skip to main content
research-article

Information Sharing by Viewers Via Second Screens for In-Real-Life Events

Published:10 March 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The use of second screen devices with social media facilitates conversational interaction concerning broadcast media events, creating what we refer to as the social soundtrack. In this research, we evaluate the change of the Super Bowl XLIX social soundtrack across three social media platforms on the topical categories of commercials, music, and game at three game phases (Pre, During, and Post). We perform statistical analysis on more than 3M, 800K, and 50K posts from Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr, respectively. Findings show that the volume of posts in the During phase is fewer compared to Pre and Post phases; however, the hourly mean in the During phase is considerably higher than it is in the other two phases. We identify the predominant phase and category of interaction across all three social media sites. We also determine the significance of change in absolute scale across the Super Bowl categories (commercials, music, game) and in both absolute and relative scales across Super Bowl phases (Pre, During, Post) for the three social network platforms (Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram). Results show that significant phase-category relationships exist for all three social networks. The results identify the During phase as the predominant one for all three categories on all social media sites with respect to the absolute volume of conversations in a continuous scale. From the relative volume perspective, the During phase is highest for the music category for most social networks. For the commercials and game categories, however, the Post phase is higher than the During phase for Twitter and Instagram, respectively. Regarding category identification, the game category is the highest for Twitter and Instagram but not for Tumblr, which has dominant peaks for music and/or commercials in all three phases. It is apparent that different social media platforms offer various phase and category affordances. These results are important in identifying the influence that second screen technology has on information sharing across different social media platforms and indicates that the viewer role is transitioning from passive to more active.

References

  1. G. Abdulla, B. Liu, and E. Fox. 1998. Searching the World-Wide Web: Implications from studying different user behavior. In Proceedings of the World Conference of the World Wide Web, Internet, and Intranet, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ad Age Staff. 2015. Super Bowl XLIX Ad Chart: Who Bought Commercials in Super Bowl 2015. Ad Age. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/super-bowl-xlix-ad-chart-buying-big-game-commercials/295841/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Damien Alliez. 2008. Adapt TV paradigms to UGC by importing social networks. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Changing Television Environments (EuroITV’08). 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous. 2015. 2015 Super Bowl commercials, news related to the 2015 Super Bowl . . . About the Game and the More Important Bit, the Commercials.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jose Ashford and Craig LeCroy. 2009. Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective. Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Eytan Bakshy, Itamar Rosenn, Cameron Marlow, and Lada Adamic. 2012. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, NY, 519--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Santosh Basapur, Hiren Mandalia, Shirley Chaysinh, Young Lee, Narayanan Venkitaraman, and Crysta Metcalf. 2012. FANFEEDS: Evaluation of socially generated information feed on second screen as a TV show companion. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video. ACM, New York, NY, 87--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Adrian Benton and Shawndra Hill. 2012. The spoiler effect?: Designing social TV content that promotes ongoing WOM. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems and Technology (INFORMS’12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Roi Blanco, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2015. IntoNews: Online news retrieval using closed captions. Information Processing and Management 51, 148--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Anna Van Cauwenberge, Gabi Schaap, and Rob Van Roy. 2014. TV no longer commands our full attention: Effects of second-screen viewing and task relevance on cognitive load and learning from news. Computers in Human Behavior 38, 100--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yi Chang, Lei Tang, Yoshiyuki Inagaki, and Yan Liu. 2014. What is Tumblr: A statistical overview and comparison. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 16, 21--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Cédric Courtois and Evelien D’heer. 2012. Second screen applications and tablet users: Constellation, awareness, experience, and interest. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video. ACM, New York, NY, 153--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Simon Dumenco. 2012. Five amazing facts about social media and the Super Bowl. Ad Age. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/amazing-facts-social-media-super-bowl/232545/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Paul Farhi. 2014. The rules of the Super Bowl advertising game. Washington Post Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alexandre Fleury, Jakob Schou Pedersen, Mai Baunstrup, and Lars Bo Larsen. 2012. Interactive TV: Interaction and control in second-screen TV consumption. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video (EuroITV’12). 104--107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mike Florio. 2014. NFL wants Super Bowl halftime performers to pay for the privilege. Pro Football Talk. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/19/nfl-wants-super-bowl-halftime-performers-to-pay-for-the-privilege/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David Gianatasio. 2015a. Pepsi's music chief makes the Super Bowl sing: On the brand's ties with artists like Katy Perry. Adweek. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/pepsis-music-chief-makes-super-bowl-sing-162515.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. David Gianatasio. 2015b. Why the Super Bowl halftime show has become the biggest ad of all: Katy perry, brands poised to win big. Adweek. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.adweek.com/news/television/why-super-bowl-halftime-show-has-become-biggest-ad-all-162528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fabio Giglietto and Donatella Selva. 2104. Second screen and participation: A content analysis on a full season dataset of tweets. Journal of Communication 64, 260--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jeremy A. Greene, Niteesh K. Choudhry, Elaine Kilabuk, and William H. Shrank. 2011. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: A qualitative evaluation of communication with facebook. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26, 287--292. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Pedro Calais Guerra, Wagner Meira Jr., and Claire Cardie. 2014. Sentiment analysis on evolving social streams: How self-report imbalances can help. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’14). ACM, New York, NY, 443--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Yuheng Hu, Lydia Manikonda, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2014. What we instagram: A first analysis of Instagram photo content and user types. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’14). 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Brett Hutchins and Janine Mikosza. 2010. The Web 2.0 olympics athlete blogging, social networking and policy contradictions at the 2008 Beijing games. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 16, 279--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Bernard J. Jansen, Kate Sobel, and Geoff Cook. 2011. Classifying ecommerce information sharing behaviour by youths on social networking sites. Journal of Information Science 37, 120--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Bernard J. Jansen, Mimi Zhang, Kate Sobel, and Abdur Chowdury. 2009. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, 2169--2188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. James E. Johnson and Donghun Lee. 2011. Super Bowl commercial and game consumption for the college demographic. Sport Journal. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://thesportjournal.org/article/super-bowl-commercial-and-game-consumption-for-the-college-demographic/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Hyeoncheol Lee, Yanggon Kim Kim, Kwangmi K. O. Kim, and Youngsub Han. 2014. Sports and social media: Twitter usage patterns during the 2013 Super Bowl broadcast. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology, and Design. 250--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Amanda Lenhart. 2012. Teens, smartphones and texting. In Pew Internet and American Life Project Pew Research, 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Julien Leroy, François Rocca, Matei Mancas, and Bernard Gosselin. 2013. Second screen interaction: An approach to infer TV watcher's interest using 3D head pose estimation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’13). 465--468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Yu-Ru Lin, Drew Margolin, Brian Keegan, and David Lazer. 2013. Voices of victory: A computational focus group framework for tracking opinion shift in real time. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’13). 737--748. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Bruce R. Lindsay. 2011. Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. In CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ivy L. B. Liu, Christy M. K. Cheung, and Matthew K. O. Lee. 2015. User satisfaction with microblogging: Information dissemination versus social networking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 56--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Mark Lochrie and Paul Coulton. 2012. Sharing the viewing experience through second screens. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video. ACM, New York, NY, 199--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Hao Ma, Dengyong Zhou, Chao Liu, Michael R. Lyu, and Irwin King. 2011. Recommender systems with social regularization. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’11). ACM, New York, NY, 287--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ryan Mathre. 2014. Seattle Seahawk and Super Bowl champion Derrick Coleman becomes Starkey Hearing Technologies Hearing Ambassador. BusinessWire. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140326006082/en/Seattle-Seahawk-Super-Bowl-Champion-Derrick-Coleman.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Partha Mukherjee and Bernard J. Jansen. 2014. Social TV and the social soundtrack: Significance of second screen interaction during television viewing. In Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction, J. Salerno, S. J. Yang, D. Nau, and S. K. Chai, (Eds.). Springer, 317--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Partha Mukherjee and Bernard J. Jansen. 2015a. Analyzing second screen based social soundtrack of TV viewers from diverse cultural settings. In Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction, N. Agarwal, K. Xu, and N. Osgood, (Eds.). Springer, 375--380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Partha Mukherjee and Bernard J. Jansen. 2015b. Evaluating pattern for group interactions using second screens. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Computing, Networking, and Communications (ICNC’15). 433--437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Partha Mukherjee and Bernard J. Jansen. 2015c. Analyzing the social soundtrack from second screens before, during, and after real-life events. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT’15). 1--6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Partha Mukherjee and Bernard J. Jansen. 2016. Second screen interaction analysis for IRL events: Phase-category investigation of the Super Bowl 2015 social soundtrack. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS’16). 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Partha Mukherjee, Jian-Syuan Wong, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2014. Patterns of social media conversations using second screens. In Proceedings of the 2014 BigData/SocialCom/CyberSecurity Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanghee Oh and Sue Yeon Syn. 2015. Motivations for sharing information and social support in social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 2045--2060. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Antti Oulasvirta, Tye Rattenbury, Lingyi Ma, and Eeva Raita. 2012. Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 105--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Leysia Palen. 2008. Online social media in crisis events. Educause Quarterly 31, 76--78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Kevin Patra. 2015. Super Bowl XLIX is most-watched show in U.S. history. NFL. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000467823/article/super-bowl-xlix-is-mostwatched-show-in-us-history.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Julie Ruvolo. 2014. Embedded with Adidas’ social media team at the World Cup in Rio: Striving to be the most talked-about brand at the tournament. Ad Age. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://adage.com/article/global-news/embedded-adidas-social-media-team-world-cup/294016/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Takeshi Sakaki, Makoto Okazaki, and Yutaka Matsuo. 2010. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’10). ACM, New York, NY, 851--860. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. T. Y. Schalter. 2015. Super Bowl XLIX: Power ranking the top 25 players in this year's game. Bleacher report. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2343013-super-bowl-xlix-power-ranking-the-top-25-players-in-this-years-game.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Arno Scharl, Alexander Ubmann-Haidvogel, Alistair Jones, Daniel Fischl, Ruslan Kamolov, Albert Weichselbraun, and Walter Rafelsberger. 2016. Analyzing the public discourse on works of fiction—detection and visualization of emotion in online coverage about HBO's game of thrones. Information Processing and Management 52, 129--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Bruno Schivinski and Dariusz Dabrowski. 2014. The effect of social media communication on consumer perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications 22, 189--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Hyeonjeong Shin, Changhyun Byun, and Hyeoncheol Lee. 2015. The influence of social media: Twitter usage pattern during the 2014 Super Bowl game. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering 10, 109--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Sei-Ching Joanna Sin. 2015. Social media and problematic everyday life information-seeking outcomes: Differences across use frequency, gender, and problem-solving styles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 1793--1807. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Tang Tang and Roger Cooper. 2012. Gender, sports, and new media: Predictors of viewing during the 2008 Beijing olympics. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 56, 75--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Hao Wang, Dogan Can, Abe Kazemzadeh, François Bar, and Shrikanth Narayanan. 2012. A system for real-time Twitter sentiment analysis of 2012 US presidential election cycle. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations. 115--120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Wikipedia. 2015a. List of Super Bowl Halftime Shows. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_halftime_shows.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Wikipedia. 2015b. Super Bowl XLIX Halftime Show. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX_halftime_show.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Jo Williams and Susan J. Chinn. 2010. Meeting relationship-marketing goals through social media: A conceptual model for sport marketers. International Journal of Sport Communication 3, 422--437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Shaomei Wu, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’11) ACM, New York, NY, 705--714. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Mimi Zhang, Bernard J. Jansen, and Abdur Chowdhury. 2011. Business engagement on Twitter: A path analysis. Electronic Markets 21, 161--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Siqi Zhao, Lin Zhong, Jehan Wickramasuriya, and Venu Vasudevan. 2011. Analyzing Twitter for social TV: Sentiment extraction for sports. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Future of Television (FutureTV’11). 11--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Information Sharing by Viewers Via Second Screens for In-Real-Life Events

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!