User-generated content

"UGC" redirects here. For other uses, see UGC (disambiguation).

User-generated content (UGC) is defined as "any form of content such as blogs, wikis, discussion forums, posts, chats, tweets, podcasts, digital images, video, audio files, advertisements and other forms of media that was created by users of an online system or service, often made available via social media websites". It is also called user-created content (UCC). The term and concept entered mainstream usage during 2005, having arisen in web publishing and new media content production circles. It is used for a wide range of applications, including problem processing, news, entertainment, advertising, gossip and research. It is an example of the democratization of content production; whereas during the 1970s and 1980s, traditional "gatekeepers" such as newspaper editors, publishers and news shows approved all content and information before it was aired or published, in the 1990s and 2000s, as media production through new technologies has become more accessible, user friendly and affordable to the general public, large numbers of amateur individuals are able to post text, digital photos and digital videos online, with little or no "gatekeepers" or filters. Additionally, user-generated content may also employ a combination of open source, free software, and flexible licensing or related agreements to further reduce the barriers to collaboration, skill-building and discovery ("'UGC'") has also gained in popularity over the last decade, as user bases have grown on social media and content-based sharing sites.

UGC may constitute only a portion of a website. For example, there are sites where the majority of content is prepared by administrators, but numerous ancillary submissions are made by the site's users, such as product reviews or comments, and UGC cannot be used commercially. UGC may be monitored by website administrators to avoid offensive content or language, copyright infringement issues, or simply to determine if the content posted is relevant to the site's general theme. There may be little or no barrier to the act of uploading user-generated content, such as memberships or fees. As a result, there are inordinate amounts of UGC that, in addition to creating a corporate asset,[1] may also contain data that can be regarded as a liability.[2][3] The University of Illinois concluded from its 2012 research that one-third of all UGC web reviews were fake, either with the purpose of boosting or denigrating a product.[4][5][6]

General requirements

The advent of user-generated content marked a shift among media organizations from creating online content to providing facilities for amateurs to publish their own content. User-generated content has also been characterized as Citizen Media as opposed to the 'Packaged Goods Media' of the past century.[7] Citizen Media is audience-generated feedback and news coverage.[8] People give their reviews and share stories in the form of user-generated and user-uploaded audio and user-generated video.[9] The former is a two-way process in contrast to the one-way distribution of the latter. Conversational or two-way media is a key characteristic of so-called Web 2.0 which encourages the publishing of one's own content and commenting on other people's.

The role of the passive audience therefore has shifted since the birth of New Media, and an ever-growing number of participatory users are taking advantage of the interactive opportunities, especially on the Internet to create independent content. Grassroots experimentation then generated an innovation in sounds, artists, techniques and associations with audiences which then are being used in mainstream media.[10] The active, participatory and creative audience is prevailing today with relatively accessible media, tools and applications, and its culture is in turn affecting mass media corporations and global audiences.

The OECD has defined three central schools for UGC:[11]

  1. Publication requirement: While UGC could be made by a user and never published online or elsewhere, we focus here on the work that is published in some context, be it on a publicly accessible website or on a page on a social networking site only accessible to a select group of people (e.g., fellow university students). This is a useful way to exclude email, two-way instant messages and the like.
  2. Creative effort: Creative effort was put into creating the work or adapting existing works to construct a new one; i.e. users must add their own value to the work. UGC often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites which users can edit collaboratively. For example, merely copying a portion of a television show and posting it to an online video website (an activity frequently seen on the UGC sites) would not be considered UGC. If a user uploads his/her photographs, however, expresses his/her thoughts in a blog, or creates a new music video, this could be considered UGC. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context.
  3. Creation outside of professional routines and practices: User-generated content is generally created outside of professional routines and practices. It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. In extreme cases, UGC may be produced by non-professionals without the expectation of profit or remuneration. Motivating factors include: connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself.

It is important to have an objective before attempting to become part of the UGC/social networking environment. For example, companies may ask users to post their reviews directly to their Facebook page. This could end up disastrous if a user makes a comment that steers people away from the product.[12]

Mere copy & paste or hyperlinking could also be seen as user-generated self-expression. The action of linking to a work or copying a work could in itself motivate the creator, express the taste of the person linking or copying.,, and are good examples of where such linkage to work happens. The culmination of such linkages could very well identify the tastes of a person in the community and make that person unique.

Adoption and recognition by mass media

The BBC set up a user generated content team as a pilot in April 2005 with 3 staff. In the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the Buncefield oil depot fire, the team was made permanent and was expanded, reflecting the arrival in the mainstream of the citizen journalist. After the Buncefield disaster the BBC received over 5,000 photos from viewers. The BBC does not normally pay for content generated by its viewers.

In 2006 CNN launched CNN iReport, a project designed to bring user generated news content to CNN. Its rival Fox News Channel launched its project to bring in user-generated news, similarly titled "uReport". This was typical of major television news organisations in 2005–2006, who realised, particularly in the wake of the London 7 July bombings, that citizen journalism could now become a significant part of broadcast news.[13] Sky News, for example, regularly solicits for photographs and video from its viewers.

User-generated content was featured in Time magazine's 2006 Person of the Year, in which the person of the year was "you", meaning all of the people who contribute to user generated media such as YouTube and Wikipedia.[14] The precursor to user-generated content uploaded on YouTube was America's Funniest Home Videos.[15]

Motivation and incentives

While the benefit derived from user generated content for the content host is clear, the benefit to the contributor is less direct. There are various theories behind the motivation for contributing user generated content, ranging from altruistic, to social, to materialistic. Due to the high value of user generated content, many sites use incentives to encourage their generation. These incentives can be generally categorized into implicit incentives and explicit incentives.[16]

  1. Implicit incentives: These incentives are not based on anything tangible. Social incentives are the most common form of implicit incentives. These incentives allow the user to feel good as an active member of the community. These can include relationship between users, such as Facebook's friends, or Twitter's followers. Social incentives also include the ability to connect users with others, as seen on the sites already mentioned as well as sites like YouTube, which allow users to share media from their lives with others. Users also share the experiences that they have while using a particular product/service. This will improve the customer experience as they can make informed decisions in buying a product, which makes them smart buyers. Other common social incentives are status, badges or levels within the site, something a user earns when they reach a certain level of participation which may or may not come with additional privileges. Yahoo! Answers is an example of this type of social incentive. Social incentives cost the host site very little and can catalyze vital growth; however, their very nature requires a sizable existing community before it can function.
  2. Explicit incentives: These incentives refer to tangible rewards. Examples include financial payment, entry into a contest, a voucher, a coupon, or frequent traveler miles. Direct explicit incentives are easily understandable by most and have immediate value regardless of the community size; sites such as the Canadian shopping platform Wishabi and Amazon Mechanical Turk both use this type of financial incentive in slightly different ways to encourage user participation. The drawback to explicit incentives is that they may cause the user to be subject to the over justification effect, eventually believing the only reason for the participating is for the explicit incentive. This reduces the influence of the other form of social or altruistic motivation, making it increasingly costly for the content host to retain long-term contributors.[17]


There are many types of user-generated content: Internet forums, where people talk about different topics; blogs are services where users can post about many topics, the most important blog services are these: Blogger, Tumblr and WordPress. There are also wikis, where every anonymous user can edit and make changes as, for example, at Wikipedia or Wikia. Another type of user-generated content are social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or VK, where users interact with other people chatting, writing messages, or posting images or links. Companies like YouTube allow users consume and produce content.


Entertainment media publications include Reddit, 9Gag, 4chan, Upworthy,, and Distractify.[18][19] Sites like 9Gag allow users to create memes and quick video clips. Sites like Tech in Asia and Buzzfeed engage readers with professional communities by posting articles with user-generated comment sections.[20] Other types of this content are fanfiction like FanFiction.Net, imageboards; various works of art, as with deviantArt and Newgrounds; mobile photos and video sharing sites such as Picasa and Flickr; customer review sites; audio social networks such as SoundCloud; crowd funding, like Kickstarter; or crowdsourcing.

Video games

Video games can have fan-made content in the form of mods, fan patches and fan translations. Some games come with level editor programs to aid in their creation. A few massively multiplayer online role-playing games including Star Trek Online and EverQuest 2 have UGC systems integrated into the game itself.[21] A metaverse can be a user-generated world, such as Second Life.


A popular use of UGC involves collaboration between a brand and a user. For example, the "Elf Yourself" videos by Christmas Jib Jab that come back every year around Christmas. The Jib Jab website lets people use their photos of friends and family that they have uploaded to make a holiday video to share across the internet. You cut and paste the faces of the people in the pictures to animated dancing elves.[22]


Some bargain hunting websites feature user-generated content, such as Dealsplus, Slickdeals, and FatWallet which allow users to post, discuss, and control which bargains get promoted within the community. Because of the dependency of social interaction, these sites fall into the category of social commerce.


Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, is one of the largest user-generated content databases in the world.

Photo sharing

Photo sharing websites: Flickr is a site in which users are able to upload personal photos they have taken and label them in regards to their "motivation".[23] Flickr not only hosts images but makes them publicly available for reuse and reuse with modification.[24] It is entirely user-generated content.


The term "user-generated content" has received some criticism. The criticism to date has addressed issues of fairness, quality,[25] privacy,[26] the sustainable availability of creative work and effort among legal issues namely related to intellectual property rights such as copyrights etc.

Some commentators assert that the term "user" implies an illusory or unproductive distinction between different kinds of "publishers", with the term "users" exclusively used to characterize publishers who operate on a much smaller scale than traditional mass-media outlets or who operate for free.[27] Such classification is said to perpetuate an unfair distinction that some argue is diminishing because of the prevalence and affordability of the means of production and publication. A better response might be to offer optional expressions that better capture the spirit and nature of such work, such as EGC, Entrepreneurial Generated Content (see external reference below).

Sometimes creative works made by individuals are lost because there are limited or no ways to precisely preserve creations when a UGC Web site service closes down. One example of such loss is the closing of the Disney massively multiplayer online game "VMK". VMK, like most games, has items that are traded from user to user. Many of these items are rare within the game. Users are able to use these items to create their own rooms, avatars and pin lanyard. This site shut down at 10 pm CDT on 21 May 2008. There are ways to preserve the essence, if not the entirety of such work through the users copying text and media to applications on their personal computers or recording live action or animated scenes using screen capture software, and then uploading elsewhere. Long before the Web, creative works were simply lost or went out of publication and disappeared from history unless individuals found ways to keep them in personal collections.

Another criticized aspect is the vast array of user-generated product and service reviews that can at times be misleading for consumer on the web. A study conducted at Cornell University found that an estimated 1 to 6 percent of positive user-generated online hotel reviews are fake.[28]

The ability for services to accept user-generated content opens up a number of legal concerns: depending on local laws, the operator of a service may be liable for the actions of its users. In the United States, the "Section 230" exemptions of the Communications Decency Act state 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 provides a general immunity for websites that host user-generated content that is defamatory, deceptive or otherwise harmful, even if the operator knows that the third-party content is harmful and refuses to take it down. An exception to this general rule may exist if a website promises to take down the content and then fails to do so.[29]

Copyright laws also play a factor in relation to user-generated content, as users may use such services to upload works—particularly videos—that they do not have the sufficient rights to distribute. In many cases, the use of these materials may be covered by local "fair use" laws, especially if the use of the material submitted is transformative.[30] Local laws also vary on who is liable for any resulting copyright infringements caused by user-generated content; in the United States, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)—a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), dictates safe harbor provisions for "online service providers" as defined under the act, which grants immunity from secondary liability for the copyright-infringing actions of its users. However, to qualify for the safe harbors, the service must promptly remove access to alleged infringing materials upon the receipt of a notice from a copyright holder or registered agent, and the service provider must not have actual knowledge that their service is being used for infringing activities.[31][32] The European Union's approach is horizontal by nature, which means that civil and criminal liability issues are addressed under the Electronic Commerce Directive. Section 4 deals with liability of the ISP while conducting "mere conduit" services, caching and web hosting services.[33]


A study from York University in Ontario in 2012 conducted a research that resulted in a proposed framework for comparing brand-related UGC and to understand how the strategy used by a company could influence the brand sentiment across different social media channels.[34] A study by Dhar and Chang, published in 2007, found that the volume of blogs posted on a music album was positively correlated with future sales of that album.[35]

See also


  1. Schivinski, Bruno; Dąbrowski, D. (2014). "The Effect of Social-Media Communication on Consumer Perceptions of Brands". Journal of Marketing Communications: 2–19. doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.871323.
  2. Robert Goldstone & James Gill (31 December 2008). "Web Site Operators & Liability for UGC – Facing up to Reality?". Society for Computers and Law. Retrieved 3 April 2010.
  3. Scott, Veronica (30 March 2010). "Riding the Web 2.0 wave – limiting liability for user generated content". MinterEllison Lawyers. Retrieved 3 April 2010.
  4. Mukherjee, Arjun; Liu, Bing; Glance, Natalie. "Spotting Fake Reviewer Groups in Consumer Reviews" (PDF). Retrieved January 31, 2015.
  5. "Bad reputation: blackmail, corruption plague online reviews". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
  6. Liu, Bing (2008). "Opinion Spam Detection: Detecting Fake Reviews and Reviewers". Retrieved January 31, 2015.
  7. John Battelle (5 December 2006). "Packaged Goods Media vs. Conversational Media, Part One (Updated)". Retrieved 2011-08-23.
  8. pavlik, John (2014). Converging Media (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 9780199342303.
  9. "Principles for User Generated Content Principles".
  10. Jenkins, Henry (SODA), "Convergence Culture", New York University Press, New York
  11. Working Party on the Information Economy - PARTICIPATIVE WEB: USER-CREATED CONTENT
  12. IAB. "IAB Status Platform Report" (PDF). IAB.NET.
  13. Douglas, Torin (4 July 2006). "How 7/7 'democratised' the media". BBC News. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  14. Lev Grossman (13 December 2006). "You — Yes, You — Are TIME's Person of the Year". Time. Retrieved 2012-12-20.
  15. Pavlik, John (2014). Converging Media (4 ed.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 140. ISBN 9780199342303.
  16. Toluna:"Mixing Financial, Social and Fun Incentives for Social Voting" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2010.
  17. wisdump:"The Overjustification Effect and User Generated Content". Retrieved 3 March 2010.
  18. "How Ray Chan started 9GAG, and a career in fun". Meld Magazine - Melbourne's international student news website. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  19. "A Guide to User-Generated Content | Sprout Social". Sprout Social. Sprout Social. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  20. "Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". Retrieved 2016-01-03.
  21. Jagneaux, David (18 Aug 2014). "The 5 Best User Generated Content Systems in MMOs". Cyber Creations Inc. Retrieved 19 Aug 2014.
  22. Marrs, Megan. "UGC 101:". wordstream. Megan Marrs. Retrieved 2014-11-24.
  23. Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody. The Penguin Press. p. 46.
  24. Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody. The Penguin Press. p. 35.
  25. 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.
  26. 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. doi:10.1145/2757710.2757739.
  27. Kiss, Jemima (3 January 2007). "Guardian Unlimited website: The trouble with user generated content". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2007-02-10.
  28. White, Martha C. (April 7, 2014). "Be Wary of Awesome and Scathing Online Reviews". NBC NEWS. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  29. "Is 'go away' the best response to complaints about user-generated content?". Computerworld. 23 July 2010. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  30. "Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  31. "Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?". BBC News. London. May 21, 2010. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  32. Anderson, Nate (10 November 2011). "Why the feds smashed Megaupload". Ars Technica. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  33. "Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement" (PDF). WIPO. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  34. Smith, Andrew; Fischer, Eileen; Yongjian, Chen (2012). "How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?". Journal of Interactive Marketing. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002.
  35. Dhar, Vasant; Chang, Elaine (November 2009). "Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-Generated Content on Music Sales.". Journal of Interactive Marketing (Volume 23, Issue 4).
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/13/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.