From Hashtags to Fame: Content Strategies of Generation Z TikTok Influencers in Israel
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. TikTok’s Rise, Features, and Youth Appeal
2.2. Virality, Influencers, and Representation on Social Media
2.3. Theoretical Lens: A Neo-Marxist Perspective on TikTok
2.4. Operationalization of the Neo-Marxist Lens
2.5. Research Question and Hypotheses
2.6. Methodology
2.7. Sample Selection
- Follower Count and Engagement: Influencers were chosen based on having the highest number of followers and video views in Israel.
- Target Audience: Preference was given to creators whose content clearly targeted young adults within Generation Z.
- Audience Verification: The identities of the top 20 commenters on each creator’s most-viewed videos were reviewed to confirm that their audience aligned with the study’s focus demographic.
2.8. Codebook Development and Variables
- Engagement Metrics: Video length, number of views, likes, and comments.
- Video Attributes: Use of business pages, hashtag labeling, and video format (e.g., sketch, dance, lip-sync, tutorial, challenge).
- Accompanying Text: Captions or on-screen text.
- Participants: Number of people featured in the video.
- Content Elements: Presence of sexual innuendos, entertainment, violence, informative or functional content, sales or product promotion, and influencer branding.
- Characterization of Participants: Presence of celebrities, collaborations between creators, and use of revealing clothing.
2.9. Coding Procedure and Reliability
- A reliability test was conducted on 10% of the sample.
- Categories with less than 90% inter-coder agreement were revised through additional training and calibration until the desired reliability threshold was met.
3. Findings
3.1. Content Composition and Engagement Patterns
3.2. Entertainment as a Dominant Factor
3.3. Negative and Sexualized Content
3.4. Gender-Based Differences
4. Summary
5. Statistics
5.1. Celebrities
5.2. Challenges
5.3. Sexual Innuendos
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Collaborations and Social Dynamics
6.2. Entertainment as a Core Driver
6.3. Gendered Representations and Content Norms
6.4. Broader Implications and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Khan, M.L. Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 66, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phua, J.; Jin, S.V.; Kim, J.J. Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassey, J.; Chang, H.-C.H.; Valente, T.; Unger, J.B. Worldwide connections of influencers who promote e-cigarettes on Instagram and TikTok: A social network analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2025, 165, 108545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gruzd, A.; Haythornthwaite, C.; Paulin, D.; Gilbert, S.; Del Valle, M.E. Uses and gratifications factors for social media use in teaching: Instructors’ perspectives. New Media Soc. 2018, 20, 475–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kircaburun, K.; Alhabash, S.; Tosuntaş, Ş.B.; Griffiths, M.D. Uses and gratifications of problematic social media use among university students: A simultaneous examination of the Big Five of personality traits, social media platforms, and social media use motives. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 18, 525–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laor, T. My social network: Group differences in frequency of use, active use, and interactive use on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annabell, T. The Ideal Influencer: How Influencer Coaches and Platforms Construct Creators as Monetizing for the Right Reasons. Soc. Media Soc. 2025, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherr, S.; Wang, K. Explaining the success of social media with gratification niches: Motivations behind daytime, nighttime, and active use of TikTok in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 124, 106893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blacker, A. Worldwide and US Download Leaders 2021. Apptopia. 2022. Available online: https://blog.apptopia.com/worldwide-and-us-download-leaders-2021#Entertainment (accessed on 7 October 2025).
- Feng, Y.-L.; Chen, C.-C.; Wu, S.-M. Evaluation of charm factors of short video user experience using FAHP–A case study of Tik Tok App. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 688, p. 055068. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, L.; Yan, X.; Zhang, Z. Research on the causes of the “TikTok” app becoming popular and the existing problems. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2019, 7, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, B.; Dequan, W. Watch, Share or Create: The Influence of Personality Traits and User Motivation on TikTok Mobile Video Usage. International Association of Online Engineering. 2020. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216454/ (accessed on 7 October 2025).
- Montag, C.; Yang, H.; Elhai, J.D. On the psychology of TikTok use: A first glimpse from empirical findings. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ørmen, J. From consumer demand to user engagement: Comparing the popularity and virality of election coverage on the Internet. Int. J. Press/Politics 2019, 24, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boczkowski, P.J.; Mitchelstein, E. The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, E.; Lazarsfeld, P.F.; Roper, E. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Blumler, J.G.; Katz, E. The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III. 1974. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED119208 (accessed on 26 October 2025).
- Prensky, M. Digital natives, Digital immigrants. Horizons 2001, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, A. Generation Z: Technology and social interest. J. Individ. Psychol. 2015, 71, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasi, A.Z.; Ayaz, N.; Kanwal, S.; Albashrawi, M.; Khair, N. TikTok app usage behavior: The role of hedonic consumption experiences. Data Technol. Appl. 2023, 57, 344–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldkamp, J. The rise of TikTok: The evolution of a social media platform during COVID-19. In Digital Responses to COVID-19: Digital Innovation, Transformation, and Entrepreneurship During Pandemic Outbreaks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 73–85. [Google Scholar]
- Statista. TikTok User Ratio in the U.S. 2021, by Age Group. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095186/tiktok-us-users-age/ (accessed on 10 October 2025).
- Bezeq. The Internet Report 2025; Bezeq Media: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2025; Available online: https://www.bezeq.co.il/media/PDF/the_internet_report_2025.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2025).
- Lissitsa, S.; Laor, T. Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y: Identifying generational differences in effects of personality traits in on-demand radio use. Technol. Soc. 2021, 64, 101526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, D. The New Situation of Marketing in the Self-Media Era-Taking Tik Tok as an Example. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Advances in Social Sciences, London, UK, 28–30 November 2019; Francis Academic Press: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1557–1560. Available online: https://webofproceedings.org/proceedings_series/ESSP/IWASS%202019/SS06281.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2025).
- Li, Y.; Guan, M.; Hammond, P.; Berrey, L.E. Communicating COVID-19 information on TikTok: A content analysis of TikTok videos from official accounts featured in the COVID-19 information hub. Health Educ. Res. 2021, 36, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Zhao, Y.; Ma, Y. Analysis of the reasons and development of short video application-Taking Tik Tok as an example. In Proceedings of the 2019 9th International Conference on Information and Social Science (ICISS 2019), Manila, Philippines, 12–14 July 2019; pp. 12–14. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, H.; Wang, T. Analysis of Tik Tok user behavior from the perspective of popular culture. Front. Art Res. 2019, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weimann, G.; Masri, N. Research note: Spreading hate on TikTok. Stud. Confl. Terror. 2023, 46, 752–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laor, T.; Steinfeld, N. From FM to FB: Radio stations on Facebook. Isr. Aff. 2018, 24, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandinetti, J.; Bruinsma, J. The affective algorithms of conspiracy TikTok. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2023, 67, 274–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Veirman, M.; Cauberghe, V.; Hudders, L. Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. Int. J. Advert. 2017, 36, 798–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sashittal, H.C.; Jassawalla, A.R. The personal influence of Instagram bloggers on consumer–brand interactions: Brands as tribal artifacts. J. Brand Manag. 2020, 27, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyrousi, A.G.; Panigyrakis, G.G.; Panopoulos, A.P. Attitudes toward ads portraying women in decorative roles and female competition: An evolutionary psychology perspective. Int. J. Advert. 2016, 35, 771–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-de-Garay, B.; Marcos-Ramos, M.; Portillo-Delgado, C. Gender representation in Spanish prime-time TV series. Fem. Media Stud. 2020, 20, 414–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zotos, Y.C.; Tsichla, E. Female stereotypes in print advertising: A retrospective analysis. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 148, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Åkestam, N.; Rosengren, S.; Dahlen, M. Advertising “like a girl”: Toward a better understanding of “femvertising” and its effects. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 795–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, B.; Baena, L. Women Scientists on TikTok: New Opportunities to Become Visible and Challenge Gender Stereotypes. Media Commun. 2023, 11, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zulli, D.; Deyoe, D.; Walker, C.; McKasy, M. Is it funny or a trend?: Examining US news humor on TikTok. Commun. Rev. 2024, 27, 320–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lappi-Seppälä, T. Explaining imprisonment in Europe. Eur. J. Criminol. 2011, 8, 303–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcuse, H. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Laor, T. “Hello, is There Anybody Who Reads Me?” Radio Programs and Popular Facebook Posts. IJIMAI 2019, 5, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, J.; Schäfer, M.S.; Allgaier, J. Reposting “till Albert Einstein is TikTok famous”: The memetic construction of science on TikTok. Int. J. Commun. 2020, 15, 3216–3247. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, L.; Feng, J.; Feng, Z.; Wang, L. Research on user loyalty of short video app based on perceived value—Take Tik Tok as an example. In Proceedings of the 2019 16th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), Online, 13–15 July 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Laor, T. ‘Amphibians’: Media figures on social networks and traditional media in Israel. Isr. Aff. 2021, 27, 534–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laor, T.; Galily, Y. Offline VS online: Attitude and behavior of journalists in social media era. Technol. Soc. 2020, 61, 101239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarr, Z. The Frankfurt School: The Critical Theories of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
| Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
| Lower | Upper | |||||||||
| Likes | Equal variances assumed | 1.012 | 0.317 | −0.769 | 88 | 0.444 | −123,627.294 | 160,678.843 | −442,942.730 | 195,688.143 |
| Equal variances not assumed | −1.764 | 87.886 | 0.081 | −123,627.294 | 70,077.550 | −262,894.210 | 15,639.623 | |||
| Challenge | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likes | Not part of a Challenge | 143 | 121,703.83 | 454,499.087 | 38,007.123 |
| Part of | 217 | 33,235.04 | 62,220.343 | 4223.792 |
| Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | T | Df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
| Lower | Upper | |||||||||
| Likes | Equal variances assumed | 18.386 | 0.000 | 2.829 | 358 | 0.005 | 88,468.784 | 31,267.477 | 26,977.772 | 149,959.796 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 2.313 | 145.515 | 0.022 | 88,468.784 | 38,241.101 | 12,889.042 | 164,048.525 | |||
| Sexual Innuendos | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likes | No | 245 | 85,559.23 | 352,023.627 | 22,489.965 |
| Yes | 115 | 31,770.78 | 57,784.252 | 5388.409 |
| Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | T | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
| Lower | Upper | |||||||||
| Likes | Equal variances assumed | 4.684 | 0.031 | 1.627 | 358 | 0.105 | 53,788.446 | 33,056.822 | −11,221.514 | 118,798.406 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 2.326 | 270.907 | 0.021 | 53,788.446 | 23,126.467 | 8257.998 | 99,318.894 | |||
| Gender | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual innuendos | M | 160 | 0.14 | 0.352 | 0.028 |
| F | 200 | 0.46 | 0.500 | 0.035 |
| Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | T | Df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
| Lower | Upper | |||||||||
| sexual innuendos | Equal variances assumed | 193.774 | 0.000 | −6.773 | 358 | 0.000 | −0.316 | 0.047 | −0.408 | −0.224 |
| Equal variances not assumed | −7.032 | 352.624 | 0.000 | −0.316 | 0.045 | −0.405 | −0.228 | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Laor, T.; Galily, Y. From Hashtags to Fame: Content Strategies of Generation Z TikTok Influencers in Israel. Information 2025, 16, 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16110953
Laor T, Galily Y. From Hashtags to Fame: Content Strategies of Generation Z TikTok Influencers in Israel. Information. 2025; 16(11):953. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16110953
Chicago/Turabian StyleLaor, Tal, and Yair Galily. 2025. "From Hashtags to Fame: Content Strategies of Generation Z TikTok Influencers in Israel" Information 16, no. 11: 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16110953
APA StyleLaor, T., & Galily, Y. (2025). From Hashtags to Fame: Content Strategies of Generation Z TikTok Influencers in Israel. Information, 16(11), 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16110953
