User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments

Abstract

With the emergence and rapid acceptance of online news come new and varied opportunities for user engagement with content, along with alternative metrics for capturing those behaviors. This study focuses on interactive engagement with online news videos. We propose a theoretical framework for conceptualizing user engagement on a continuum from exposure to interactivity. Furthermore, we make a distinction between user–content (e.g. commenting) and user–user (e.g. replying to another user’s comment) modes of interaction. We then explore publicly available measures of these concepts and test a series of hypotheses to explore commenting and conversational behaviors in response to YouTube news videos. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications for advancing our understanding of user engagement with online news.

Keywords

Digital journalism engagement interactivity news videos online news user comments YouTube

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barber

(2004) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Baum

(2002) Sex, lies, and war: how soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review 96(1): 91–110.

Baum

(2003) Soft news and political knowledge: evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication 20(2): 173–190.

Baum

(2004) Circling the wagons: soft news and isolationism in American public opinion. International Studies Quarterly 48(2): 313–338.

Beckett

(2010) Getting beyond just pageviews: Philly.com’s seven-part equation for measuring online engagement. Nieman Reports, 26 October. Available at: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/10/getting-beyond-just-pageviews-philly-coms-seven-part-equation-for-measuring-online-engagement/ (accessed 27 July 2012).

Boczkowski

(2009) Rethinking hard and soft news production: from common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication 59(1): 98–116.

Boczkowski

Peer

(2011) The choice gap: the divergent online news preferences of journalists and consumers. Journal of Communication 61(5): 857–876.

Brodie

Hollebeek

Juric

(2011) Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research 14(3): 252–271.

Burgess

Green

(2009) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

10.

Calder

Malthouse

Schaedel

(2009) An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23: 321–331.

11.

Chan

Leung

(2005) Lifestyles, reliance on traditional news media and online news adoption. New Media & Society 7(3): 357–382.

12.

Chatzopoulou

Sheng

Faloutsos

(2010) A first step towards understanding popularity in YouTube. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM IEEE conference on computer communications workshops, San Diego, CA, 15–19 March, pp. 1–6. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

13.

Cheng

Dale

Liu

(2008) Characteristics and potentials of YouTube: a measurement study. In: Noam

Pupillo

(eds) Peer-to-Peer Video: The Economics, Policy, and Culture of Today’s New Mass Medium. New York: Springer, pp. 205–217.

14.

Chung

(2008) Interactive features of online newspapers: identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(3): 658–679.

15.

Chung

Yoo

(2008) Audience motivations for using interactive features: distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper. Mass Communication & Society 11(4): 375–397.

16.

Deuze

(2003) The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media & Society 5(2): 203–230.

17.

Espeland

Sauder

(2007) Rankings and reactivity: how public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113(1): 1–40.

18.

Gans

(1980) Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Random House.

19.

Hamilton

(2004) All the News That’s Fit to Sell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

20.

Hargittai

Walejko

(2008) The participation divide: content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society 11(2): 239–256.

21.

Hayes

(2008) Jump Point: How Network Culture Is Revolutionizing Business. New York: McGraw Hill.

22.

Herbst

(1998) Reading Public Opinion: Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

23.

Houston

Hansen

Nisbett

(2011) Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News 5(2): 79–92.

24.

Hujanen

Pietikäinen

(2004) Interactive uses of journalism: crossing between technological potential and young people’s news-using practices. New Media & Society 6(3): 383–401.

25.

Jamali

Rangwala

(2009) Digging digg: comment mining, popularity prediction, and social network analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on web information systems and mining, Shanghai, China, 7–8 November, pp. 32–38. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

26.

Jarboe

(2011) YouTube and Video Marketing: An Hour a Day. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

27.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

28.

Kim

Wyatt

Katz

(1999) News, talk, opinion, participation: the part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication 16(4): 361–385.

29.

Kiousis

(2002) Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society 4(3): 355–383.

30.

Cho

Roberts

(2005) Internet uses and gratifications: a structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising 34(2): 57–70.

31.

Lange

(2007) Searching for the “you” in “Youtube”: an analysis of online response ability. In: Proceedings of the ethnographic praxis in industry conference, Keystone, CO, 3–6 October, pp. 31–35. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

32.

Larsson

(2011) Interactive to me—interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites. New Media & Society 13(7): 1180–1197.

33.

Lee

Moon

Salamatian

(2010) An approach to model and predict the popularity of online contents with explanatory factors. In: Proceedings of the international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, Toronto, ON, Canada, 31 August–3 September, pp. 623–630. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

34.

MacGregor

(2007) Tracking the online audience: metric data start a subtle revolution. Journalism Studies 8(2): 280–298.

35.

McMillan

(2002) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents and systems. In: Lievrouw

Livingstone

(eds) The Handbook of New Media. London: SAGE, pp. 163–182.

36.

McMillan

(2005) The researchers and the concept: moving beyond a blind examination of interactivity. Journal of Interactive Advertising 5(2): 1–4.

37.

Malthouse

Calder

(2011) Engagement and experiences: comment on Brodie, Hollenbeek, Juric, and Ilic (2011). Journal of Service Research 14(3): 277–279.

38.

Manosevitch

Walker

(2009) Reader comments to online opinion journalism: a space of public deliberation. Paper prepared for presentation at the 10th international symposium on online journalism, Austin, TX, 17–18 April. Available at: https://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/ManosevitchWalker09.pdf (accessed 2 November 2013).

39.

Massey

Levy

(1999) Interactivity, online journalism, and English-language web newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 76(1): 138–151.

40.

Nagar

(2011) The loud public: the case of user comments in online news media. PhD Dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY.

41.

Napoli

(2011) Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.

42.

NielsenWire (2012) May 2012: top US online video sites. Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/may-2012-top-u-s-online-video-sites/ (accessed 24 July 2012).

43.

O’Brien

Toms

(2008) What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(6): 938–955.

44.

Bellur

Sundar

(2010) A conceptual model of user engagement with media. In: 60th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore, 22–26 June.

45.

Patterson

(2003) The search for a standard: markets and media. Political Communication 20(2): 139–143.

46.

Peer

Ksiazek

(2011) YouTube and the challenge to journalism: new standards for news videos online. Journalism Studies 12(1): 45–63.

47.

Peterson

Carrabis

(2008) Measuring the immeasurable: visitor engagement. Report, Web Analytics Demystified, 7 September. Available at: http://www.webanalyticsdemystified.com/downloads/Web_Analytics_Demystified_and_NextStage_Global_-_Measuring_the_Immeasurable_-_Visitor_Engagement.pdf (accessed 5 January 2012).

48.

Pew Research Center (2012) YouTube and news: a new kind of visual news. Report, Pew Research Center, Project for Excellence in Journalism, 16 July. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2012/07/16/youtube-news/ (accessed 18 July 2012).

49.

Prior

(2003) Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication 20(2): 149–171.

50.

Ruggiero

(2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society 3(1): 3–37.

51.

Schaudt

Carpenter

(2009) The news that’s fit to click: an analysis of online news values and preferences present in the most-viewed stories on azcentral.com. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal 24(2): 17–26.

52.

Schmitz Weiss

De Macedo Higgins Joyce

(2009) Compressed dimensions in digital media occupations: journalists in transformation. Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism 10(5): 587–603.

53.

Schudson

(2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism 2(2): 149–170.

54.

Schultz

(1999) Interactive options in online journalism: a content analysis of 100 US newspapers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5(1): 0. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00331.x.

55.

Schultz

(2000) Mass media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online forums and reader e-mail. Media, Culture & Society 22(2): 205–221.

56.

Shirky

(2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: Penguin Press.

57.

Siersdorfer

Chelaru

Nejdl

(2010) How useful are your comments? Analyzing and predicting YouTube comments and comment ratings. In: Proceedings of 19th international World Wide Web conference, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April. Available at: http://www.l3s.de/~siersdorfer/sources/2010/wfp0542-siersdorfer.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).

58.

Stromer-Galley

(2000) Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication 50(4): 111–132.

59.

Tewksbury

(2003) What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication 53(4): 694–710.

60.

Thurman

(2008) Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society 10(1): 139–157.

61.

Tremayne

(2008) Manipulating interactivity with thematically hyperlinked news texts: a media learning experiment. New Media & Society 10(5): 703–727.

62.

Webster

(2010) User information regimes: how social media shape patterns of consumption. Northwestern University Law Review 104(2): 593–612.

63.

Webster

(2011) The duality of media: a structurational theory of public attention. Communication Theory 21(1): 43–66.

64.

Yoo

(2011) Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory 21(1): 67–89.

65.

Zaller

(2003) A new standard of news quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication 20(2): 109–130.