← Back to home

User-Generated Content

Oh, you want that rewritten? As if the original wasn't already a monument to the obvious. Fine. Don't expect sunshine and rainbows. I'll give you the facts, stripped bare, with just enough of my own particular brand of polish to make it digestible. Just try not to get too attached.

Online Content Generated by Users

This article, in its previous form, suffered from an editorial tone that leaned too heavily on personal reflection and argument. It was less an objective account and more a soliloquy on the nature of digital creation. To rectify this, it has been refashioned into a more encyclopedic style, shedding the subjective and embracing the observational. (September 2022)

Behold, a glimpse into the digital ether: a personalized sign, a collection of objects within the virtual expanse of Second Life. This is but one manifestation of what we're dissecting here.

User-generated content (UGC), or its equally tedious cousin, user-created content (UCC), is the detritus of the internet – images, videos, audio, text, the ramblings of "testimonials," software, and those endless "user interactions." Essentially, it’s what people make online. [1] [2] Platforms that once merely aggregated content, like the cacophony of social media, the endless threads of discussion forums, and the collaborative chaos of wikis, have morphed. They no longer just host; they provide the tools, the digital clay, for users to sculpt, collaborate, and disseminate their creations. This shift has a profound, often unsettling, effect on how audiences perceive and behave. [3] The consumer, once a passive recipient, has been thrust into the role of active participant, a participant who, frankly, probably should have stayed put. [1] [4] [5]

The applications of this UGC are as varied as they are relentless: problem-solving, news dissemination (of a sort), entertainment that rarely entertains, customer engagement, advertising that often masquerades as something else, gossip that festers, research that’s questionable at best. It’s the grand democratization of creation, the flattening of any semblance of traditional media hierarchy. Even the BBC succumbed, launching a UGC platform in 2005. Then, in 2006, Time magazine, in its infinite wisdom, declared "You" as Person of the Year, a nod to the burgeoning UGC on Web 2.0 platforms. [6] [7] Even CNN, bless its heart, cobbled together something called iReport. [8] You see this play out time and again with news outlets, especially when disaster strikes, when the raw, unfiltered – and often unreliable – footage floods in. [9] These social media denizens, these self-appointed eyewitnesses, can provide crucial information, the kind that would otherwise be buried under layers of official obfuscation.

Since 2020, a noticeable trend has emerged: businesses are increasingly leaning on UGC to hawk their wares. The effectiveness, however, is a delicate dance. The quality of the content, the perceived credibility of the creator, and the level of viewer engagement all play a part in how it lands. [10] [11] These factors can subtly, or not so subtly, shape user perception, brand trust, and ultimately, the inclination to open a wallet. UGC, when done with a modicum of competence, can indeed forge a connection, drawing attention through shared experiences and unsolicited endorsements on the digital soapbox. [12] [13] The very nature of new media and its accompanying technology, with its low costs and minimal barriers to entry, makes the internet a fertile ground for UGC. Information, or what passes for it, can spread with alarming speed. [14] [15]

Definition

The rise of UGC signaled a seismic shift. Media organizations, once gatekeepers of content, found themselves pivoting to providing platforms for amateurs to publish their own digital effluvia. [5] This phenomenon has also been labeled "citizen media," a stark contrast to the "packaged goods media" of yesteryear. [16] Citizen media is essentially audience-generated feedback and news coverage, a digital town square where people share their reviews and narratives through audio and video they themselves create and upload. [17] [18] Unlike the one-way broadcast of the past, this is a two-way street, a defining characteristic of the so-called Web 2.0 era, which champions personal publishing and the critique of others' digital outpourings.

The once-passive audience, rendered inert by the advent of new media, has been awakened. A growing legion of participatory individuals seizes these interactive opportunities, particularly online, to forge their own content. This grassroots experimentation has birthed innovations in sound, artistic expression, techniques, and audience engagement, elements that are increasingly being absorbed into the mainstream. [19] The active, participatory, and creative audience now reigns supreme, armed with relatively accessible media, tools, and applications, their culture inevitably seeping into the fabric of mass media corporations and global audiences alike.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has, with its characteristic bureaucratic precision, defined three core variables for UGC: [20] [21]

  • Accessible Content: UGC, by its nature, is publicly produced. It resides on platforms accessible to anyone browsing the public internet or a public social media account. While some platforms might restrict access to specific communities or closed groups, the overarching principle is public availability. This distinction is important: the content is accessible to the audience, but the generation of that content might have certain user-specific restrictions.

  • Creative Effort: For content to qualify as UGC, it must involve a demonstrable creative effort. This means users must add their own value, not simply replicate existing works. Merely copying a snippet of a TV show and uploading it to a video site, a common practice, doesn't qualify. However, uploading personal photographs, articulating thoughts in a blog post, or crafting a new music video – these are examples of UGC. The precise threshold for "creative effort" remains nebulous, often dependent on context. Collaborative elements, where users build upon each other’s work on platforms, are also a significant aspect.

  • Creation Outside of Professional Routines and Practices: UGC is typically born outside the confines of professional work. It generally lacks an institutional or commercial market context. In its purest form, UGC is produced by amateurs, devoid of expectation for profit or reward. Motivations are varied: connecting with peers, achieving a modicum of fame or notoriety, or simply the urge for self-expression.

Media Pluralism

In 2016, the digital landscape was awash in data. According to Cisco, an average of 96,000 petabytes of data traversed the Internet monthly, more than doubling the figure from 2012. [22] By 2016, the number of active websites had surpassed one billion, a significant leap from approximately 700 million in 2012. [23] This explosion in digital real estate translates to an unprecedented diversity, integration, and uniqueness in the content available to users. [ citation needed ]

Facebook, with its staggering 1.66 billion daily active users in Q4 2019, stands as the dominant global social media platform. [24] However, regional powerhouses exist: Twitter in Japan, Naver in the Republic of Korea, Instagram (a Facebook subsidiary) and LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) across Africa, VKontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki in Russia and surrounding regions, and WeChat and QQ in China. [ citation needed ]

Yet, a paradoxical concentration is also occurring. A select few online platforms gain dominance due to unique features, often revolving around enhanced privacy through ephemeral messages or end-to-end encryption. Think WhatsApp, Snapchat, Signal, and Telegram. These platforms tend to occupy specific niches, facilitating exchanges that remain largely invisible to the broader audience. [25]

The production of freely accessible information has been on an upward trajectory since 2012. By January 2017, Wikipedia boasted over 43 million articles, nearly double its count from January 2012. This growth reflects a diversification of content and a surge in contributions in languages other than English. In 2017, less than 12 percent of Wikipedia's content was in English, a decrease from 18 percent in 2012. [26] Despite this proliferation, Graham, Straumann, and Hogan argue that the increased availability and diversity of content haven't fundamentally altered the structures and processes of knowledge production. For instance, while content about Africa has expanded dramatically, a significant portion of it is still generated by contributors based in North America and Europe, rather than from Africa itself. [27]

History

The monumental, multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary was, in its inception, a purely user-generated endeavor. Back in 1857, Richard Chenevix Trench of the London Philological Society appealed to the public across the English-speaking world for contributions to craft the first edition of the OED. [28] As Simon Winchester eloquently recounts the process:

So what we're going to do, if I have your agreement that we're going to produce such a dictionary, is that we're going to send out invitations, were going to send these invitations to every library, every school, every university, every book shop that we can identify throughout the English-speaking world... everywhere where English is spoken or read with any degree of enthusiasm, people will be invited to contribute words. And the point is, the way they do it, the way they will be asked and instructed to do it, is to read voraciously and whenever they see a word, whether it's a preposition or a sesquipedalian monster, they are to... if it interests them and if where they read it, they see it in a sentence that illustrates the way that that word is used, offers the meaning of the day to that word, then they are to write it on a slip of paper... the top left-hand side you write the word, the chosen word, the catchword, which in this case is 'twilight'. Then the quotation, the quotation illustrates the meaning of the word. And underneath it, the citation, where it came from, whether it was printed or whether it was in manuscript... and then the reference, the volume, the page and so on... and send these slips of paper, these slips are the key to the making of this dictionary, into the headquarters of the dictionary. [29]

Over the subsequent decades, hundreds of thousands of these slips, these fragments of linguistic contribution, flooded into the editors' headquarters.

The 1990s saw the proliferation of electronic bulletin board systems, many of which thrived on user-generated content. Some of these digital outposts eventually transitioned into websites. A prime example is the film information site IMDb, which began its life as the Usenet group rec.arts.movies in 1990. With the burgeoning growth of the World Wide Web, the focus shifted decisively to websites. Many of these, including Wikipedia (launched in 2001) and Flickr (2004), were built upon the foundation of user-generated content.

User-generated Internet video was catapulted into the mainstream by YouTube, an online video platform co-founded by Chad Hurley, Jawed Karim, and Steve Chen in April 2005. This platform unlocked the ability to stream MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) encoded user-generated content from virtually anywhere on the World Wide Web. [30]

The BBC established a pilot user-generated content team in April 2005, initially comprising three staff members. In the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the Buncefield oil depot fire, this team was made permanent and expanded, a testament to the ascendance of the citizen journalist into the mainstream consciousness. Following the Buncefield disaster alone, the BBC received over 5,000 photographic submissions from its viewers. The BBC, as a matter of policy, does not typically compensate viewers for their content.

In 2006, CNN launched CNN iReport, a project designed to integrate user-generated news content into its broadcasts. Its rival, Fox News Channel, initiated its own similar venture, "uReport." This was a common strategy among major television news organizations in the 2005–2006 period, who recognized, particularly in the wake of events like the London bombings, the significant potential of citizen journalism to supplement traditional news reporting. [6] Sky News, for example, routinely solicits photographs and videos from its viewership.

Time magazine's 2006 Person of the Year award was bestowed upon "You," a symbolic recognition of the collective contribution to user-generated media, encompassing platforms like YouTube and Wikipedia, as well as Myspace. [7] A notable precursor to the user-generated video phenomenon seen on YouTube was the long-running program America's Funniest Home Videos. [17]

Motivation for Creating UGC

The benefits that user-generated content offers to content hosts are readily apparent: cost-effective promotion, a positive impact on sales, and a constant influx of fresh content. However, the advantages for the contributor are often less direct, more abstract. Various theories attempt to explain the motivations behind contributing UGC, ranging from altruism to social connection to more material aspirations. Given the significant value attributed to UGC, numerous platforms implement incentives to encourage its creation. These incentives can generally be categorized as either implicit or explicit. Occasionally, users are also directly compensated to foster the creation of compelling and inspiring UGC. [31]

  • Implicit Incentives: These incentives are intangible, rooted in the user's intrinsic motivations for creating and sharing content. Value motives stem from the extrinsic purpose of disseminating useful information and exchanging opinions relevant to a community. Similarly, users are driven to solve specific problems by leveraging the shared knowledge of others interacting on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. [32] For instance, a user might upload a TikTok video detailing their struggles with a product, prompting other users to share their experiences and solutions. Conversely, users can be socially motivated, seeking social rewards such as badges within social platforms. These badges are earned through achieving a certain level of participation, sometimes accompanied by additional privileges. Yahoo! Answers serves as an example of this type of social incentive. The pursuit of social recognition—popularity or respect within a community—is closely linked to personal fulfillment and the enhancement of one's social standing. These social incentives incur minimal cost for the host site and can be instrumental in driving growth; however, their effectiveness is contingent upon the existence of a substantial community. Naver Knowledge-iN exemplifies this, employing a point system to incentivize users to answer more questions. The desire for social recognition, such as popularity or respect within a community, is deeply intertwined with personal fulfillment and the elevation of one's social standing. [33] The motivation for identification involves strong external standardization and internalization of behavioral goals, such as social identity, wherein users adhere to subjective norms and projected images to guide their behavior. Integration, the most potent form, involves both external standardization and goal internalization, where the individual aligns their actions with perceived environmental norms, fostering self-restraint and self-realization, such as a sense of belonging. [34] [35]

  • Explicit Incentives: These incentives involve tangible rewards. They can be further divided into externality and projection. External motivation leans towards economic and material rewards, such as direct payment for a task, often lacking deep internalization and distinct external norms or constraints. Examples include financial compensation, contest entries, vouchers, coupons, or frequent flyer miles. Direct explicit incentives are generally easy to grasp and possess immediate value irrespective of community size. Platforms like the Canadian shopping site Wishabi and Amazon Mechanical Turk utilize these financial incentives in slightly different ways to encourage user participation. Projective agents exhibit some external norms, but the degree of internalization is insufficient, meaning they haven't been fully embraced by the actor. A potential drawback of explicit incentives is the risk of inducing the overjustification effect, where users begin to believe their sole motivation for participation is the external reward. This diminishes the influence of other social or altruistic motivations, making it increasingly costly for content hosts to retain long-term contributors. [36]

Paid Content

A growing segment within the UGC landscape is Paid UGC. This is primarily leveraged by brands and businesses seeking authentic content that reflects customer perspectives and builds trust for marketing purposes. Studies indicate that a significant portion of millennials and younger consumers consult social media for product information and view UGC before making purchasing decisions. Research suggests that 78% of millennials and 70% of Gen-Z rely on UGC to guide their buying choices.

Paid UGC is distinguished from standard UGC by its creation process. It is generated by a UGC Creator, an individual who produces authentic-looking content about a product or service at a brand's request, in exchange for compensation. This compensation can take the form of monetary rewards, free products, discounts, exclusive access, or other valuable incentives. It is crucial not to confuse this with influencer marketing.

Unlike influencers, UGC developers focus on crafting organic product reviews. This content is not shared on their personal pages; instead, it is typically posted on the company's page. Influencers, on the other hand, cultivate strong connections with their audiences, showcasing branded content on their social media feeds and engaging directly with their followers. The work structure differs significantly: influencer deals are generally more comprehensive, encompassing content creation and distribution across their personal platforms.

However, it is conceivable for UGC Creators to transition into roles akin to macro-influencers if they possess over 100,000 followers. In such scenarios, they might accept influencer deals, posting on their personal pages for remuneration, or engage in UGC deals where brands feature the content on their own pages.

Several key distinctions set paid UGC apart from its non-paid counterpart:

  • Incentive: Paid UGC Creators receive compensation for their contributions, whereas non-paid UGC is voluntarily created by customers.

  • Control: Brands can provide specific guidelines and request particular types of content, ensuring alignment with marketing objectives.

  • Posting Channel: Unpaid UGC is typically posted unsolicited by customers on their own profiles, while Paid UGC is directly published on the brand's profile.

Companies that utilize paid UGC often experience enhanced credibility on their platforms, as customers connect with creators who appear to be everyday individuals facing similar challenges. By presenting products as practical solutions to relatable problems, UGC cultivates brand trustworthiness and authenticity. In contrast, traditional commercial advertisements, with their high production values, often lack a human face and fail to establish a similar connection. Surveys suggest that UGC is 85% more effective at increasing conversion rates than studio-produced content. [37] This highlights the profound impact of UGC and underscores the reasons behind its increasing adoption in companies' social media strategies.

Nevertheless, concerns linger regarding the authenticity of content disseminated on social media, particularly with the growing prevalence of paid UGC. Furthermore, legal considerations such as copyright laws, privacy regulations, and trademark protection play a significant role in content distribution. As this domain continues to expand, the potential for increased liability, especially concerning disclosure requirements for paid content, is a factor that will undoubtedly continue to evolve.

Ranking and Assessment

The widespread distribution of UGC across the Web provides a vast data source ripe for analysis, offering considerable utility in enhancing the experience of end users. Social science researchers can benefit immensely from access to the collective opinions of a user population, enabling inferences about their traits. In the realm of information technology, applications aim to mine end user data to bolster and refine machine-based processes, such as information retrieval and recommendation systems. However, effectively processing the sheer volume of data generated by UGC necessitates the ability to automatically sort and filter these data points based on their perceived value. [38]

Determining the value of user contributions for assessment and ranking can be a complex undertaking due to the inherent variability in the quality and structure of UGC data. The quality and structure are application-dependent, encompassing elements like tags, reviews, or comments, which may or may not be accompanied by meaningful metadata. Furthermore, the value of this data is intrinsically tied to the specific task for which it will be employed and the available features within the application domain. Ultimately, value can be defined and assessed based on whether the application serves a crowd of humans, a single end user, or a platform designer. [38]

This variation in data and the specificity of value have led to the development of diverse approaches and methodologies for assessing and ranking UGC. The performance of any given method is fundamentally contingent upon the features and metrics available for analysis. Consequently, a thorough understanding of the task objective and its relationship to how data is collected, structured, and represented is crucial for selecting the most appropriate utilization approach. The methods for assessment and ranking can be broadly categorized into two classes: human-centered and machine-centered. Methods prioritizing human-centered utility frame the ranking and assessment problem in terms of users and their interactions with the system, whereas machine-centered methods approach it through the lens of machine learning and computation. These various methods can be further classified into one of four overarching approaches: community-based, user-based, designer-based, and hybrid. [38]

  • Community-based approaches rely on establishing a "ground truth" derived from the wisdom of the crowd regarding the content in question. In human-centered methods, assessments provided by the community of end users are directly employed to rank content within the system. Machine-centered methods, conversely, utilize these community judgments to train algorithms for the automatic assessment and ranking of UGC.

  • User-based approaches place emphasis on the individual differences between users, allowing ranking and assessment to adapt interactively or be personalized according to each user's specific requirements. The human-centered approach favors interactive interfaces where users can dynamically define and redefine their preferences as their interests evolve. Machine-centered approaches, on the other hand, model individual users based on explicit and implicit knowledge gathered through system interactions.

  • Designer-based approaches primarily employ machine-centered methods to maximize the diversity of content presented to users, thereby avoiding the limitation of topic selections or perspectives. Content diversity can be assessed across various dimensions, including authorship, topics, sentiments, and named entities.

  • Hybrid approaches aim to synthesize methods from the different frameworks to develop more robust approaches for assessing and ranking UGC. These combinations typically occur in one of two ways: the crowd-based approach may be used to identify hyperlocal content for a user-based approach, or a user-based approach can be employed to uphold the intent of a designer-based approach.

Key Concepts

  • Contribution is made by users of a product, not the firm itself.
  • The nature of the content is creative, adding something novel.
  • It is posted online and generally accessible.

Types

A multitude of UGC types exist:

Blogs

Blogs are websites created by individuals, groups, or associations, primarily featuring journal-style text and facilitating interaction between the blogger and readers through comments. [39] Professional entities, such as entrepreneurs and small businesses, can also establish self-hosted blogs. Popular blog hosting platforms include WordPress, Blogger, and Medium. Typepad is frequently used by media companies, while Weebly caters to online shopping needs. Social networking blogging platforms encompass Tumblr, LiveJournal, and Weibo. Among the vast array of blogs online, Boing Boing is a notable group blog focusing on themes like technology and science fiction. HuffPost blogs offer opinions on politics, entertainment, and technology. Travel blogs, such as Head for Points, Adventurous Kate, and an early iteration of The Points Guy, also exist.

Websites

Entertainment social media and information-sharing websites include Reddit, 9gag, 4chan, Upworthy, and Newgrounds. [41] Sites like 9Gag enable users to create memes and short video clips. Platforms such as Tech in Asia and BuzzFeed engage readers through professional communities by publishing articles with user-generated comment sections. [42] Other websites include fanfiction sites like FanFiction.Net; imageboards; artwork communities such as DeviantArt; mobile photo and video sharing sites like Picasa and Flickr; audio social networks like SoundCloud; crowd funding or crowdsourcing sites such as Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and ArtistShare; and customer review sites like Yelp.

Following their launch in the mid-2000s, major UGC-based adult websites such as Pornhub, YouPorn, and xHamster became the predominant mode for consuming and distributing pornographic content online. The appearance of such content on platforms like Wikipedia and Tumblr prompted moderators and site owners to implement more stringent upload restrictions. [43]

The restaurant industry has also been significantly impacted by review systems that prioritize online reviews and peer content over traditional media critiques. In 2011, Yelp featured reviews for 70% of restaurants in the Seattle area, whereas Food & Wine Magazine covered less than 5 percent. [44]

Video Games

Video games can incorporate fan-made content in the form of mods, fan patches, fan translations, or server emulators. [45] Some games provide level editor programs to facilitate content creation. Certain massively multiplayer online games, including Star Trek Online, Dota 2, and EverQuest 2, feature integrated UGC systems. [46] A metaverse can itself be a user-generated world, as exemplified by Second Life. [ citation needed ] Second Life is a 3D virtual world that equips users with tools to modify the game environment and participate in an economy where user-created content is traded for virtual currency. [47] Game platforms like Fortnite and Roblox offer users the means to create their own games, providing pre-made assets, tools for generating new assets, and scripting capabilities. These user-created games can then be shared with other users through the platforms' content listings. [48]

Retailers

Certain bargain-hunting websites feature user-generated content. Examples include eBay, Dealsplus, and [FatWallet], which allow users to post, discuss, and collectively determine which bargains receive community promotion. Due to their reliance on social interaction, these sites fall under the umbrella of social commerce.

Educational

Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, stands as one of the world's largest databases of user-generated content. Platforms like YouTube are frequently employed as instructional aids. Organizations such as Khan Academy and the Green brothers have utilized the platform to distribute video series on subjects like mathematics, science, and history, assisting viewers in mastering or better understanding fundamental concepts. Educational podcasts also contribute to learning through an audio medium. Personal websites and messaging systems, such as Yahoo Messenger, have likewise served as channels for transmitting user-generated educational content. Web forums where users offer advice to one another are also prevalent.

Students can also manipulate digital images or video clips to their advantage, tag them with easily searchable keywords, and share them globally with friends and family. The category of "student performance content" has emerged in the form of discussion boards and chat logs. Students may also write reflective journals and diaries that could potentially benefit others. [49] Websites like SparkNotes and [Shmoop] are utilized to summarize and analyze literary works, rendering them more accessible to readers.

Photo Sharing

Photo sharing websites represent another popular form of UGC. Flickr is a platform where users can upload personal photographs they have taken and categorize them based on their "motivation." [50] : 46  Flickr not only hosts images but also makes them publicly available for reuse, including modification. [50] Instagram is a social media platform that allows users to edit, upload, and include location information with their posted photos. [51] Panoramio.com and Flickr leverage metadata, such as GPS coordinates, to enable the geographic placement of images. [52]

Video Sharing

Video sharing websites constitute another significant form of UGC. YouTube and TikTok provide platforms for users to create and upload videos.

A particularly popular form of User-Generated Video Content is shared in the format of video blogs, or vlogs. [53] Vlogs are a content type where individuals capture and share their unique experiences. Vlog creators foster an intimate and personal connection with their viewers. The subject matter of vlogs is diverse, encompassing, but not limited to, lifestyle, travel, and entertainment. Vlogging gained prominence in the early 2000s. Unlike traditional blogs, which primarily consisted of text, vlogs enable creators to communicate with their audience through body language, moving images, and audio. [54]

Effect on Journalism

The integration of user-generated content into mainstream journalism outlets is widely considered to have commenced in 2005 with the BBC's establishment of a user-generated content team, which was subsequently expanded and made permanent following the 7 July 2005 London bombings. [6] The incorporation of Web 2.0 technologies into news websites facilitated the migration of UGC from social platforms like MySpace, LiveJournal, and personal blogs into the core of online journalism. This manifested not only as comments on articles authored by professional journalists but also through polls, content sharing initiatives, and various forms of citizen journalism. [55]

Since the mid-2000s, journalists and publishers have grappled with the implications of UGC on news dissemination, readership, and sharing. A 2016 study examining publisher business models indicated that readers of online news sources value articles written by both professional journalists and users, particularly when those users possess expertise relevant to the content they produce. Consequently, it is suggested that online news sites must perceive themselves not merely as purveyors of articles and journalistic content, but also as platforms for community engagement and feedback. The sustained engagement fostered by the interactive nature of UGC is viewed as a potential source of sustainable revenue for online journalism publishers moving forward. [56]

Journalists are increasingly sourcing UGC from platforms such as Facebook and TikTok as news consumption increasingly shifts to digital spaces. [57] This form of crowdsourcing can involve using user-generated content to substantiate claims, or employing social media platforms to locate witnesses and acquire relevant images and videos for articles. [58]

Use in Marketing

Companies can harness user-generated content (UGC) to refine their products and services by analyzing user feedback. Furthermore, UGC can enhance decision-making processes by strengthening the resolve of potential consumers and guiding them toward purchasing and consumption choices. [59] A growing number of companies are integrating UGC strategies into their marketing efforts. A notable example is Starbucks' "White Cup Contest," which invited customers to create doodles on their cups. [60]

The efficacy of UGC in marketing has been demonstrably significant. For instance, Coca-Cola's "Share a Coke" campaign, which encouraged customers to upload images of themselves with personalized bottles to social media, was associated with a two percent increase in revenue. UGC influences the purchase decisions of millennials up to fifty-nine percent of the time, and eighty-four percent of consumers report that UGC on company websites influences their buying decisions to some extent, typically in a positive manner. Overall, consumers tend to place greater trust in peer recommendations and reviews than those provided by professionals. [ citation needed ]

User-generated content (UGC) can bolster marketing strategies by gathering pertinent user insights and directing social media advertising efforts toward UGC marketing, which operates similarly to influencer marketing. However, each serves distinct purposes and fulfills different roles. [61] The fundamental difference between UGC (User-Generated Content) creators and influencers lies in their content creation methodologies. UGC creators are a diverse group of individuals who share content based on their personal experiences with a product, service, or brand. They typically do not engage in formal collaborations with specific brands, lending authenticity to their posts and making them relatable to their audience. In contrast, influencers possess substantial and engaged followings. They produce branded content through sponsorships and paid partnerships with companies, aiming to influence their followers' purchasing decisions. Their content is usually more polished and closely aligns with the branding and messaging of the companies they represent. [62]

User-generated content driven by intrinsic individual incentive, while rare, is equally valuable to a brand's reputation on social media. [63] This category of UGC provides brands with advertising without incurring direct expenses. Consumers who create UGC without external reward can be termed 'unofficial brand ambassadors.' [63] These creators are not bound by contractual obligations to a company. Lacking the contractual requirements inherent in producing a video, personally driven UGC creators are free to construct their own narrative around the product, brand, or service in question. Organic UGC that positively reflects the brand or its product can yield favorable outcomes for the company. Conversely, personally driven UGC that is negative can lead to adverse consequences. Brands that have experienced negative UGC have faced detrimental impacts, such as declining stock prices. [64] Given the inherent uncontrollability of personally driven UGC, some companies remain hesitant about the value of encouraging consumers to create it. Certain risks associated with this type of UGC include creators disseminating false information about a product, exaggerating its advantages, or presenting a misleading representation of the brand or company. [63]

Criticism

The term "user-generated content" itself has drawn criticism. Concerns have been raised regarding fairness, quality, [65] privacy, [66] the sustainable availability of creative work, and legal issues, particularly those pertaining to intellectual property rights such as copyrights.

Some commentators argue that the term "user" imposes an illusory or unproductive distinction between different types of "publishers," exclusively characterizing those who operate on a significantly smaller scale than traditional mass-media outlets or who work without remuneration. [67] This classification is seen by some as perpetuating an unfair disparity, a distinction that is becoming increasingly blurred due to the widespread availability and affordability of production and publication tools. A more fitting descriptor, [ according to whom? ], might be to offer optional terms that better encapsulate the spirit and nature of such work, such as EGC (Entrepreneurial Generated Content). [ citation needed ]

Occasionally, creative works produced by individuals are lost due to the limited or non-existent mechanisms for preserving creations when a UGC website service ceases operation. The closure of the Disney massively multiplayer online game "VMK" serves as one such example. VMK, like many games, featured items traded between users, some of which were rare. Players could utilize these items to construct their own rooms, avatars, and pin lanyards. The site shut down on May 21, 2008. While the entirety of such work may be lost, its essence can sometimes be preserved through users copying text and media to their personal computers or recording live-action or animated scenes using screen capture software before uploading them elsewhere. Long before the advent of the Web, creative works were simply lost or went out of print and disappeared from history unless individuals took measures to keep them in personal collections. [ citation needed ]

Another criticized aspect is the vast array of user-generated product and service reviews that can, at times, be misleading to consumers online. A study conducted at Cornell University found that an estimated 1 to 6 percent of positive user-generated online hotel reviews are fabricated. [68]

A further concern regarding platforms heavily reliant on UGC, such as Twitter and Facebook, is the ease with which individuals holding similar opinions and interests can find each other, as well as how effectively these platforms facilitate the creation of networks or closed groups. [69] While the strength of these services lies in their ability to broaden horizons through knowledge sharing and connecting people globally, these platforms also make it remarkably simple to connect solely with a restricted sample of individuals holding similar views (see Filter bubble). [70]

There is also debate surrounding whether contributors to a platform should be compensated for their content. In 2015, a group of 18 prominent Vine content creators attempted to negotiate a deal with Vine representatives for a $1.2 million contract guaranteeing 12 videos per month. [71] This negotiation proved unsuccessful.

Legal Issues

The capacity for services to accept user-generated content introduces a spectrum of legal concerns, ranging from broad implications to specific local statutes. Generally, identifying the perpetrator of an online offense can be challenging, as many individuals employ pseudonyms or maintain anonymity. While tracing can sometimes be achieved, in scenarios like a public coffee shop, pinpointing the exact user responsible can be impossible. Issues also arise concerning extremely harmful, yet not explicitly illegal, acts. For instance, the posting of content that incites a person's suicide. This constitutes a criminal offense if proof exists "beyond reasonable doubt," though outcomes can vary depending on the specific circumstances. [72] Depending on the jurisdiction, specific laws govern Web 2.0 interactions. In the United States, the "Section 230" exemptions within the Communications Decency Act stipulate that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This clause effectively grants broad immunity to websites hosting user-generated content that is defamatory, deceptive, or otherwise harmful, even if the operator is aware of the harmful third-party content and chooses not to remove it. An exception to this general rule may apply if a website explicitly promises to remove the content and subsequently fails to do so. [73]

Copyright Laws

Copyright laws are also a significant factor in relation to user-generated content, as users may utilize these services to upload works—particularly videos—for which they lack sufficient rights to distribute. In numerous instances, the use of such materials may be covered under local "fair use" doctrines, especially if the material's utilization is transformative. [74] Local laws also vary regarding liability for any resultant copyright infringements stemming from user-generated content. In the United States, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)—a component of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)—outlines "safe harbor" provisions for "online service providers" as defined by the act. These provisions grant immunity from secondary liability for the copyright-infringing actions of their users, provided they promptly remove access to allegedly infringing materials upon receiving a notice from a copyright holder or registered agent and do not possess actual knowledge that their service is being utilized for infringing activities. [75] [76]

In the UK, the Defamation Act of 1996 states that individuals who are not the author, editor, or publisher, and were unaware of the situation, are not subject to conviction. Furthermore, ISPs are not considered authors, editors, or publishers and cannot be held responsible for individuals over whom they have no "effective control." Similar to the DMCA, once an ISP becomes aware of the content, it must be deleted immediately. [72] The European Union's approach is horizontal, addressing civil and criminal liability issues under the Electronic Commerce Directive. Section 4 specifically addresses the liability of ISPs operating "mere conduit" services, caching, and web hosting services. [77]

Research

A study conducted on YouTube in 2007, analyzing one of its video-on-demand systems, observed a reduction in video length compared to non-UGC content, alongside a rapid production rate. User behavior was identified as a key driver perpetuating UGC. The P2P (peer-to-peer) model was studied and found to offer significant benefits to the system. The study also examined the impact of content aliasing, the sharing of multiple copies, and illegal uploads. [78]

In 2012, research conducted at York University in Ontario resulted in a proposed framework for comparing brand-related UGC and understanding how a company's strategy could influence brand sentiment across various social media channels, including YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. The three scholars involved in this study examined two clothing brands: Lulu Lemon and American Apparel. The key difference was Lulu Lemon's substantial social media following versus American Apparel's complete lack thereof. Unsurprisingly, Lulu Lemon garnered significantly more positive contributions compared to American Apparel, which received fewer positive mentions. Lulu Lemon exhibited three times the number of positive contributions (64 percent versus 22 percent for American Apparel) on Twitter, while on Facebook and YouTube, their contribution numbers were roughly equivalent. This data strongly suggests that social media presence can indeed influence brand perception, typically in a more favorable light. [79] A study by Dhar and Chang, published in 2007, found a positive correlation between the volume of blog posts about a music album and its subsequent sales. [80]

See also

General sources

  • This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text sourced from World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018, page 202, University of Oxford, UNESCO.

Citations

• ^ a b Naab, T. K; Sehl, A (2017). "Studies of user-generated content: A systematic review". Journalism. 18 (10): 1256–1273. doi:10.1177/1464884916673557.

• ^ • Roma, Paolo; Aloini, Davide (1 March 2019). "How does brand-related user-generated content differ across social media? Evidence reloaded". Journal of Business Research. 96: 322–339. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.055. hdl:11568/1000779. ISSN:0148-2963.

• ^ • Kang, Kai; Lu, Jinxuan; Guo, Lingyun; Li, Wenlu (1 February 2021). "The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer engagement behavior through tie strength: Evidence from live streaming commerce platforms". International Journal of Information Management. 56: 102251. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102251. ISSN:0268-4012.

• ^ • Krumm, John; Davies, Nigel; Narayanaswami, Chandra (October 2008). "User-Generated Content". IEEE Pervasive Computing. 7 (4): 10–11. Bibcode:2008IPCom...7d8.85K. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2008.85. ISSN:1558-2590.

• ^ a b • Berthon, Pierre; Pitt, Leyland; Kietzmann, Jan; McCarthy, Ian P. (August 2015). "CGIP: Managing Consumer-Generated Intellectual Property". California Management Review. 57 (4): 43–62. doi:10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.43. ISSN:0008-1256. S2CID:12234496.

• ^ a b c • "The BBC May be the First Mainstream Industrial Medium to Adopt UCG". BBC News. 4 July 2006. Retrieved 2 April 2017.

• ^ a b • Lev Grossman (13 December 2006). "You – Yes, You – Are TIME's Person of the Year". Time. Retrieved 20 December 2012.

• ^ • "iReport". CNN.

• ^ • Rauchfleisch, Adrian; Artho, Xenia; Metag, Julia; Post, Senja; Schäfer, Mike S. (July 2017). "How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises. Analyzing Twitter communication during the Brussels attacks". Social Media + Society. 3 (3): 205630511771788. doi:10.1177/2056305117717888. ISSN:2056-3051.

• ^ • Kim, Mikyoung; Song, Doori (2 January 2018). "When brand-related UGC induces effectiveness on social media: the role of content sponsorship and content type". International Journal of Advertising. 37 (1): 105–124. doi:10.1080/02650487.2017.1349031. ISSN:0265-0487.

• ^ • Liu, Xia; Burns, Alvin C.; Hou, Yingjian (3 April 2017). "An Investigation of Brand-Related User-Generated Content on Twitter". Journal of Advertising. 46 (2): 236–247. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1297273. ISSN:0091-3367.

• ^ • Zhuang, W; Zeng, Q; Zhang, Y; Liu, C; Fan, W (2023). "What makes user-generated content more helpful on social media platforms? Insights from creator interactivity perspective". Information Processing & Management. 60 (2) 103201. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103201. ISSN:0306-4573.

• ^ • Lou, Chen; Yuan, Shupei (2 January 2019). "Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media". Journal of Interactive Advertising. 19 (1): 58–73. doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501. ISSN:1525-2019.

• ^ • Schivinski, Bruno; Muntinga, Daan G.; Pontes, Halley M.; Lukasik, Przemyslaw (10 February 2019). "Influencing COBRAs: the effects of brand equity on the consumer's propensity to engage with brand-related content on social media" (PDF). Journal of Strategic Marketing. 29: 1–23. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2019.1572641. ISSN:0965-254X. S2CID:169721474.

• ^ • Klausen, Jytte (9 December 2014). "Tweeting the Jihad : Social Media Networks of Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 38 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/1057610x.2014.974948. hdl:10192/28992. ISSN:1057-610X. S2CID:145585333.

• ^ • Battelle, John (5 December 2006). "Packaged Goods Media vs. Conversational Media, Part One (Updated)". Retrieved 23 August 2011.

• ^ a b • Pavlik, John (2014). Converging Media (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 20, 140. ISBN:978-0-19-934230-3.

• ^ • "Principles for User Generated Content Services". UGCprinciples.com. Retrieved 24 November 2014.

• ^ Jenkins, Henry (SODA), "Convergence Culture", New York University Press, New York

• ^ • "Working Party on the Information Economy – Participative Web: User-Created Content" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 December 2010.

• ^ • OECD (2007). Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. doi:10.1787/9789264037472-en. ISBN:978-92-64-03746-5.

• ^ Cisco Systems. 201. The Zettabyte Era: Trends and Analysis.

• ^ Internet Live Stats. 2017. Total number of websites.

• ^ TechCrunch. 2020. Facebook hits 2.5B users in Q4 but shares sink from slow profits. TechCrunch. Available at techcrunch.com Accessed 18 February 2020.

• ^ • World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018. UNESCO. 2018. p. 202.

• ^ Wikimedia Foundation. 2017. Wikipedia Statistics. Available at stats.wikimedia.org Archived 15 May 2015 at archive.today.

• ^ • Graham, Mark; Staumann, Ralph K.; Hogan, Bernie (2015). "Digital Divisions of Labor and Informational Magnetism: Mapping Participation in Wikipedia". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 105 (6): 1158–1178.

• ^ • tvochannel (8 June 2012). Simon Winchester on His Book The Meaning of Everything. Archived from the original on 19 December 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2017.

• ^ • "Transcript: Simon Winchester on his book The Meaning of Everything". TVO.org. 23 July 2005.

• ^ • Matthew, Crick (2016). Power, Surveillance, and Culture in YouTube™'s Digital Sphere. IGI Global. pp. 36–37. ISBN:978-1-4666-9856-7.

• ^ Toluna: • "Mixing Financial, Social and Fun Incentives for Social Voting" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 July 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2010.

• ^ • Halliday, Sue Vaux (1 January 2016). "User-generated content about brands: Understanding its creators and consumers". Journal of Business Research. 69 (1): 137–144. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.027. hdl:2299/16723. ISSN:0148-2963.

• ^ • Nam, Kevin Kyung; Ackerman, Mark S.; Adamic, Lada A. (4 April 2009). "Questions in, knowledge in?: A study of naver's question answering community". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '09. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 779–788. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518821. ISBN:978-1-60558-246-7.

• ^ • Chen, Yan; Harper, F. Maxwell; Konstan, Joseph; Li, Sherry Xin (1 September 2010). "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens". American Economic Review. 100 (4): 1358–1398. doi:10.1257/aer.100.4.1358. ISSN:0002-8282.

• ^ • Park, Do-Hyung; Lee, Sungwook (27 August 2021). "UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea". Sustainability. 13 (17): 9644. Bibcode:2021Sust...13.9644P. doi:10.3390/su13179644. ISSN:2071-1050.

• ^ wisdump: • "The Overjustification Effect and User Generated Content". Archived from the original on 15 March 2010. Retrieved 3 March 2010.

• ^ • "Offerpop Survey Identifies Gaps between How Consumers and Marketers Think about User-Generated Content". Archived from the original on 29 January 2025. Retrieved 27 February 2025.

• ^ a b • Momeni, E.; Cardie, C.; Diakopoulos, N. (2016). "A Survey on Assessment and Ranking Methodologies for User-Generated Content on the Web". ACM Computing Surveys. 48 (3): 41. doi:10.1145/2811282. S2CID:6302315.

• ^ • Godwin-Jones, Robert (May 2003). "Blogs and Wikis: Environments for online collaboration" (PDF). Language Learning & Technology. 7 (2): 12–16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 April 2019. Retrieved 21 April 2019.

• ^ • Street, Francesca (27 June 2017). "World's top 10 travel influencers, according to Forbes". CNN. Retrieved 30 April 2019.

• ^ • "How Ray Chan started 9GAG, and a career in fun". Meld Magazine – Melbourne's international student news website. 24 July 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2016.

• ^ • "Tech in Asia – Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". techinasia.com. Retrieved 3 January 2016.

• ^ • York, Jillian C. (27 March 2021). "Silicon Valley's puritanical war on sex". Salon.com. Retrieved 27 March 2021.

• ^ • Anderson, Simon P.; Waldfogel, Joel; Strömberg, David, eds. (2016). Handbook of media economics. Volume 1B. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science. ISBN:978-0-444-63691-1. OCLC:932322941. [ page needed ]

• ^ You're in charge! – From vital patches to game cancellations, players are often intimately involved. by Christian Donlan on Eurogamer "Supreme Commander fans released Forged Alliance Forever and gave the game the online client it could otherwise only dream of. I haven't played it much, but I still got a tear in my eye when I read about the extents these coders had gone to. There's nothing quite so wonderful to witness as love, and this is surely love of the very purest order. [...] SupCom guys resurrect a series whose publisher had just gone under." (2 November 2013)

• ^ • Jagneaux, David (18 August 2014). "The 5 Best User Generated Content Systems in MMOs". MMORPG.com. Cyber Creations Inc. Retrieved 19 August 2014.

• ^ Andrew Lavalee Now, Virtual Fashion Second Life Designers Make Real Money Creating Clothes For Simulation Game's Players , The Wall Street Journal, 22 September 2006

• ^ • Garst, Aron (7 April 2023). "Fortnite and Roblox are dueling for the future of user-built games". The Verge. Retrieved 16 August 2025.

• ^ • Lee, Mark J. W.; McLoughlin, Catherine (October 2007). "Teaching and Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: Empowering Students through Learner-Generated Content". International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Archived from the original on 7 February 2008. Retrieved 27 May 2018.

• ^ a b • Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody. The Penguin Press.

• ^ • Manikonda, Lydia; Hu, Yuheng; Kambhampati, Subbarao (29 October 2014). Analyzing User Activities, Demographics, Social Network Structure and User-Generated Content on Instagram. OCLC:1106208719.

• ^ • "Chapter 21 Discussing the Potential of Crowdsourced Geographic Information for Urban Areas Monitoring Using the Panoramio Initiative: A Case Study in Rome, Italy". European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information. Ubiquity Press. 2016. ISBN:978-1-909188-79-2. JSTOR:j.ctv3t5r09.

• ^ • Adeloye, David; Makurumidze, Kudzai; Sarfo, Christian (2 October 2022). "User-generated videos and tourists' intention to visit". Anatolia. 33 (4): 658–671. doi:10.1080/13032917.2021.1986082.

• ^ • Kennedy, Ümit (22 October 2025). "The Value of Vlogs: Past, Present, and Future". M/C Journal. 28 (4). doi:10.5204/mcj.3228.

• ^ • Thurman, Neil (1 February 2008). "Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user-generated content initiatives by online news media" (PDF). New Media & Society. 10 (1): 139–157. doi:10.1177/1461444807085325. S2CID:516873.

• ^ • Zeng, Michael A.; Dennstedt, Bianca; Koller, Hans (6 November 2016). "Democratizing Journalism – How User-Generated Content and User Communities Affect Publishers' Business Models". Creativity and Innovation Management. 25 (5): 536–551. doi:10.1111/caim.12199. S2CID:157677395.

• ^ • "Journalism changed forever by user-generated content". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2 September 2020.

• ^ • "How Newsrooms Use User Generated Content". Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved 2 September 2020.

• ^ • Saura, Jose Ramon; Bennett, Dag R. (2019). "A Three-Stage method for Data Text Mining: Using UGC in Business Intelligence Analysis". Symmetry. 11 (4): 519. Bibcode:2019Symm...11..519S. doi:10.3390/sym11040519. ISSN:2073-8994.

• ^ • David Hunegnaw (6 January 2017). "The Future of User-Generated Content is Owned". Retrieved 2 April 2016.

• ^ • Saura, Jose Ramon; Reyes-Menendez, Ana; Palos-Sanchez, Pedro; Filipe, Ferrão (30 September 2019). "Discovering UGC Communities to Drive Marketing Strategies: Leveraging Data Visualization". Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being. 7 (3): 261–272. ISSN:2795-5044.

• ^ • Romero-Rodriguez, Luis M.; Castillo-Abdul, Bárbara (2023). "Toward state-of-the-art on social marketing research in user-generated content (UGC) and influencers". Journal of Management Development. 42 (6): 425–435. doi:10.1108/JMD-11-2022-0285. ISSN:0262-1711.

• ^ a b c • Romero-Rodriguez, Luis M.; Castillo-Abdul, Bárbara (24 August 2023). "Toward state-of-the-art on social marketing research in user-generated content (UGC) and influencers". Journal of Management Development. 42 (6): 425–435. doi:10.1108/JMD-11-2022-0285. ISSN:0262-1711.

• ^ • Aras, Ajit; Xu, Xin; Peñaloza, Lisa (February 2022). "Deciphering B2B marketers' concerns in marketing 'with' clients: Further insights into how B2B characteristics foster and inhibit UGC generation and its leverage". Industrial Marketing Management. 101: 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.11.009.

• ^ • Lukyanenko, Roman; Parsons, Jeffrey; Wiersma, Yolanda (2014). "The IQ of the Crowd: Understanding and Improving Information Quality in Structured User-Generated Content". Information Systems Research. 25 (4): 669–689. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0537.

• ^ • Memarovic, Nemanja (2015). "Public Photos, Private Concerns: Uncovering Privacy Concerns of User Generated Content Created Through Networked Public Displays" (PDF). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PDF). pp. 171–177. doi:10.1145/2757710.2757739. ISBN:978-1-4503-3608-6. S2CID:17746880.

• ^ • Kiss, Jemima (3 January 2007). "Guardian Unlimited website: The trouble with user generated content". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2007.

• ^ • White, Martha C. (7 April 2014). "Be Wary of Awesome and Scathing Online Reviews". NBC News. Retrieved 25 November 2014.

• ^ • Du, Siying; Gregory, Steve (2016). "The Echo Chamber Effect in Twitter: Does community polarization increase?". Complex Networks & Their Applications V. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Vol. 693. Springer, Cham. pp. 373–378. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50901-3_30. ISBN:978-3-319-50900-6.

• ^ • Bowell, Tracy (12 May 2017). "Response to the editorial 'Education in a post-truth world'". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 49 (6): 582–585. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1288805. ISSN:0013-1857.

• ^ • Kircher, Madison Malone (31 October 2016). "Could Paying Millions of Dollars to Creators Have Saved Vine?". Intelligencer. Retrieved 15 April 2020.

• ^ a b • George, Carlisle; Scerri, Jackie (24 April 2018). "Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content: Legal Challenges in the New Frontier". Journal of Information, Law and Technology.

• ^ • "Is 'go away' the best response to complaints about user-generated content?". Computerworld. 23 July 2010. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.

• ^ • "Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 30 October 2007. Retrieved 22 July 2014.

• ^ • "Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?". BBC News. London. 21 May 2010. Retrieved 5 February 2012.

• ^ • Anderson, Nate (10 November 2011). "Why the feds smashed Megaupload". Ars Technica. Retrieved 22 January 2012.

• ^ • "Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement" (PDF). WIPO. Retrieved 22 July 2014.

• ^ Cha Meeyoung et al. "I tube, you tube, we tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system." Internet Measurement Conference (2007).

• ^ • Smith, Andrew; Fischer, Eileen; Yongjian, Chen (2012). "How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?". Journal of Interactive Marketing. 26 (2): 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002.

• ^ • Dhar, Vasant; Chang, Elaine (November 2009). "Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-Generated Content on Music Sales". Journal of Interactive Marketing. 23 (4): 300–307. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.004. S2CID:245880964.

External links

  • Scholia has a profile for user-generated content (Q579716).
  • OECD study on the Participative Web: User Generated Content
  • A Bigger Bang – an overview of the UGC trend on the Web in 2006
  • Branding in the Age of Social Media

Authority control databases

  • National:
    • United States
    • Japan
    • Israel
  • Other:
    • Yale LUX