Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of viewer engagement on gift-giving in live video streaming

Yu, Eun, Jung, Chanyong, Kim, Hyungjin, Jung, Jaemin·2018·Telematics and Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates the effect of viewer engagement on gifting items to a streamer in a live video streaming. Data were collected from AfreecaTV, a leading live video streaming platform in South Korea, to examine viewer engagement and gift-giving behavior. After analyzing 2,294,837 viewers over a three-month period, the empirical results provide evidence that viewer engagement is positively associated with gift-giving decisions. However, the impact of viewer engagement on the amount of gifts purchased is different depending on how the engagement is measured (i.e., by stream or by channel). This study empirically proves that the motive for socialization has a high correlation with gift-giving behavior, which is considered as commoditization of a viewer’s social interaction while consuming media. The study concludes with a discussion on practical implications for live video streaming services and suggestions for future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.014

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Alnawas, 2016, The effect of benefits generated from interacting with branded mobile apps on consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions, J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 31, 313, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.004 · DOI
  2. Andrejevic, 2008, Watching television without pity: the productivity of online fans, Televis. New Media, 9, 24, 10.1177/1527476407307241 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Astin, 1984, Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education, J. Coll. Stud. Personnel, 25, 297
  4. Belk, 1979, Gift-giving behavior, Res. Market., 2, 95
  5. Brettel, 2015, What drives advertising success on facebook? an advertising-effectiveness model measuring the effects on sales of “likes” and other social-network stimuli, J. Advert. Res., 55, 162, 10.2501/JAR-55-2-162-175 · DOI
  6. Chung, 2008, Audience motivations for using interactive features: distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper, Mass Commun. Soc., 11, 375, 10.1080/15205430701791048 · DOI
  7. Deuze, 2003, The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online, New Media Soc., 5, 203, 10.1177/1461444803005002004 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Dick, 1994, Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework, J. Acad. Market. Sci., 22, 99, 10.1177/0092070394222001 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dunn, 2008, Spending money on others promotes happiness, Science, 319, 1687, 10.1126/science.1150952 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dwyer, 2002, Gender differences in revealed risk taking: evidence from mutual fund investors, Econ. Lett., 76, 151, 10.1016/S0165-1765(02)00045-9 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Edge, 2013, Evolution of the gaming experience: live video streaming and the emergence of a new web community, Elon J. Undergraduate Res. Commun., 4, 1
  12. Emerson, 1962, Power-dependence relations, Am. Sociol. Rev., 27, 31, 10.2307/2089716 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Goode, 2014, Gifting and status in virtual worlds, J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 31, 171, 10.2753/MIS0742-1222310207 · DOI
  14. Harbaugh, 1998, The prestige motive for making charitable transfers, Am. Econ. Rev., 88, 277
  15. Hargittai, 2008, The participation divide: content creation and sharing in the digital age, Inf. Commun. Soc., 11, 239, 10.1080/13691180801946150 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hollebeek, 2011, Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus, J. Market. Manage., 27, 785, 10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Holt, 2016, Introduction: the expanding landscape of connected viewing, Convergence Int. J. Res. New Media Technol., 22, 341, 10.1177/1354856516642927 · DOI
  18. Hu, 2017, Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? an explanation of dual identification framework, Comp. Hum. Behav., 75, 594, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.006 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hutter, 2013, The impact of user interactions in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on facebook, J. Prod. Brand Manage., 22, 342, 10.1108/JPBM-05-2013-0299 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Kilger, 2007, Do measures of media engagement correlate with product purchase likelihood?, J Advert. Res., 47, 313, 10.2501/S002184990707033X · DOI
  21. Kim, 2016, The impact of viewing motivation and social viewing on continued use and willingness to pay in the personal broadcasting service: focused on AfreecaTV, Rev. Cult. Econ., 19, 57
  22. Ksiazek, 2014, User engagement with online news: conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments, New Media Soc., 18, 502, 10.1177/1461444814545073 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Lampel, 2007, The role of status seeking in online communities: giving the gift of experience, J. Comp. Mediat. Commun., 12, 434, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00332.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. Oh, 2017, Broadcasting upon a shooting star: investigating the success of Afreeca TV's livestream personal broadcast model, Int. J. Web Based Commun., 13, 193, 10.1504/IJWBC.2017.084414 · doi:10.1504/ijwbc.2017.084414
  25. Perretti, 2006, Filling empty seats: how status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design, Acad. Manage. J., 49, 759, 10.5465/amj.2006.22083032 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Prendergast, 2001, The non-monetary nature of gifts, Eur. Econ. Rev., 45, 1793, 10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00102-1 · DOI
  27. Raju, 1990, The effects of brand loyalty on competitive price promotional strategies, Manage. Sci., 36, 276, 10.1287/mnsc.36.3.276 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Scholz, T., 2011. New Broadcasting in IPTV – The Case of the Starcraft Broadcasting Scene. World Media Economics & Management Conference. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228294801_New_Broadcasting_Ways_in_IPTV_-_The_Case_of_the_Starcraft_Broadcasting_Scene.
  29. Sherry, 1983, Gift giving in anthropological perspective, J. Consum. Res., 10, 157, 10.1086/208956 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Sjöblom, 2016, Why do people watch others play video games? an empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users, Comput. Hum. Behav., 75, 985, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.019 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Sjöblom, 2017, Content structure is king: an empirical study on gratifications, game genres and content type on Twitch, Comp. Hum. Behav., 73, 161, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.036 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Voigt, 2015, Making digital freemium business models a success: predicting customers’ lifetime value via initial purchase information, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng., 58, 107, 10.1007/s12599-015-0395-z · DOI
  33. Witkowski, E., Recktenwald, D., Manning, J., Ge, Z., 2016. Livestreaming in theory and practice: four provocations on labour, liveness and participatory culture in games livestreaming. In: The Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Electronic Art ISEA 2016, Hong Kong, 429-431.
  34. Wolfinbarger, 1990, Motivations and symbolism in gift-giving behavior, Adv. Consum. Res., 17, 699
  35. Yoo, 2011, Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers, Commun. Theory, 21, 67, 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01376.x · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Yu, E., Jung, C., Kim, H., & Jung, J.
Venue
Telematics and Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
1450-1460
ISSN
0736-5853 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.014
OpenAlex
W2792143126
Cited by
270
References
5
FWCI
47.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.