Türkiye’de YouTuber Fenomeni ve İzlenme Türlerine Göre YouTube Analizi

Year 2020, Issue: 9, 52 - 70, 30.12.2020

Arif Yıldırım

Abstract

Dijital yayıncılık platformlarının yakın dönemde geleneksel yayıncılığın neredeyse tamamen yerine geçmesi, yeni yayıncı-izleyici profillerini de ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Özellikle YouTube’un standart video platformundan, bir dijital yayıncılık platformuna dönüşümü, yayıncılıktaki dönüşümün hızını oldukça arttırmıştır. YouTube’un bu dönüşümü ile ortaya çıkan yeni dijital yayıncılar olan YouTuberlar, bu bağlamda yeni bir kavram olarak izleyicide de yeni bir profilin oluşumunda etkili olmaktadır. YouTuberlar, tüm dünyada olduğu gibi Türkiye’de de son 15 yıldan beri kitlesel anlamda hızlı bir büyümeye sahiptirler. Özellikle genç kuşak tarafından benimsenmeleri ve sosyal medyanın dinamik yapısı, bu yeni yayıncı profilinin daha da ünlenmesine ve adeta birer kanaat önderine dönüşmesine neden olmaktadır. Artık gençler, makyaj yaparken kullanacakları malzemeden, arkadaş ortamında konuşacakları politik, bilimsel vb. konuları, YouTuberların tavsiyeleri veya bahsettikleri şeyler üzerinden belirlemektedir. Öyle ki, geleneksel yayıncılığın bilinen isimleri bile kendilerini bu yeni yayıncılık anlayışına adapte etmeye mecbur görmektedirler. Bu bağlamda; genç neslin önemli ölçüde geleneksel medya yerine, YouTuber fenomenine hizmet eden bir izleyici kitlesine dönüşmesinde hala belirsiz olan nedenlerin olması, bu araştırmanın gerçekleştirilmesinde temel etken olmaktadır. Bu nedenle araştırma kapsamında, YouTuber-izleyici etkileşimi odak alınarak 6 farklı kategoriye sahip 30 farklı YouTuberı ve yayınının arama terimleri belirlenmiş olup kendi kategorileri içerisinde popülariteleri incelenmiştir.

Keywords

YouTube, YouTuber, Fenomen, İçerik Üreticisi

References

• Alexa (2020). Keyword Research, Competitor Analysis, Website Ranking https://www.alexa.com/ Erişim Tarihi: 20.11.2020
• Alhabash, S., ve McAlister, A. R. (2014). ‘’Redefining virality in less broad strokes: Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter’’, 1461444814523726. New Media ve Society.
• Bandura, A. (1986). ‘’Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs’’, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Bérail, P., Guillon, M. ve C. Bungener, (2019). ‘’The relations between YouTube addiction, social anxiety and parasocial relationships with YouTubers: A moderated-mediation model based on a cognitive-behavioral framework’’, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 99, 2019, Pages 190-204, ISSN 0747-5632, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.007.
• Bevan, A. (2017). ‘’How to make victory rolls: Gender, memory, and the counterarchive in YouTube pinup hair tutorials’’, Feminist Media Studies, 17(5),755–773. doi:10.1080/14680777.2017.1298645
• boyd, d. (2014). ‘’It’s Complicated: The social lives of networked teens’’ / New Haven: Yale University Press, London.
• Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., ve Hollebeek, L. (2013). ‘’Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis’’, Journal of Business Research, 66 (1), 105e114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029.
• Brown, J., Broderick, A, Lee., N. (2007). ‘’Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network’’ J Interact Market 21(3):1–20.
• Bruyn, A., Lilien, GL. (2008). ‘’A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth infuence through viral marketing’’, Int J Res Mark 25:151–163.
• Bucher, T. (2018). ‘’Cleavage-control: Stories of algorithmic culture and power in the case of YouTube ‘reply girls’’, In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), ‘’A networked self and platforms, stories, connections’’ (pp. 125–143), Routledge New York.
• Burgess, J. (2008). “All Your Chocolate Rain are Belong to Us”? Viral Video, Youtube and the Dynamics of Participatory Culture. In G. Lovink & S. Niederer (Eds.), Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube (pp. 101-9). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
• Burgess, J. (2015). ‘’Broadcast yourself’’ to ‘’Follow your interests’’: Making over social media, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(3), 281-285.
• Burgess, J. ve Green, J. (2009a). ‘’The Entrepreneurial Vlogger: Participatory Culture Beyond the Pro-fessional Amateur Divide. In P. Snickars P. Vonderau’’ (Eds.), The YouTube Reader (pp. 89-107). Stockhol: National Library of Sweden.
• Burgess, J., ve Green J. (2009). ‘’YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture’’, Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
• Burgess, J., ve Green, J. (2013). ‘’YouTube: Online video and participatory culture’’ John Wiley ve Sons.
• Burgess, J., ve Green, J. (2018). ‘’Youtube: Online video and participatory culture’’ (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Burgess, S., Sellitto C, Cox. ve C, Buultjens, J. (2009). ‘’User-generated content (UGC) in tourism: Benefts and concerns of online consumers’’, Seventeenth European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy.
• Caron, C., Raby, R., Mitchell, C., Théwissen-LeBlanc, S., ve Prioletta, J. (2017). ‘’From concept to data: Sleuthing social change-oriented youth voices on YouTube’’, Journal of Youth Studies, 20 (1), 47–62.
• Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., Ahn, Y. Y., ve Moon, S. (2007). ‘’I tube, youtube, everybody tubes: Analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system’’, In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (pp. 1e14), ACM.
• Chae, J. (2019). ’’YouTube makeup tutorials reinforce postfeminist beliefs through social comparison’’ Media Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2019.1679187
• Chen, C. P. (2016). ‘’Forming digital self and parasocial relationships on YouTube’’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(1), 232–254.
• Diakopoulos, N., ve Naaman, M. (2011). ‘’Towards quality discourse in online news comments’’, In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, (pp. 133e142), ACM.
• Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., ve Rosaen, S. F. (2016). ‘’Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures’’, Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44.
• Establés, M.J., Guerrero-Pico, M., ve Contreras-Espinosa, R.-S. (2019). ‘’Gamers, writers and social media influencers: Professionalisation processes among teenagers’’, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 74, 214–236. doi:10.4185/RLCS-2019-1328en
• Fägersten, K. B. (2017). ‘’The role of swearing in creating an online persona: The case of YouTuber PewDiePie’’, Discourse, Context ve Media, 18, 1-10.
• Ferchaud, A., Grzeslo, J., Orme, S. ve LaGroue, J. (2018). ‘’Parasocial attributes and YouTube personalities:exploring content trends across the most subscribed YouTube channels’’ Comput Hum Behav 80:88–96.
• Festinger, L. (1954). ‘’A theory of social comparison processes’’ Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 Gates, B. (1996). ‘’CONTENT IS KING BY BILL GATES’’, Retrieved from: https://www.craigbailey.net/content-is-king-by-bill-gates/. Erişim Tarihi: 20.11.2020.
• Gerbner, G., ve Gross, L. (1976). ‘’Living with television: The violence profile’’, Journal of Communication, 26, 173–199. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
• Gluck, M. (2012). ‘’Digital Ad Engagement: An industry overview and reconceptualization’’ Retrieved from: Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB-Ad-Engagement-Whitepaper-12-05-12-tweaks.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 21.11.2020.
• Hall, M. A., Dugan, E., Zheng, B., ve Mishra, A. K. (2001). ‘’Trust in physicians and medical institutions: What is it, can it be measured, and does it matter?’’, The Milbank Quarterly, 79(4), 613–639. doi:10.1111/1468 0009.00223
• Hartmann, T. (2016). ‘’Parasocial interaction, parasocial relationships, and well-being’’, In L. Reinecke, ve M. B. Oliver (Eds.). ‘’The routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects’’, (pp. 131–144). New York.
• Horton, D., ve Richard Wohl, R. (1956). ‘’Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance’’, Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
• Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B. ve Tripp, L. (2010). ‘’Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media’’, MA: The MIT Press. Cambridge.
• Jarvis, J. (2011). ‘’Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live’’, SimonveShuster. New York.
• Jerslev A (2016) Media times in the time of the microcelebrity: celebrifcation and the Youtuber Zoella. Int J Commun 10:5233–5251
• Kaplan, A. M., ve Haenlein, M. (2010). ‘’Users of the world unite! the challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons’’ 53(1), 59–68.
• Khan, G., & Vong, S. (2014). Virality over YouTube: An empirical analysis. Internet Research, 24(5), 629e647.
• Khan, G., ve Vong, S. (2014). ‘’Virality over YouTube: An empirical analysis’’ Internet Research, 24(5), 629e647.
• Khan, M. L. (2017). ‘’Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?’’, Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236–247.
• Kim, J. (2012). ‘’The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to professionally generated content’’, Media, Culture ve Society, 34(1), 53-67.
• Kraut, R. E., ve Resnick, P. (2011). ‘’Encouraging contribution to online communities’’, Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design, 21e76.
• Kuss, D. J., ve Griffiths, M. D. (2017). ‘’Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned’’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 311.
• Laumann, EO. (1966). ‘’Prestige and association in an urban community’’, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
• McPherson, M, Smith-Lovin, L. Cook, J. M. (2001), ‘’Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks’’, Ann Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444.
• Mir, I. Zaheer, A. (2012) ‘’Verifcation of social impact theory claims in social media context’’ J Internet Bank Commer, 17(1):1–15.
• Mir, IA. ve Rehman, KU. (2013). ‘’Factors afecting consumer attitudes and intentions toward user-generated product content on YouTube’’, Manag Market 8(4):637–654.
• Moorti, S. (2018). ‘’Indignant feminism: Parsing the ironic grammar of YouTube activism’’, In J. Keller ve M. E. Ryan (Eds.), Emergent feminisms: Complicating a postfeminist media culture (pp. 108–125). New York.
• Mou, J., Shin, D.H., ve Cohen, J. F. (2017). ‘’Tracing college students’ acceptance of online health services’’, International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 33(5), 371–384. doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2016.1244941
• Nonnecke, B., ve Preece, J. (1999). ‘’Shedding light on lurkers in online communities’’, In Ethnographic studies in real and virtual Environments: Inhabited information spaces and connected communities, (pp. 123e128), Edinburgh.
• Pereira, S., Moura, P., ve Fillol, J. (2018). ‘’The YouTubers phenomenon: What makes YouTube stars so popular for young people?’’ Fonseca, Journal of Communication, 17, 107–123. doi:10.14201/fjc201817107123
• Porter, C. E. (2004). ‘’A typology of virtual communities: A multi-disciplinary foundation for future research’’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00228.x
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). ‘’Difusion of innovations’’, FreePress, New York.
• Sábada, C. ve Vidales, M. J. (2015). ‘’El impacto de la comunicación mediada por la tecnología en el capital social: adolescentes y teléfonos móviles’’, Revista Virtualis, 11(1), 75-92.
• Shao, G. (2009). ‘’Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification perspective’’ Internet Research, 19(1), 7e25.
• Shirky, C. (2008). ‘’Here Comes Everybody. The Power of Organizing Without Organizations’’, Pen-guin Press, New York.
• Shirky, C. (2010). ‘’Cognitive Surplus. Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age’’, Penguin Press, New York.
• Simonsen, T. M. (2013). ‘’The mashups of YouTube’’, Nordicom Review, 34(2), 47–63.
• Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., ve Yongjian, C. (2012). ‘’How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? ‘’,Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 102e113.
• Statistica. (2015). ‘’Hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute’’ http://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/. Erişim Tarihi: 21.11.2020.
• Stokel-Walker, C. ‘’The dark psychology behind YouTube's success’’, New Scientist, Volume 242, Issue 3227, 2019, Pages 42-43, ISSN 0262-4079, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30741-9
• Takahashi, M., Fujimoto, M., ve Yamasaki, N. (2003). ‘’The active lurker: Influence of an in-house online community on its outside environment’’, In Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work (pp. 1e10). ACM.
• Turkle, S. (2011). ‘’Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other’’, Basic Books, New York:
• Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming Conversation. The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin Press.
• Van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘’The Culture of Connectivity – A Critical History of Social Media’’, Oxford ve New York: Oxford University Press.
• Whitehead, J. L. (1968). ‘’Factors of source credibility’’, Q J Speech 54(1):59–63.
• Wunsch, Vincent. S., Vickery, G. (2007). ‘’Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking’’ OECD, Paris.
• Xu, W. W., Park, J. Y., Kim, J. Y., ve Park, H. W. (2016). ‘’Networked cultural diffusion and creation on YouTube: An analysis of YouTube memes’’, Journal of Broadcasting ve Electronic Media, 60(1), 104e122.
• YouTube (2020). Misyon ve Vizyon Sayfası, https://www.youtube.com/about/ Erişim Tarihi: 20.11.2020
• YouTube. (2018). ‘’YouTube About’’ https://www.youtube.com/intl/en-GB/yt/about/. Erişim Tarihi: 20.11.2020.
• YouTube., (2017). ‘’About YouTube’’ https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/en-GB/index.html. Erişim Tarihi: 21.11.2020.
• Yuksel, H. F. (2016). ‘’Factors afecting purchase intention in youtube videos’’, J Knowl Econ Knowl Manag 11(Fall):33–47.