Strategic and tactical uses of internet design and infrastructure: the ...

51

Journal of Visual Literacy, 2009 Volume 28, Number 1, 51-69

Strategic and tactical uses of internet design and infrastructure: the case of YouTube Luc Pauwels University of Antwerp Patricia Hellriegel Lessius University College Abstract: This article aims to provide insight into the nature of the ongoing negotiation of power and control between the controllers (owners, designers, editors) and “prosumers” (consumers who are at the same time producers of content) of the YouTube™ Social Networking Site. The study is theoretically inspired by Michel de Certeau’s (1984) ideas of utilization as a productive activity involving strategic and tactical behavior. We examine the steering mechanisms embodied in the YouTube™ infrastructure as well as its distinct “practices of utilization.” Web sites communicate cultural indicators through a complex interplay of words, pictures, design features, and navigational or narrative strategies. We analyzed this complex multi modal cultural discourse using the “Hybrid Media Analysis Model” (Pauwels, 2005) on YouTube™ topics, including a four-week period during the 2007 American pre-election campaign. The analysis shows that—while YouTube™ actively participates in constructing the image of users being on an equal footing with the platform producers—premolded personal space, the presented (and “significantly missing”) options, and embedded steering mechanisms call into question the notion of user empowerment. The study also highlights areas for future cultural and multi modal research into Social Networking Sites, such as SNS strategies, the authenticity of video posting, YouTube™ as a News source, and Web site design related to meaning construction. Key Words: Website analysis, YouTube, Web 2.0, Hybrid Media Analysis, Social Networking Sites (SNSs) Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

52

T

Introduction

his article describes a cultural multi modal analysis of the YouTube™ Social Networking Site (SNS) aiming to identify the relative power of the site’s actors. We first introduce YouTube™ in its intermedia context. We then explain the theoretical grounding for and focus of our research. Finally, we describe the methodological approach to the analysis and our findings.

YouTube’s Intermedia Context

As an online phenomenon, YouTube™ should be situated and understood in the broader context of media such as television, newspapers, Web sites, and ultimately as a very particular member of the family of Web 2.0 applications and SNSs. “Web 2.0” refers to web development and Web design supporting interactive information sharing and collaboration on the World Wide Web. SNSs support online communities of people who share interests or activities; YouTube™ is such an online community, for video-sharing. This media context influences the way the Web site is “shaped,” understood, and used by the “prosumers” (a contraction of the terms “producer” and “consumer” to indicate the active role the users play in creating content). YouTube™ subscribes to a framework of conventions through which the site is presented and recognized as a social networking and video sharing site: the main building blocks are personal profile pages with features available to establish and display relations with other users. This set-up is similar to online dating sites in the late 1990s, now combined with chat, forum, and file-sharing functions. A snapshot from the Internet Archive reveals that YouTube™ indeed started out as an online dating site, but quickly repositioned itself as a more general video repository, thus widening its potential market. While there is hardly anything new about online content being generated by non-professional users (i.e. the fairly common practice of setting up homepages or family Web sites using prefabricated templates, Pauwels, 2008) or Web-users communicating/interacting with each other, Web 2.0 offers a platform to the average individual through which a vast number of people can be reached in a very interactive way and requiring few technical skills or financial resources. The number of unique monthly visitors to YouTube™ alone can be estimated at 55 to 75 million and over 65,000 videos are claimed to be uploaded to the site each day. Thus far, discussions about Web 2.0 in the media and among scholars have mainly focused on the users’ control over content and development of technology, and the way users interact online with their peers. This “usercenteredness” also dominates current research on YouTube. (i.e. Fonio et. al., Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

53

2007; Harp & Tremayne, 2007; Lange, 2007; Webb, 2007). At odds with this general idea of user-empowerment and autonomy is the fact that the Web 2.0 user-practices reside in a relatively small number of Web sites controlled by powerful gatekeepers.

RESEARCHING YOUTUBE™ AS A STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL SPACE Theoretical Foundation

Websites are considered highly significant cultural artifacts that can be “read” as dynamic media texts interacting with a sometimes very active “user” base. From different strands of media and communication studies, the notion has emerged that embedded in any media text is an “inscribed reader” or an “implied audience” (e.g. Booth, 1961; Chatman, 1978; Hall, 1980) for which a “preferred reading” is constructed by the producer of the text. However, the reader may “resist” the sender’s desired response. Analyzing the cultural discourse, i.e. the practices and behaviors of YouTube™ owners and prosumers, may throw light on the sense of community or an overruling power differential. Cultural values and norms are embedded in the YouTube™ platform and manifested through interventions of Web site controllers and gatekeepers. User practices and behaviors show how they deal with imposed directives, constraints, and control mechanisms. Thus, conflicts between the goals and aspirations of gatekeepers and prosumers are expressed through practices and behaviors on both sides. Yet, the terms “reader,” “receiver,” “consumer” or even the more activitysuggesting term “user” are not fully adequate for expressing the centrally important productive activity of the typical “prosumer” of YouTube. These prosumers provide the core content (posted bits of videos and other types of reactions) and thus embody the “raison d’être” of this type of Web site. To better grasp the implications of this mixed or multi-sided “production,” it is useful to recall Michel de Certeau’s ideas about “practices of consumption,” which in his view are determined by the difference or similarity between the production of an artifact and the “secondary production” hidden in the process of its utilization (de Certeau, 1984, p. 476). In this sense, YouTube™ is clearly characterized by a joint and secondary production of meaning caused on one side by a predetermined framework or template offered for users to enter information in a standard way, and on the other by the productive practices of utilization by both its Web controllers and the highly divergent population of consumers (visitors) and prosumers (contributors). Of further value for our analysis of an SNS as a cultural discourse is de Certeau’s distinction between Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

54

two logics of action, which he calls the “tactical” and the “strategic,” terms which he uses in ways quite distinct from their military sense. De Certeau asserts that: “The space of the tactic is the space of the other. Thus it must play on with a terrain imposed on it and organized by the law of a foreign power” (de Certeau, 1984, p. 36-37). The “foreign power” for the YouTube™ user is the strategically constructed infrastructure and the imposed rules of conduct as well as the controlling practices exercised by the Web site’s gatekeepers. According to de Certeau, the strategic player has authority and dedicated resources, and seeks to perpetuate and grow and usually benefits from homogenizing its audiences. The tactical player lacks these characteristics, does not seek to compete with the institution, or take over power, but primarily seeks to fulfill his or her individual needs behind a facade of conformity. Confronted with a technical infrastructure and a set of “rules of the game,” tactical players may enroll in gentle forms of subversion to make the prefabricated space more “habitable” and better suited to fulfill their needs (de Certeau, 1984). De Certeau’s powerful ideas as developed in his book, “The Practice of Everyday Life” (1980), predate the digital, networked era and yet seem to find their most vivid expression in present-day practices of cybersociety.

Research Focus

In this article, YouTube™ is examined as a prominent representative of the Web 2.0 SNSs (both in popularity and in set-up), with the aim of uncovering the strategic infrastructure and gatekeeping activities of the YouTube™ owners and the “room for maneuvering” of the prosumer. Emphasis therefore lies on issues of power, control, and mutual influence as manifested in an SNS that advertises itself as offering broadcasting power to “you,” or in other words to anyone. We explore this by uncovering the cultural traits (e.g. values and norms) which are embedded in the YouTube™ platform and that manifest themselves through interventions by Web site controllers/gatekeepers. In de Certeau’s terminology we are primarily analyzing the strategic and tactical interaction between YouTube™ as an institutional player vis-à-vis the varied group of users (visitors and prosumers). While a static view or snapshot of the form and content of YouTube™ may already reveal much of the embedded culture of the infrastructure, a diachronic observation of the practices and behaviors from both sides offers further insight into how the complex cultural discourse manifests itself over time. One example of such an observation done by the authors extended over a four-week period during the American pre-election campaign in 2007, with some findings offered below in this article. Studying these phenomena during an intensified “pre-election” period could be criticized for possibly delivering Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

55

skewed results, but it still helps to illustrate the social significance of the power interplays in SNSs.

Methodological Framework

SNSs – and YouTube™ in particular – are complex and dynamic media texts that do not easily disclose their hybrid ways of cultural meaning production. To approach the multi modal complexity of Web sites from a cultural perspective, we will use the “Hybrid Media Analysis Model” (Pauwels, 2005) originally developed to culturally decode the multi modal structure of family Web sites (Pauwels, 2002; Pauwels, 2008). This model (Figure 1) proposes a number of possibly significant “cultural indicators or parameters” of Web sites as expressed by words, pictures, design features, and navigational or narrative strategies. It starts with an analysis of the “Web internal level,” which is focused on overt and implied areas such as: (1) discovering embedded cultural values and norms in the overall structure of Web sites, their design features, and navigational structures; (2) content categories and the point(s) of view they embody, with topics and views expressed (or significantly absent) in text, images and audio; (3) the construction of the “implied” or preferred audience, as well as the linkages to other sites as indications of ideological or other types of affiliation. With respect to the analysis of the production side, it looks at the cultural meanings that can be attributed to the larger technical, social, economical, and political infrastructure of the Web sites under study and also suggests an approach to reach the Web site owners’ intentions and sought/received gratifications. Finally the model tries to include the audience or users of the Web sites under study, which often proves to be a very cumbersome aspect of this type of research, since the majority of users of many types of Web sites remain anonymous or, if they leave feedback on the Web site after visiting, are still hard to identify and contact (Pauwels, 2005).

Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

56

Figure 1: A Model For Hybrid Media Analysis of Web sites (Pauwels, 2005) Web Internal Analysis (Medium Analysis) 1.

Inventory of topics and issues (including significantly absent items)

2.

Point of view analysis (who is talking?)

3.

Analysis of Intended audience(s): derived goals and purposes

4.

Structural analysis: hierarchy and flow of elements

5.

Analysis of Imagery: pre-photographic (mise-en-scène) and photographic parameters

6.

Design and typography: symbolic and metaphorical meaning

7.

Links to other sources (expressions of affiliation)

Researching the Production side -

Micro-level: Web site owners’ intentions and sought/received gratifications

-

Macro-level: “ethnography of infrastructure”

Researching the Audience -

Anonymous “lurkers”?

-

Self-identified audience (through feedback area)

-

“Constructed” audience (experiment)

Several aspects of the Hybrid Media Analysis Model (in particular those of the Web Internal Analysis [WIA]-level) are used in this study to uncover the basic interplay of the YouTube™ infrastructure and the gatekeeping practices of its owners vis-à-vis the ways prosumers deal with those practices. Thus the remainder of the article will explore the dynamics of this interplay, illustrated with some observations that were made through looking closely at YouTube™ for four weeks during the 2007 American pre-election campaign through the ”lens” offered by the Hybrid Media Analysis Model.

THE “LOOKS” AND WORKINGS OF YOUTUBE

Important to note about many Web 2.0 applications – and SNSs such as YouTube™ in particular – is the highly heterogeneous and multi-actor production of cultural meaning as it resides in both form and content. On one side there is the Web site’s imposed and constantly monitored platform with predefined options, categories, and rules of engagement, and, on the other, a vast and heterogeneous base of users. By observing the “behavior” of both users and platform owners as expressed in choices and changes with respect to the content and organization of the Web site over a set period of time, some Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

57

insight can be acquired into the subtle or at times open grappling between the owners’ and the users’ goals and needs in a way that may be more reliable than asking the parties involved. Apart from the strategically built set-up of the Web site which already embodies a set of values and goals, the Web site controllers also have a number of strategic tools to further promote desired behavior (e.g. by highlighting certain types of contents) and prohibiting or discouraging undesired practices (through censoring, removing, or demoting particular types of content), which we discuss in the following sections.

Establishing and Resisting Content Categories (cf. WIA 1. Inventory of Topics and Issues)

A limited number of categories are offered for posting videos on YouTube. Apart from the category “News & Politics,” they are all located in the domain of leisure, entertainment, and consumer goods, i.e. “Autos & Vehicles,” “Pets & Animals,” or “Sports.” Several country/language options are available to users, with a translation of menu and titles. The particular ranking of the categories is also specific to the selected country. A comparison of the particular position (highest, lowest) of the categories per country yields some interesting differences: for example, “News & Politics” ranks very low in the category list for most countries but is listed number one for France, while “Pets & Animals” is at the top of the list for Brazil and Italy but ranks at the very bottom for Poland. The Global category rankings are identical to those of the native English speaking regions: UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland. These predefined categories and their ranking by YouTube™ embody preconceptions of what the site will be used for or will most likely be used for in the different countries. Apart from differences in ranking and slight semantic changes in their translation, the categories are more or less the same throughout all versions of YouTube, suggesting an assumption that users from all cultures will have the same preferences, thus imposing an Anglo-Western cultural stance. However, the predefined categories are often but a façade for the actual content of YouTube. By using added tags and specific keywords in the title, a video can be found by those looking for content on a certain topic, regardless of how much it strays from the category in which it was originally posted. Videos that might stir religious discussion are, for example, in no way absent from YouTube, and a search on a sensitive topic such as “anorexia” yields more than 7,000 videos classified under (the relatively apt) “People & Blogs,” but also under “Music” or “News and Politics.” Again, it is culturally significant that no separate categories are created for important issues such as “Health” Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

58

and “Religion.” Analyzing these omissions in the categories may offer further information on the kind of cultural discourse that YouTube™ wants to foster or avoid. Users may ignore the labels they are forced to select from and upload content that does not match the selected category. YouTube™ may allow this to happen while still deciding not to draw extra attention to these (often somewhat sensitive) issues by granting them a separate category. On the other hand this may all be part of the YouTube™ strategy: to allow very diverse content in very plain and innocent-looking categories so as to yield the widest attraction for visitors and participants. Choices on the personal pages are offered to users so that they can “profile” themselves, but looking at the type of information requested it is evident that these data are particularly valuable for target marketing, e.g. personal preferences for music, films, and reading, and information on occupations and affiliations to companies. Users who are aware of this threat or simply value their privacy may try to gain more control over their personal profiles by evading the constraints or by using the provided means and space for unintended purposes, e.g. providing mock descriptions and information.

Alleged Purposes, Preferred Audiences and Embedded Points of View (cf. WIA 2/3. POV & Intended Audiences)

YouTube™ actively tries to create a sense of community. Much effort is put into constructing the “it’s all for the community” idea. The users are put on a level of equality with the YouTube™ management and are even invited behind the scenes within the Web site to help develop functionality: YouTube™ is an open community and encourages users to send in their thoughts and comments about their experiences on the site. YouTube™ understands that each and every user makes the site what it is and welcomes them to get involved to help create new features and be a part of new developments on the site. This community sense is affirmed to stimulate users’ engagement, but at the same time it is a way for YouTube™ to enhance their functionality by tapping into free labor. Examples in YouTube™ of prosumers identifying with the imposed discourse are abundant. In many of the user-generated videos, the audience is addressed as “YouTubers” or “YouTube™ community” and whole threads of videos and text comments are dedicated to discussing issues of “the community,” such as hostile “flaming” posts of angry comments responding to other posting (Lange, 2007) or are aimed at setting up joint initiatives, e.g. the “free hugs” campaign (which featured videos of people giving out free hugs in cities all over the world in an effort to counter social indifference). Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

59

Louis Althusser stated that most “subjects” do not react to or question the imposed ideology because they are unaware of the matter (Althusser, 1999, p.321). Web 2.0 users, however, seem very sensitive to discrepancies between actions and discourse. Prosumers aware of inconsistent measures, such as channels and videos being deleted, can lead to user-centered discourse turning against YouTube, forcing the gatekeepers to adhere to their professed principles. Some prosumers have already reacted against these covert practices by posting a video addressing the issue. Examples include the videos: “Bring YoungTubersUnited AND Jesari Back” available on line at: http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=isHYOXUzXwM and “The video that got Nick Gisburnes account deleted” available on line at: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=6GO3kfw8bHU (both consulted 17 September 2007). Other Web 2.0 sites (Digg.com and Flickr.com) have had to deal with harsh user reactions forcing the platform owners to reinstall deleted content, implying the equality of users in the power infrastructure (see Arrington, 2006, and Greenberg, 2007). Until now, however, YouTube™ seems to have evaded a large-scale user rebellion. The growing involvement of YouTube™ in the 2008 U.S. presidential election is somewhat surprising for a website otherwise entertainment and leisure oriented. A YouTube™ sub-site “YouChoose ‘08” was created for this purpose and YouTube™ collaborated with CNN in the organization of televised debates. Although the political subject matter differs from other YouTube™ content, it is incontestable that the debates obtained a high level of media coverage around the world. In addition it has been found that U.S. citizens are increasingly using the Internet to gather political information (Madden, 2007). The percentage has even doubled since 2002 and online video is playing an important part: Political video content currently garners about the same number of viewers as those who say they watch or download movies and television shows on line; 15% of Internet users say they have sought out political video content on line, and 2% report doing this on a typical day. (Madden, 2007, p.16) In the light of this evolution, YouTube’s efforts to be involved in US politics are less surprising. They just seem to be tapping into a growing market of online political communication left unattended up till now by other SNSs. Users regularly deploy tactical behavior to subtly resist the power being exercised from above. At times they even openly contest actions of the Web site owners that go against the “social” spirit of Web 2.0 (e.g. unilateral censorship exercised by YouTube’s management), forcing the YouTube™ authorities to “walk the talk.” Indications of these mild forms of resistance or subversion Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

60

can be found in tactical user practices such as: circumventing imposed link restrictions or providing mock descriptions and information to avoid becoming an easy marketing target and/or retaining anonymity. This is a common practice on SNSs as illustrated by a recent study on MySpace, which yielded a dubiously high number of centenarians (Thelwall, 2007, pp. 10-11). Additionally, new practices and video formats continuously emerge from the community of users, thereby resulting in very rich collections of videos that critically, or sometimes bluntly or coarsely, reappropriate and recontextualise media artifacts and events (see below under Research Opportunities into Video Form and Content). So, by looking carefully at what is happening on site on a daily basis, we can assert that YouTube’s users and in particular its active prosumer base continuously engage in boundary-bending activities to tactically counter the restrictions imposed by the infrastructure and the controlling authorities.

Navigational Options and Strategies (WIA 4. Structural Analysis)

YouTube™ holds a large collection of video materials supplied by its prosumers. A basic structure overlays the site, thus enabling users to find their way through the millions of “video” and “channel” pages. The main entry point is the homepage from which four main options are accessible: “videos,” “categories,” “channels,” and “community.” All these pages offer a selection of videos based on different parameters. The selection for “video” and “channels” is based on popularity and running time (e.g. “Most viewed/ Today”) but the videos featured on the remainder of these pages are handpicked by “YouTube™ editors.” Next to this main menu there is a fairly basic search function. The absence of more advanced search options may encourage users to opt for YouTube’s predefined selections instead. Especially those who are merely browsing the site may be prompted to consult pre-selected videos such as “Most viewed/All times.” Eye-catching features on the Web page also have the potential to influence users in the choices they make, for example content at the top of a page leaps more into view and elements emphasized by size, color, or framing better attract users’ attention. YouTube™ employs several of these elements to steer visitors (e.g. a colored box with a “pick of the day” or a video shown much larger than the others on the homepage; see figure 2) with the effect that certain content is favored, illustrating a differential of control by the gatekeeper. For example, during our focused four-week analysis of YouTube™ we observed an increase in viewing figures for a “pick of the day” video posting from 3,384 on the first day to 43,931 the second day. Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

61

Figure 2: “Pick of the day” video under the main menu option “Category,” portrayed larger and in a colored box to attract attention, (source: YouTube. com, 08/07/2007)

Analysing the trends for prominently positioned content shows a clear increase in viewing numbers (see examples shown in Figure 3). This indicates that YouTube™ has a considerable influence on which videos are viewed and become popular. The same mechanism of self-reinforcement comes into play in other ways. If a video receives many views (and the owner’s channel attracts more visitors in consequence), it is also shown at the top of the pages “videos” and “channels” and obtains even more exposure.


62

Figure 3: Increases over 3 days for viewings of prominently located video posting (log scale base 10: actual viewing figures given above bars).

This self-reinforcing cycle of popularity combined with (purposely) embedded steering or “priming” mechanisms sheds a different light on whether the popularity of videos can indeed be seen as a reflection of the public taste, as is readily assumed and therefore unquestioned by some researchers (e.g. Harp & Tremayne, 2007, p.20). With respect to the increasing popularity of YouTube™ with journalists another factor should be considered: the opaque nature and origin of the videos. The home-made or self-made format seems to enjoy an aura of authenticity, a way of production considered less prone to influences of government or commercial corporations, and one through which dissenting opinions can be voiced to a large audience, thus realizing a form of grass-roots journalism. While this may be true in many cases, the deceptive potential lies in the ease with which this “home-made” type of video can be mimicked and used for manipulative purposes (Palser, 2006). In YouTube, several of such videos have already been uncovered as not being what they pretend to be. One example is the anti-Hillary “Vote Different” ad. The video is based on an old Apple commercial and portrays Hillary Clinton as Big Brother. By now different versions have received over 4 million views on YouTube™ in addition to being featured in television news world-wide. The biggest surge in interest was prompted by the discovery that the creator of the ad was an employee of the Barack Obama presidential campaign. Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

63

The combination of the many gatekeeping and priming strategies successfully exercised by YouTube, the dubious nature and origin of some of the video materials, and the increased use of the Web site as a reliable source for news all call for further research. For example, taking a closer look at YouTube’s growing involvement in the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign and the ensuing media coverage could unearth hitherto overlooked steering processes that could have powerful consequences far beyond YouTube’s virtual boundaries and audiences.

Research Opportunities into Video Form and Content (cf. WIA 5. Analysis of Imagery)

There is an enormous variety of videos available on YouTube™ in terms of themes covered, origin of the material, levels of production expertise, and technologies that have been used: vlogs, homemade movies shot by camcorders or mobile phones, and videos mimicking or parodying TV formats and other genres. Also popular are the (mostly illegal) snippets of televised content such as music videos, movies, TV series, or sporting events. Legal actions against YouTube™ from copyright holders have led to restrictions on the length of any video to a maximum of ten minutes. However, users tactically evade this measure by posting their videos in consecutive parts. YouTube™ also offers a Video Toolbox with tips and guidelines on camerawork, lighting, manipulating time, adding music, and other techniques for creating online video. This guide is a mixture of a selection of videos created by YouTubers (on the topic of how to create a video for YouTube) and information supplied by YouTube™ itself. YouTube™ also offers the Remixer, a tool that allows you to remix old videos by rearranging sequences, adding graphic elements and transitions, or choosing different audio tracks. The limitations imposed by YouTube™ on its posted videos and the supplied tips and tools are an aspect to consider when studying the content and form of videos posted by users on the site. To what extent are users conforming to or challenging the constraints and influences imposed by the gatekeepers? Keeping this in mind, the collection of DIY (Do It Yourself) videos available still offers an unmatched and freely available repository for research. A careful analysis of both the filmic aspects (the visual statements as expressed through numerous parameters) and the profilmic aspects (the depicted events, the performances of actors, and everything else that happens in front of the camera) may provide answers to a myriad of interesting questions regarding issues like self-representation, media literacy, political awareness, media power, media convergence, and performances of social class, gender, and race. Such research can also be approached using the “Hybrid Media Analysis Model” Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

64

(Pauwels, 2005), Most parameters and levels of analysis applicable to the macro level of YouTube’s infrastructure and policies may also be applicable to the micro level of individual videos: we can analyze points of view (e.g. often a firstperson media approach in self-recorded footage), the cultural meaning (values, inspirations, tokens of affiliation) embedded in the form (framing, camera movements, editing, narrative structure), the construction of an implied audience, modes of address, and other stylistic articulations. Processes of selection and recontextualization of movie and television content are employed as vehicles to highlight painful issues or criticize current events and the way they are presented by mainstream media. One prominent example is the racist “rant” of the actor and stand-up comedian, Michael Richards, during a live show in a small club which was filmed by mobile phone and posted on the Internet. YouTubers immediately responded by posting parodist fragments from the actor’s work in the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” In the wake of the incident, all television appearances were also collected on YouTube™ and lead to hefty discussions and opinions aired through text comments, video responses, and video blogs. As of September 2007, this had resulted in 4,706 entries for “Michael Richards” on YouTube. Some of those “publicized” reactions also point to the urgent need for a more qualified discussion about the many complex ethical issues regarding rapidly evolving online practices, as cyberspace hitherto largely seems to escape the ethical standards that are commonly observed in offline situations (Pauwels, 2006, p. 365-369). On the matter of intertextuality at this level, it is also interesting to consider how YouTube™ video formats influence other media. Some other media entities tap directly into the Web site’s success, e.g. magazines that print weekly YouTube™ video reviews or television shows, covering solely YouTube™ videos. But YouTube’s influence on other media could stretch further than mere incorporation into those other media. New formats emerging on the site could find their way to mainstream or alternative TV and film. Some “YouTubers” for example are integrating several of the Web site’s interactive possibilities (from video responses to text comments and links) into their videos. From this practice a type of “series” (see for example, http://www. youtube.com/user/ichannel) has evolved whereby users actively contribute to the scenario and content. Evolutions like this could bring new life to interactive TV. As a result of the popularity of YouTube-like videos lasting only a few minutes, the concept of “bite-size media” or “snack-size entertainment” has Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

65

now emerged, a development that might be a stimulus to reconsider TV formats such as TV series or reports in terms of their lengths.

The Look of Things: Identity and Metaphor (cf. WIA 6. Design and Typography)

On the whole, the YouTube™ design appears to be highly structured (see Figure 4). There are only a couple of lively, dynamic elements and only limited use of bright or pastel colors. Through these particular design choices, YouTube™ subscribes to the aesthetic conventions of what has developed into an identifiable design style. As such, the overall design functions as signet-like advertising, underlining an association with the concept of Web 2.0. Although research has shown that Web users are sensitive to the overall design of a Web site, i.e. use it as a measure for trustworthiness (Cyr & Trevor-Smith, 2004, p.1200), the issues of whether and how Web site design style (as part of a frame of reference) is used to construct meaning still merits further research. Figure 4: Excerpt of YouTube™ design, (source: YouTube.com, 03/30/2009)

Linking Strategies and Tactics (cf. WIA 7. Links to other sources)

YouTube’s set-up encourages linking to other YouTubers via their channel. To this end there are a number of predefined options on offer. Users can display links to favorite videos, friends, and subscribers, or to their received comments. This feature is important to users on SNSs as a means to establish themselves Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

66

as a “popular” member of the online community. Research on Facebook, for example, found that users with a high number of friends were perceived to be more popular, self-confident, and attractive (Kleck, 2007). Conversely, YouTube™ restricts the posting of external links on the site: it is, for example, not allowed to include links in the text comments. Often users successfully circumvent these restrictions by embedding links directly into their videos or by disguising them in text comments so they cannot be detected automatically. This restriction is partly a measure to prevent spam on the site, although it appears to be inefficient in this respect based on the volume of spam that still gets through. External links are also unwanted because they lead users away. In fact, YouTube™ reverses this process by using links as a tool to draw visitors in. This is realized by allowing anyone to embed videos in other Web sites, without breaking the link with YouTube. You can watch the videos from the other Web sites, but the YouTube™ logo remains clearly visible and YouTube™ itself is only one click away.

CONCLUSION

This study of YouTube™ departed from the premise of a perceived conflict between the general user-centered discourse about Web 2.0, the particular set-up of the Web 2.0 platforms, and the practices of utilization. In applying the “Hybrid Media Analysis Model” (Pauwels, 2006), we have looked at phenomena such as YouTube’s position in relation to other media, the predefined video categories and rankings, the specific structure and possible purposes of the personal profile pages, concrete manifestations of the professed “sense of community,” embedded points of view, navigational options and strategies, the efforts to set and maintain standards for the video content, the overall structure and design as cultural markers, and the reasons behind the available internal/external link options. These aspects have in turn been compared with the on-site user practices and user-generated content. This study also touched on actual and potential effects of the YouTube™ phenomenon on the wider offline world of politics and media. We have tried here to critically examine YouTube’s dominant and largely self-professed discourse around “community sense” and “user empowerment,” and added to that a view of a marketing-driven enterprise that is unequivocally into money making and other more diffuse ways of exercising influence on society through constructing a space where individuals define themselves as easy targets for marketing and ideological purposes. Our analysis showed that YouTube™ actively participates in constructing the image of users being in control, or at least on an equal footing with the platform producers. However, Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 28, Number 1

67

the pre-molded personal space, the presented (and “significantly missing”) options, and embedded steering mechanisms call into question the notion of user empowerment and autonomy, highlighting the subtle struggle for power and control between owners and users as well as pointing at possible effects of cultural mainstreaming or ideological reproduction. Yet it would be a mistake to replace a one-sided, narrow view on user empowerment with an equally skewed and undifferentiated one of crass commercialism or cultural propaganda. YouTube™ and other Web 2.0 applications are very complex phenomena that may serve many purposes, some of which could have been foreseen by the originators and many that could not have been predicted and are still beginning to take shape. YouTube’s users and in particular its active prosumer base continuously engage in boundary bending activities to tactically counter the restrictions imposed by the infrastructure and the controlling authorities. At times they even openly contest actions of the Web site owners that go against the “social” spirit of Web 2.0 (e.g. unilateral censorship exercised by YouTube’s management), forcing the YouTube™ authorities to “walk the talk.” Indications of mild forms of resistance or subversion can also be found in tactical user practices such as circumventing imposed link restrictions or providing mock descriptions and information to avoid becoming an easy marketing target and/or retaining anonymity. Additionally, new practices and video formats continuously emerge from the community of users resulting in very rich collections of videos that critically, or sometimes bluntly or coarsely, re-appropriate and re-contextualize media artifacts and events. Thus, confronted with a technical infrastructure and a set of “rules of the game,” tactical players may enroll in gentle forms of subversion to make the prefabricated space more “habitable” and better suited to fulfill their needs (de Certeau, 1984). Using the “Hybrid Media Analysis Model” and de Certeau’s ideas of utilization as a productive activity involving strategic and tactical behavior, we have tried to make a modest start with a cultural analysis of the different features and practices of YouTube, to identify some of the emerging effects of this phenomenon. However, further research is needed to grasp the many multifaceted functions and effects of this online activity, the messages and strategies within the individual videos, on its users and on society at large. Example foci for research touched on in this article include the exploration of SNS strategies, the authenticity of video posting, YouTube™ as a news source, and Web site design related to meaning construction, to name a few. This kind of research should involve many aspects and levels of inquiry, and necessitate the further development of adequate theories and above all more refined methodologies for scrutinizing the multi modal and multileveled nature Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

68

of online artifacts, processes, and interactions.

REFERENCES Althusser, L. (1999). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In J. Evans & S. Hall (Eds.), Visual culture: The reader (pp. 317-323). London: Sage Publications. Arrington, M. (2006). Facebook users revolt, Facebook replies. Retrieved from http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/09/06/facebook-users-revoltfacebook-replies/ Booth, W. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Cyr, D. and Trevor-Smith, H. (2004). Localization of Web design: An empirical comparison of German, Japanese, and United States Web site characteristics. JASIST - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55, 1199-1208. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. (S. Rendall, trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1980). Fonio, C., Giglietto, F., Pruno, R., Rossi, L. & Pedrioli, S. (2007). Eyes on you: analyzing user generated content for social science. Paper presented at the Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 conference, York, UK. Retrieved from http://larica-virtual.soc.uniurb.it/nextmedia/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ eyes_on_you.pdf Greenberg, A. (2007). Digg’s DRM revolt. Forbes.com. Retrieved from http:// www.forbes.com/technology/2007/05/02/digital-rights-management-techcx_ag_0502digg.html Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128-138). London, Hutchinson. Harp, D. M. & Tremayne, M. (2007). Programmed by the people: The intersection of political communication and the YouTube™ generation. Paper presented at 57th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA, p. 20. Kleck, C.A. (2007). The company you keep and the image you project: putting your best face forward in online social networks. Paper presented at 57th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association San Francisco, CA. Lange, P. (2007). Commenting on comments: Investigating responses to antagonism on YouTube. Paper presented at Society for Applied Anthropology Conference Tampa, Florida. Retrieved from http://web3. Pauwels & Hellriegel-Strategic and tactical uses of internet

69

cas.usf.edu/main/depts/ANT/cma/Lange-SfAA-Paper-2007.pdf Madden, M. (2007). Online video: PEW Internet and the American Life Project. Washington, DC.: PEW Research Center for People and the Press. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/219/report_display.asp Palser, B. (2006). Artful disguises: sultans of spin masquerade as amateurs on citizen media Web sites. American Journalism Review, October/November 2006. Retrieved from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4215 Pauwels, L. (2002). Families on the Web. In D. Newman (Ed.), Sociology: Exploring the architecture of everyday life (4th Ed.) (pp. 231-235). Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press. Pauwels, L. (2005). Websites as visual and multi modal cultural expressions: opportunities and issues of on line hybrid media research. Media, Culture & Society, 27, 604-613 Pauwels, L. (2006). Ethical issues of online (visual) research. Visual Anthropology, 19, 365-369. Pauwels, L. (2008). A private visual practice going public? Social functions and sociological research opportunities of Web based family photography. Visual Studies, 23, nr 1. Thelwall, M. (2007). Social networks, gender and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles. Paper presented at the Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 conference, York, UK., pp. 10-11. Retrieved from http://www. scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/MySpace_d.doc Webb, M. (2007). Music analysis down the (You) tube? Exploring the potential of crossmedia listening for the music classroom. British Journal of Music Education, 24 (2), 147-164.
