Information Behavior on Video on Demand Services: User Motives and Their Selection Criteria for Content
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-written and the results are presented clearly with an appropriate reporting approach. The prior work surveyed in the Introduction is relevant although on lines 64-72 on pg 2, the authors could consider the relevance of these papers:
https://doi.org/10.1145/2954930
https://doi.org/10.1145/1378889.1378924
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0081
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/623742
which are part of the existing literature on addressing the issue: “We know very little about how viewers orient themselves and what motives guide them when it comes to selecting specific media content on VoD”
In lines 127-144 the paper summarises the questions in the survey: it would be useful to see the survey as presented to the participants: possibly as Supplementary Information. Understanding the full context of a survey is always useful when considering the results. Similarly could the SPSS script syntax be provided as Supplementary Information?
The result presentation is solid and the Tables and Figures are clear. The Discussion (Section 4) is basically fine, but would benefit from a stronger connection back to the surveyed literature. Is it possible to triangulate any of the survey results back to any of the other results derived from other methods?
The Abstract doesn’t really reflect the main findings that well - maybe consider rephrasing the last two sentences of the Abstract.
Overall, this is a solid piece of work that provides some limited additional insight into users’ video behaviour.
Minor points:
Align numbers by place value in Tables (e.g. Table 1) - don’t simply centre them.
211: “although a clear trend was poorly recognizable” - this is confusing language. I don’t think “poorly” is the right word. Try to rephrase this.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The paper is well-written and the results are presented clearly with an appropriate reporting approach. The prior work surveyed in the Introduction is relevant although on lines 64-72 on pg 2, the authors could consider the relevance of these papers:
https://doi.org/10.1145/2954930
https://doi.org/10.1145/1378889.1378924
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0081
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/623742
which are part of the existing literature on addressing the issue: “We know very little about how viewers orient themselves and what motives guide them when it comes to selecting specific media content on VoD”
All papers cited:
We found lots of studies on VoD, but only few on information behavior concerning VoD [e.g., 13-17] and also few about content selection on VoD platforms [18-21].
- Kofler, C.; Larson, M.; Hanjalic, A. User intent in multimedia search: A survey of the state of the art and future challenges. ACM Comp. Surv. 2016, 49(2), art. no. 36.
- Dogruel, L. Cross-cultural differences in movie selection. Decision-making of German, U.S., and Singaporean media users for video-on-demand movies. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2018, 30(2), 115-127.
- Cunningham, S.J.; Nichols, D.M. How people find videos. In JCDL ’08. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM: New York, NY, 2008, 201-210.
- Albassam, S.A.A.; Ruthven, I. Users’ relevance criteria for videos in leisure contexts, J. Doc., 2018, 74(1), 62-79.
- Foster, D. Factors Influencing the Popularity of YouTube Videos and Users’ Decisions to Watch them. PhD Thesis, Univ. of Wolverhampton, School of Mathematics and Computing, 2020.
In lines 127-144 the paper summarises the questions in the survey: it would be useful to see the survey as presented to the participants: possibly as Supplementary Information. Understanding the full context of a survey is always useful when considering the results. Similarly could the SPSS script syntax be provided as Supplementary Information?
Yes: We will add the questionnaire as Supplementary Information.
The result presentation is solid and the Tables and Figures are clear. The Discussion (Section 4) is basically fine, but would benefit from a stronger connection back to the surveyed literature. Is it possible to triangulate any of the survey results back to any of the other results derived from other methods?
Added in the Discussion paragraph:
These results are in line with Foster’s for YouTube. He [21, p. 123] concludes, “(a) that users are often prepared to follow suggestions from friends, who they may trust to recommend relevant content, and (b) users are probably indirectly influenced by anonymous other YouTube users through the algorithms that select videos for them to watch based on their search or previous watching history.”
The Abstract doesn’t really reflect the main findings that well - maybe consider rephrasing the last two sentences of the Abstract.
New abstract (another reviewer recommended to apply the IMRaD structure):
Abstract: Introduction. Are viewers of video-on-demand (VoD) services more intrinsically (i.e., preferentially self-determined) or extrinsically (i.e., externally determined) motivated when selecting movies and series? For extrinsic motivation, we distinguish between algorithmically generated suggestions from the services and personal recommendations from other users. Methods. We empirically investigated the information behavior in video streaming services of users from German-speaking countries with the help of an online survey (N = 1,258). Results. Active VoD users watch videos online mainly on a daily basis. They are externally determined in the selection of their videos both by algorithmically generated recommendations from the services and―to a higher extent―from personal suggestions from acquaintances, friends, and relatives. However, there is a clear indication that intrinsic motivation plays a major role in the selection of videos. Discussion. Users of VoD services move in a cycle between machine-generated recommendations, suggestions, and exchange of opinions from and with other people, and self-determined information behavior.
Overall, this is a solid piece of work that provides some limited additional insight into users’ video behaviour.
Minor points:
Align numbers by place value in Tables (e.g. Table 1) - don’t simply centre them.
Format in Tables 1 and 2 changed.
211: “although a clear trend was poorly recognizable” - this is confusing language. I don’t think “poorly” is the right word. Try to rephrase this.
New sentence: Suggestions from the video streaming services on their platforms were received rather frequently by the participants, although a clear trend was hardly recognizable.
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions! We are glad to inform you that we were able to consider all your hints in our paper.
Best,
Jennifer, Isabelle, and Wolf
Reviewer 2 Report
A very nice paper. Some small points:
The coverage of the literature is good. The 3rd edition of Case 'Looking for Information' is cited, would it not be better to cite the most recent (4th) edition?
Why was no ethical review board involved? This seems unusual. The authors seem to have handled the situation correctly, but it may be worth a note.
The survey was carried out in 2019. It might be interesting to speculate if behaviour might have changed since due to the Covid pandemic.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
A very nice paper. Some small points:
The coverage of the literature is good. The 3rd edition of Case 'Looking for Information' is cited, would it not be better to cite the most recent (4th) edition?
Of course. Corrected:
- Case, D.O.; Given, L.M. Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior, 4th ed.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2016.
Why was no ethical review board involved? This seems unusual. The authors seem to have handled the situation correctly, but it may be worth a note.
There was not such a board at our faculty (only the faculty of medicine had ethical review boards). In Germany, there was no obligation to consult an ethical review board. But this seems to change in the last time.
Modified sentence: As there did not exist an ethical review board in our faculty at the time our study started, we had to determine the ethical harmlessness of the research project ourselves and followed suggestions for ethical research applying online surveys such as consent, risk, privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, and autonomy [36].
The survey was carried out in 2019. It might be interesting to speculate if behaviour might have changed since due to the Covid pandemic.
New sentence in the Discussion paragraph:
The survey was carried out in 2019. It might be interesting to study if information behavior on VoD services might have changed since due to new players (as, for instance, Disney+) or to new situations (as the Covid pandemic).
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions! We are glad to inform you that we were able to consider all your hints in our paper.
Best,
Jennifer, Isabelle, and Wolf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is recommended that the abstract be rewritten using the IMRyD scheme.
Regarding the methodology, the countries in which the questionnaire is applied are not specified.
The discussion is limited to presenting the results in contact with the research questions. A greater depth in the conclusions is lacking.
Finally, a revision of the written style is recommended. Impersonal verb forms are more appropriate.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
It is recommended that the abstract be rewritten using the IMRyD scheme.
New abstract:
Abstract: Introduction. Are viewers of video-on-demand (VoD) services more intrinsically (i.e., preferentially self-determined) or extrinsically (i.e., externally determined) motivated when selecting movies and series? For extrinsic motivation, we distinguish between algorithmically generated suggestions from the services and personal recommendations from other users. Methods. We empirically investigated the information behavior in video streaming services of users from German-speaking countries with the help of an online survey (N = 1,258). Results. Active VoD users watch videos online mainly on a daily basis. They are externally determined in the selection of their videos both by algorithmically generated recommendations from the services and―to a higher extent―from personal suggestions from acquaintances, friends, and relatives. However, there is a clear indication that intrinsic motivation plays a major role in the selection of videos. Discussion. Users of VoD services move in a cycle between machine-generated recommendations, suggestions, and exchange of opinions from and with other people, and self-determined information behavior.
Regarding the methodology, the countries in which the questionnaire is applied are not specified.
Added:
We investigate the information behavior in video streaming services of viewers in German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland as well as German-speaking users in other countries).
The discussion is limited to presenting the results in contact with the research questions. A greater depth in the conclusions is lacking.
Added in the Discussion paragraph:
These results are in line with Foster’s for YouTube. He [21, p. 123] concludes, “(a) that users are often prepared to follow suggestions from friends, who they may trust to recommend relevant content, and (b) users are probably indirectly influenced by anonymous other YouTube users through the algorithms that select videos for them to watch based on their search or previous watching history.”
…
Following Pariser [22], systems’ recommendations may lead to a phenomenon called “filter bubble,” which describes the users’ uncritical following of those recommendations. Is there any danger of a filter bubble? As users by no means always follow the algorithmically generated recommendations, such danger is very low or even non-existent.
...
Is it possible that high amounts of active as well as passive recommendations lead the users into an echo chamber, i.e. a group of like-minded people favoring some content while ignoring all other [23]. In contrast to filter bubbles, echo chambers of VoD users cannot be ruled out.
…
How often do users receive external recommendations, and how often do they follow them?
Finally, a revision of the written style is recommended. Impersonal verb forms are more appropriate.
We reformulated more than a dozen occurrences of we and our; however, allow for some we and our! It’s part of our personal writing style.
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions! We are glad to inform you that we were able to consider all your hints in our paper.
Best,
Jennifer, Isabelle, and Wolf
