers’ inuence on consumer luxury brand
perceptions and intentions. J. Business Res. 69 (12), 5753–5760. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.171.
Lee, Y.-C., Yen, C.-H., Wang, D., Fu, W.-T., 2019. Understanding how digital ging
inuences social interaction on live streams, in: Proceedings of the 21st International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services,
MobileHCI 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338286.3340144.
Lessel, P., Altmeyer, M., Krüger, A., 2018. Viewers’ perception of elements used in game
live-streams, in: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. pp. 59–68.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275117.
Li, Y., Kou, Y., Lee, J.S., Kobsa, A., 2018. Tell me before you stream me: managing
information disclosure in video game live streaming. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput.
Interact. 2 (CSCW), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274376.
Liu, M.T., Liu, Y., Zhang, L.L., 2019. Vlog and brand evaluations: the inuence of
parasocial interaction. APJML 31 (2), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-
2018-0021.
Lu, Z., Xia, H., Heo, S., Wigdor, D., 2018. You watch, you give, and you engage: A study
of live streaming practices in China, in: Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems – Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174040.
Mardon, R., Molesworth, M., Grigore, G., 2018. YouTube Beauty Gurus and the
emotional labour of tribal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research 92,
443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.017.
Martínez, C., Olsson, T., 2019. Making sense of YouTubers: how Swedish children
construct and negotiate the YouTuber Misslisibell as a girl celebrity. J. Children
Media 13 (1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1517656.
McRoberts, S., Bonsignore, E., Peyton, T., Yarosh, S., 2016. “Do it for the viewers!”
Audience engagement behaviors of young YouTubers, in: Proceedings of IDC 2016 -
The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. pp. 334–343.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930676.
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 46 (2021) 101027
13
Munnukka, J., Maity, D., Reinikainen, H., Luoma-aho, V., 2019. “Thanks for watching”.
The effectiveness of YouTube vlogendorsements. Comput. Hum. Behav. 93,
226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.014.
Newby, J., 2006. Inside Broadcasting. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203129951.
Nicoll, B., Nansen, B., 2018. Mimetic Production in YouTube Toy Unboxing Videos. Soc.
Media Soc. 4. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118790761.
Par´
e, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., Kitsiou, S., 2015. Synthesizing information systems
knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manage. 52 (2), 183–199. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.
Parkin, S., 2018. The YouTube stars heading for burnout: ‘the most fun job imaginable
became deeply bleak’. Guard.
Partin, W.C., 2019. Watch me pay: Twitch and the cultural economy of surveillance.
Surveill. Soc. 17, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.13021.
Pellicone, A.J., Ahn, J., 2017. The game of performing play: Understanding streaming as
cultural production, in: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems –
Proceedings. pp. 4863–4874. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025854.
Postigo, H., 2016. The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: converting play into
YouTube money. New Media & Society 18 (2), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444814541527.
Raun, T., 2018. Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity
strategies and affective labour on YouTube. Convergence 24 (1), 99–113. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736983.
Rihl, A., Wegener, C., 2019. YouTube celebrities and parasocial interaction: using
feedback channels in mediatized relationships. Convergence 25 (3), 554–566.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736976.
Rose, J., 2019. How much do youtubers really make? Forbes.
Scholz, 2012. Digital Labor, Digital Labor – The Internet as Playground and Factory.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.816888.
Scolari, C.A., Fraticelli, D., 2019. The case of the top Spanish YouTubers: emerging media
subjects and discourse practices in the new media ecology. Convergence 25 (3),
496–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517721807.
Senft, T.M., 2009. Camgirls: celebrity and community in the age of social networks.
Camgirls. https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.v3i0.120.
Shelley, M., Krippendorff, K., 1984. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology.
J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79 (385), 240. https://doi.org/10.2307/2288384.
Siutila, M., 2018. The gamication of gaming streams, in: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
pp. 131–140.
Sj¨
oblom, M., Hamari, J., 2017. Why do people watch others play video games? an
empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75,
985–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.019.
Sj¨
oblom, M., T¨
orh¨
onen, M., Hamari, J., Macey, J., 2019. The ingredients of Twitch
streaming: affordances of game streams. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 20–28. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.012.
Smythe, D.W., 1977. Communication: Blindspot of Western Marxism. Can. J. Polit. Soc.
Theory 1, 1–27.
Tang, J.C., Venolia, G., Inkpen, K.M., 2016. Meerkat and periscope: I stream, you stream,
apps stream for live streams, in: Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems - Proceedings. pp. 4770–4780. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858374.
Tassi, P., 2018. “Fortnite” Legend Ninja Talks Twitch Fame And Fortune, And The Game
That Got Him There. Forbes.
Terranova, T., 2000. Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy. Soc. Text.
T¨
orh¨
onen, M., Sj¨
oblom, M., Hassan, L., Hamari, J., 2019. Fame and fortune, or just fun?
A study on why people create content on video platforms. Internet Res. 30, 165-190.
https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-06-2018-0270.
Tu, W., Yan, C., Yan, Y., Ding, X., Sun, L., 2018. Who Is Earning? Understanding and
Modeling the Virtual Gifts Behavior of Users in Live Streaming Economy, in:
Proceedings - IEEE 1st Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and
Retrieval, MIPR 2018. pp. 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPR.2018.00028.
Twitch, 2020. Twitch Partners [WWW Document]. URL https://www.twitch.tv/p/
partners/.
Twitch Tracker [WWW Document], 2020. Twitch Tracker. URL https://twitchtracker.
com/statistics.
van Dijck, J., 2009. Users like you? theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media
Cult. Soc. 31 (1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443708098245.
Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J.T., Warmelink, H., 2017. Computer games and
organization studies. Organization Stud. 38 (2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840616663242.
Wang, S., 2020. Chinese affective platform economies: dating, live streaming, and
performative labor on Blued. Media Cult. Soc. 42 (4), 502–520. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0163443719867283.
Wang, X., Tao, Z., Liang, L., Gou, Q., 2019. An analysis of salary mechanisms in the
sharing economy: The interaction between streamers and unions. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
214, 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.003.
Wattenhofer, M., Wattenhofer, R., Zhu, Z., 2012. The you tube social network, in: ICWSM
2012 - Proceedings of the 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media. pp. 354–361.
Wohn, D.Y., Freeman, G., McLaughlin, C., 2018. Explaining viewers’ emotional,
instrumental, and nancial support provision for live streamers, in: Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3174048.
Woodcock, J., Johnson, M.R., 2019. The affective labor and performance of live
streaming on twitch.tv. Televis. New Media 20 (8), 813–823. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1527476419851077.
Wotanis, L., McMillan, L., 2014. Performing Gender on YouTube: how Jenna Marbles
negotiates a hostile online environment. Feminist Media Studies 14 (6), 912–928.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.882373.
Xiao, M., Wang, R., Chan-Olmsted, S., 2018. Factors affecting YouTube inuencer
marketing credibility: a heuristic-systematic model. J. Media Business Studies 15 (3),
188–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1501146.
Yu, E., Jung, C., Kim, H., Jung, J., 2018. Impact of viewer engagement on gift-giving in
live video streaming. Telematics Inform. 35 (5), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.014.
Zhang, G., Hjorth, L., 2019. Live-streaming, games and politics of gender performance:
the case of Nüzhubo in China. Convergence 25 (5-6), 807–825. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1354856517738160.
Zhao, E.J., 2016. Professionalization of amateur production in online screen
entertainment in China: hopes, frustrations, and uncertainties. Int. J. Commun. 10,
5444–5462.
Zhao, Q., Chen, C.-D., Cheng, H.-W., Wang, J.-L., 2018. Determinants of live streamers’
continuance broadcasting intentions on Twitch: a self-determination theory
perspective. Telematics Inform. 35 (2), 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2017.12.018.
Zhou, F., Chen, L., Su, Q., 2019. Understanding the impact of social distance on users’
broadcasting intention on live streaming platforms: a lens of the challenge-hindrance
stress perspective. Telematics Inform. 41, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2019.03.002.
Zhu, Z., Yang, Z., Dai, Y., 2017. Understanding the gift-sending interaction on live-
streaming video websites. Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-58559-8_23.
Zimmer, F., 2018. A content analysis of social live streaming services. Lecture Notes in
Comp. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_29.
M. T¨
orh¨
onen et al.
