User Satisfaction Study for Sustainability of YouTube Content Quality: Focusing on Ski Technology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. YouTube Content Quality
2.2. User Satisfaction and Use Intention
2.3. Perceived Achievement
2.4. Research Hypotheses
3. Research Methods
3.1. Research Subject
3.2. Investigation Tools
3.2.1. YouTube Content Quality
3.2.2. User Satisfaction
3.2.3. Perceived Achievement
3.2.4. Continuous Use Intention
3.3. Confirmation Factor Analysis
3.4. Correlation Analysis and Cronbach’s α
3.5. Data Processing
4. Results
4.1. Suitability of the Research Model and Path Model Results
4.2. Hypothesis Tests and Result of the Model
5. Discussion
5.1. Quality of YouTube Content for Skiing and User Satisfaction
5.2. User Satisfaction and Perceived Achievement
5.3. User Satisfaction and Continuous Use Intention
5.4. Perceived Achievement and Continuous Use Intention
6. Conclusion and Suggestions
6.1. Theoretical Implications of the Results
6.2. Practical Implications of the Results
6.3. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Youtube Creator Academy. 2021. Available online: https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/edu-channel-start (accessed on 4 June 2021).
- Burgess, J.; Green, J. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture; Polity Press: Medford, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- MacKay, K.; Barbe, D.; Van Winkle, C.M.; Halpenny, E. Social media activity in a festival context: Temporal and content analysis. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 669–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockstone, L.; Robertson, M.; Junek, O.; Hudson, S.; Hudson, R. Engaging with consumers using social media: A case study of music festivals. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2013, 4, 206–223. [Google Scholar]
- Gyimóthy, S.; Larson, M. Social media cocreation strategies: The 3Cs. Event Manag. 2015, 19, 331–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Orús, C.; Pérez-Rueda, A. Developing a learning network on YouTube: Analysis of student satisfaction with a learner-generated content activity. In Educational Networking; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 195–231. [Google Scholar]
- Kuss, D.J.; Griffiths, M.D. Online social networking and addiction: A review of the psychological literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 3528–3552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haden, C.S.; Feller, G. Synecdoche, aesthetics, and the sublime online: Or, what’s a religious internet meme? J. Media Relig. 2020, 19, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anwer, F. Activity-Based Teaching, Student Motivation and Academic Achievement. J. Educ. Educ. Dev. 2019, 6, 154–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhadabi, A.; Karpinski, A.C. Grit, self-efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic performance in University students. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 2020, 25, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kulkarni, A. Internet meme and political discourse: A study on the impact of internet meme as a tool in communicating political satire. J. Content Community Commun. Amity Sch. Commun. Amity Univ. Madhya Pradesh 2017, 6, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huertas, A.; Míguez-González, M.I.; Lozano-Monterrubio, N. YouTube usage by Spanish tourist destinations as a tool to communicate their identities and brands. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möller, A.M.; Kühne, R.; Baumgartner, S.E.; Peter, J. Exploring user responses to entertainment and political videos: An automated content analysis of YouTube. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2019, 37, 510–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinhopl, A.; Gretzel, U. Changing practices/new technologies: Photos and videos on vacation. In Proceedings of the Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, Lugano, Switzerland, 3–6 February 2015; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 777–788. [Google Scholar]
- Reino, S.; Hay, B. The use of You Tube as a tourism marketing tool. In Proceedings of the Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally 2016; University of Massachusetts Amherst: Amherst, MA, USA; Volume 96, pp. 1–2.
- Adnan, M.M.; Fullwood, M.D.; Menafro, A. Attributes of videos on YouTube related to cupping therapy. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 2018, 24, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, D.Y.; Lehto, M.R. User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Comput. Educ. 2013, 61, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, E.H.; Han, J.S. The effect of video user created content tourism information quality on user’s satisfaction, visit intention and information sharing intention. Korean J. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 27, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, R.; McLeay, F. E-WOM and accommodation: An analysis of the factors that influence travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.Z.; Barnes, S.J.; Zhao, S.J.; Zhang, H. Can consumers be persuaded on brand microblogs? An empirical study. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rösner, L.; Winter, S.; Krämer, N.C. Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 58, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrebi, S.; Jallais, J. Explain the intention to use smartphones for mobile shopping. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natarajan, T.; Balasubramanian, S.A.; Kasilingam, D.L. The moderating role of device type and age of users on the intention to use mobile shopping applications. Technol. Soc. 2018, 53, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, A.A. Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Wang, B.; Lu, Y. Understanding key drivers of MOOC satisfaction and continuance intention to use. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019, 20, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
- Noe, R.A.; Schmitt, N. The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness; Test of a model. Pers. Psychol. 1986, 39, 497–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.S.; Yang, S.B. The Effect of Content Quality and Creator Attributes on the Satisfaction and Behavioral In-Tention on Personal Broadcasting Muckbang Channels: Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Master’s Thesis, Kyunghee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Coursaris, C.K.; Van Osch, W. Exploring the effects of source credibility on information adoption on YouTube. In Proceedings of the International Conference on HCI in Business, Government, and Organizations, Toronto, ON, Canada, 17–22 July 2016; pp. 16–25. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.F.; Tsai, D. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1115–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, L.R.; Lewis, C. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bemstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Kurochkin, A.; Bokhan, K. Generation of memes to engage audience in social media. In Proceedings of the Advances in Data Mining, Machine Learning, and Computer Vision, Lviv, Ukraine, 15–16 November 2019; pp. 10–20. [Google Scholar]
- Juza, M. Internet memes—Creation, distribution, social meaning. Media Stud. 2013, 55, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Ariffin, A.A.M.; Nameghi, E.N.M.; Soon, Y.K. The Relationships between national identity, hospitality, and satisfaction among foreign hotel guests. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2015, 32, 778–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolliger, D.U.; Martindale, T. Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. Int. J. e-Learn. 2004, 3, 61–67. [Google Scholar]
- Gunawardena, C.; Duphorne, P. Which Learner Readiness Factors, Online Features, and CMC Related Learning Approach Are Associated with Learner Satisfaction in Computer Conferences. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED4456160), Seattle, WA, USA, 10–14 April 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Forgerson, D. Readiness Factors Contributing to Participant Satisfaction in Online Higher Education Courses. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Janicki, T.; Liegle, J. Development and evaluation of a framework for creating web-based learning modules: A pedagogical and systems perspective. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 2001, 5, 58–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Demographic | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 171 | 53.1 |
Female | 151 | 46.9 | |
Age | 20’s | 81 | 25.2 |
30’s | 80 | 24.8 | |
40’s | 91 | 28.3 | |
50’s | 70 | 21.7 | |
Level of education | College/universty | 26 | 8.0 |
Vocational colleges Graduate | 72 | 22.4 | |
College/universty Graduate | 135 | 41.9 | |
Postgraduate or above | 89 | 27.6 | |
Monthly income | Less than 3 million won | 41 | 12.7 |
Less than 4 million won | 137 | 42.5 | |
More than 4 million won | 144 | 44.7 | |
Number of views | Once a week | 4 | 1.2 |
Twice a week | 43 | 13.4 | |
3 times a week | 145 | 59.6 | |
More than 4 times a week | 130 | 40.4 | |
Total | 322 | 100.0 |
Variables | Factors | Estimate | S.E. | t | C.R. | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relevance | It provides content that meets the purpose of viewing. | 0.707 | 0.852 | 0.592 | ||
It contains useful content. | 0.891 | 0.080 | 14.835 *** | |||
It contains the content that what I need. | 0.842 | 0.073 | 14.150 *** | |||
It is a content that meets my requirements. | 0.846 | 0.081 | 14.330 *** | |||
Timeliness | It is Provided timely information. | 0.837 | 0.853 | 0.593 | ||
It is provided new information. | 0.892 | 0.059 | 18.160 *** | |||
It is provided updated information. | 0.819 | 0.063 | 15.323 *** | |||
It is provided necessary information | 0.770 | 0.055 | 15.490 *** | |||
Imformativeness | It is provided educational information. | 0.764 | 0.817 | 0.528 | ||
It is provided various information. | 0.791 | 0.106 | 10.563 *** | |||
It is provided specific information. | 0.769 | 0.107 | 11.328 *** | |||
It is provided reliable information. | 0.817 | 0.103 | 11.759 *** | |||
Sufficiency | There is a lot of content that I need. | 0.784 | 0.853 | 0.593 | ||
There is adequate amount of content. | 0.911 | 0.115 | 11.089 *** | |||
There is a wide variety of content that you can watch. | 0.854 | 0.108 | 10.676 *** | |||
It is provided enough content for me. | 0.801 | 0.116 | 10.318 *** | |||
Use Satisfaction | The content is generally satisfactory. | 0.764 | 0.824 | 0.539 | ||
I am satisfied with the content I have watched. | 0.768 | 0.094 | 9.630 *** | |||
The content what I watch is good for me. | 0.805 | 0.081 | 13.602 *** | |||
My choice is a wise one | 0.807 | 0.073 | 13.628 *** | |||
Achievement | The content is good for me. | 0.792 | 0.814 | 0.523 | ||
The content is easy to understand. | 0.814 | 0.064 | 14.065 *** | |||
The theory of content is easy to apply. | 0.882 | 0.058 | 11.888 *** | |||
The description of content is easy to express. | 0.709 | 0.069 | 10.525 *** | |||
Use Intention | I am willing to reuse the content I had watched. | 0.843 | 0.863 | 0.613 | ||
I will definitely use the content channel that I had watched. | 0.746 | 0.059 | 15.198 *** | |||
I will recommend the viewing to my friends | 0.894 | 0.061 | 19.557 *** | |||
The next time when I watch, I will search around this content. | 0.794 | 0.062 | 16.631 *** |
Relevance | Timeliness | Informativeness | Sufficiency | User Satisfaction | Perceived Achievement | Continuous Use Intention | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cronbach’a | 0.892 | 0.899 | 0.821 | 0.889 | 0.812 | 0.813 | 0.889 |
Relevance | 0.592 | ||||||
Timeliness | 0.150 ** (0.023) | 0.593 | |||||
Informativeness | 0.261 ** (0.068) | 0.091 (0.008) | 0.528 | ||||
Sufficiency | 0.357 ** (0.127) | 0.454 ** (0.206) | 0.191 ** (0.036) | 0.593 | |||
User satisfaction | 0.004 (0.000) | 0.204 ** (0.042) | 0.094 (0.009) | 0.232 ** (0.054) | 0.539 | ||
Perceived Achievement | 0.191 ** (0.036) | 0.245 ** (0.060) | 0.315 ** (0.099) | 0.485 ** (0.235) | 0.297 ** (0.088) | 0.523 | |
Continuous Use intention | 0.171 ** (0.029) | 0.240 ** (0.058) | 0.266 ** (0.071) | 0.259 ** (0.067) | 0.390 ** (0.152) | 0.498 ** (0.248) | 0.613 |
Goodness of Fit Standards | χ2 | df | CFI (>0.90) | TLI (>0.90) | RMR (<0.08) | RMSEA (<0.08) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fit index | 448.562 | 322 | 0.975 | 0.971 | 0.070 | 0.035 |
Hypothesis | Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | Adopt or not | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Relevance | → | User satisfaction | 0.144 | 0.071 | 1.998 * | Adopted |
Timeliness | 0.166 | 0.069 | 2.276 * | Adopted | |||
Informativeness | 0.189 | 0.090 | 2.479 * | Adopted | |||
Sufficiency | 0.156 | 0.089 | 2.000 * | Adopted | |||
H2 | User satisfaction | → | Perceived Achievement | 0.164 | 0.063 | 2.732 ** | Adopted |
H3 | User satisfaction | → | Continuous use intention | 0.255 | 0.047 | 4.429 *** | Adopted |
H4 | Perceived Achievement | → | Continuous use intention | 0.518 | 0.050 | 8.102 *** | Adopted |
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. |
© 2023 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
Cho, T.; Cho, T.; Choi, H.; Yang, S.; Zhang, H. User Satisfaction Study for Sustainability of YouTube Content Quality: Focusing on Ski Technology. Businesses 2023, 3, 114-128. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses3010009
Cho T, Cho T, Choi H, Yang S, Zhang H. User Satisfaction Study for Sustainability of YouTube Content Quality: Focusing on Ski Technology. Businesses. 2023; 3(1):114-128. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses3010009
Chicago/Turabian StyleCho, Taesoo, Taeyoung Cho, Hyunjun Choi, Sungchul Yang, and Hao Zhang. 2023. "User Satisfaction Study for Sustainability of YouTube Content Quality: Focusing on Ski Technology" Businesses 3, no. 1: 114-128. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses3010009
APA StyleCho, T., Cho, T., Choi, H., Yang, S., & Zhang, H. (2023). User Satisfaction Study for Sustainability of YouTube Content Quality: Focusing on Ski Technology. Businesses, 3(1), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses3010009