The objective of this article is to understand how the YouTube hit Galinha Pintadinha (Lottie Dottie Chicken), a naïve Brazilian animation aimed at preschool children, defies the power of big media companies and offers new ways of audiovisual enjoyment. I will describe the emergence of the animation and its YouTube channel called Galinha Pintadinha, which initially had only the Brazilian preschool audience as a target, and then I will analyze its internationalization process that has been developing on YouTube. I have paid attention to the uploaded video strategies of the seven international YouTube channels of Galinha Pintadinha (American, British, French, Italian, Indian, Japanese, and Spanish) considering the number of subscribers to each channel, the number of views, and the growth of the channels. The success reached by Galinha Pintadinha around the world is a result of the audiovisual reconfiguration processes considering the Brazilian audiovisual history in the global flow of media content.
BishopSophie. 2019. “Managing Visibility on YouTube through Algorithmic Gossip.”New Media & Society21 (11–12): 2589–606. doi:10.1177/1461444819854731.
2.
BourdieuPierre.2007. A Economia das trocas simbólicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
3.
BurgessJeanGreenJoshua. 2009. YouTube e a revolução digital. São Paulo: Aleph.
4.
CarterEli Lee. 2016. “Entering through Porta dos Fundos: The Changing Landscape of Brazilian Television Fiction”. Television & New Media18 (5): 410–26. doi:10.1177/1527476416667822.
5.
CarterEli Lee. 2020. The New Brazilian Mediascape: Television Production in the Digital Streaming Age. Florida: University Press of Florida.
6.
EbelebeUgo Ben. 2017. “Reinventing Nollywood: The Impact of Online Funding and Distribution on Nigerian Cinema.”Convergence25 (3): 466–78. doi:10.1177/1354856517735792.
7.
GillespieTarleton. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
8.
HaynesJonathan. 2010. “A Literature of Review: Nigerian and Ghanaian Videos.”Journal of African Cultural Studies22 (1): 105–20. doi:10.1080/13696810903488645.
9.
HerzDaniel. 1987. A história secreta da Rede Globo. Porto Alegre: Tchê.
10.
HolzbachAriane. 2019. “They Grew Up So Fast: Cartoon Network in Connection with Jorel’s Brother Brazilian Cartoon.”Matrizes13 (1): 211–9. doi:10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v13i1p211-229.
11.
HolzbachArianeNantesJoanaFerreirinhoGabriel. 2020. “There is Enough Space for Children on Television! The Presence of Children’s Programming in Worldwide Broadcast TV.”Comunicação, Mídia e Consumo17 (49): 244–67. doi:10.18568/CMC.V17I49.2135.
12.
HorrocksRoger. 2004. “Turbulent Television: The New Zealand Experience.”Television & New Media5 (1): 55–68. doi:10.1177/1527476403259742.
13.
JenkinsHenry.2014. Cultura da Convergência. São Paulo: Aleph, 2009.
14.
JenkinsHenryFordSamGreenJoshua. 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
15.
KangKyoung-Lae. 2017. “Talking Hospitality and Televising Ethno-National Boundaries in Contemporary Korea: Considering Korean TV Shows Featuring Foreigners.”Television & New Media19 (1): 59–74. doi:10.1177/1527476417697196.
16.
KhachabChihab El. 2016. “Secular Preachers: Watching Television Pundits in Post-Revolutionary Egypt.”Anthropology Now8 (1): 117–24. doi:10.1080/19428200.2016.1153938.
17.
LobatoRamon. 2016. “The Cultural Logic of Digital Intermediaries: YouTube Multichannel Networks.”Convergence22 (4): 348–60. doi:10.1177/1354856516641628.
MattosSérgio. 1990. Um perfil da TV brasileira (40 anos de história: 1950–1990). Salvador: Associação Brasileira de Agências de Propaganda. http://goo.gl/l9RCzF.
20.
MayAlbert. 2010. “Who Tube? How YouTube’s News and Politics Space is Going Mainstream.”International Journal of Press/Politics15 (4): 499–511. doi:10.1177/1940161210382861.
21.
MorrealeJoanne. 2013. “From Homemade to Store bought: Annoying Orange and the Professionalization of YouTube.”Journal of Consumer Culture14 (1): 113–28. doi:10.1177/1469540513505608.
22.
NapoliP. M. (2015). “Social Media and the Public Interest: Governance of News Platforms in the Realm of Individual and Algorithmic Gatekeepers.”Telecommunications Policy39 (9): 751–60. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.003.
23.
PinhoMaria Luiza Carvalho de AguiarRochaÂngela da. 2015. “Bromélia Filminhos e as aventuras internacionais da Galinha Pintadinha.”Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa16 (3): 609–39. doi:10.13058/raep.2015.v16n3.286.
24.
PortoMauro. 2007. Televisão e Política no Brasil: A Rede Globo e as interpretações da audiência. Rio de Janeiro: E-papers.
25.
RêgoCacilda. 2009. “Beyond Globo: The History and Development of Brazilian Television.”Journal of International Communication15 (1): 37–55. doi:10.1080/13216597.2009.9674743.
26.
SaulMahirAustenRalph. 2010. Viewing African Cinema in the Twenty-First Century: Art Films and the Nollywood Video Revolution. Ohio: Ohio University Press.
27.
ShifmanLimor. 2011. “An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme.”New Media & Society14 (2): 187–203. doi:10.1177/1461444811412160.
28.
SimpsonAmelia. 1993. Xuxa: The Mega-Marketing of Gender, Race, and Modernity. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
29.
StabileCarolHarrisonMark. 2003. Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
SteemersJeanette. 2014. “Selling Television: Addressing Transformations in the International Distribution of Television Content.”Media Industries Journal1 (1): 44–9. doi:10.3998/mij.15031809.0001.109.
31.
StraubhaarJoseph. 1991. “Beyond Media Imperialism: Assymetrical Interdependence and Cultural Proximity.”Critical Studies in Media Communication8 (1): 39–59. doi:10.1080/15295039109366779.
32.
ThussuDaya Kishan. 2007. “Mapping Global Media Flow and Contra-Flow”. In Media on the Move: Global Flow and Contra-Flow, edited by ThussuDaya Kishan, 10–29. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
TolsonAndrew. 2010. “A New Authenticity? Communicative Practices on YouTube.”Critical Discourse Studies7 (4): 277–89. doi:10.1080/17405904.2010.511834.
34.
van DijckJosé. 2016. La cultura de la conectividad: una historia critica de las redes sociales. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
35.
van DijckJoséPoellThomasWaalMartijn. 2018. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. London: Oxford University Press.
36.
WaisbordSilvio. 2004. “McTV: Understanding the Global Popularity of Television Formats.”Television & New Media5 (4): 359–83. doi:10.1177/1527476404268922.
37.
WaisbordSilvio. 2016. “Translations| Communication Studies Without Frontiers? Translation and Cosmopolitanism Across Academic Cultures.” International Journal of Communication, 10 (19). https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3483
