1.2. Promotion of the channel’s own brand None 1.3. Promotion of other channels Promotes other kids’ channels and brands. Also her new channel “Martina Musicaly” Promotes other kids’ channels and brands. Also her new channels: “Family fun Vlogs” and “Arantxa Games” Promotes other kids’ channels and brands. Also a family channel: “City Toy” Promotes other kids’ channels and brands. Also his father’s new channel: “Papachetado” Promotes other kids’ channels and brands. Also her two other channels: “Irene entretiene” and “MaryVer Gamer” 1.4. Offers (image 1) Contests Contests Contests Contests Contests Source: Authors’ adaptation of the model of McRoberts et al. (2016). Figure 1. Examples of contests in the selected channels. Source: YouTube. Table 2 groups together in a single dichotomous category (1 Yes and 2 No) the four variables proposed in the model of McRoberts et al. (2016) to promote viewers’ participation. The results reveal that all channels encourage viewers’ participation. Los mundos de Nico (80%) and MikelTube (75%) are well above the average. 2. Promotion of viewers’ participation by channels.
“A kiss to all and until the next video” Fixed outro phrase: “Goodbye friends, bye, bye” Fixed outro phrase: “Good friends, this is the end of today’s video. Goodbye” outro phrase: “See you in the next video, a super mega hug” 2.2. Subscribers 2,100,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 600,000 184,000 2.3. Thanks to followers Mentions a list of fans and thanks them Mentions a list of fans and thanks them Mentions a list of fans and thanks them Thanks fans in a clip No 2.4. Requests or mentions to followers “If you the video give it a thumbs up, don’t forget to comment and subscribe” “If you liked this video don’t forget to share it and ask dad or mum to subscribe” “Don’t forget to click the link, give us a thumbs up and share” “If you liked the video, click here, not here” “Don’t forget to subscribe, Like and comment” “Do not forget to on the bell to receive notifications” 2.5. Calling attention to specific content Sporadic Frequent Frequent Frequent Frequent 2.6. No specific calls of attention - - - - - 2.7. Parents present in the video Sporadically Always Sporadically Always Never Source: Authors’ adaptation of the model of McRoberts et al. (2016).
Figure 2. Images of presence of parents. Source: YouTube. The speaking style (see table 4) is emphatic and when brands are mentioned the voice is raised, producing an artificial effect, unnatural, and an overt loss of spontaneity. Volume goes even more up in three channels when sing sound effects (canned laughter) or weird voices. 4. Indicators to analyse speaking styles. La diversión de Martina Los juguetes de Arantxa MikelTube Los mundos de Nico Juguetes MaryVer 3.1. Conversational No No Yes Yes Yes 3.2. Professional Yes Yes No No No 3.3. Shouty High and emphatic tone Emphatic tone Emphatic tone High and emphatic tone Emphatic tone 3.4. Eccentric Weird voices and strange sounds Weird voices and strange sounds Weird voices and strange sounds. Canned laughter Abundant sound effects No 3.5. No written or spoken text No No No No Yes
3.6. Catchphrase to all my fun friends” “Come, come, come to play, you like Arantxa’s toys” Clip MikelTube “Welcome one more time to Nico’s worlds” “Hello everyone and welcome to a new video” 3.7. Parents talking about brands Whenever it appears positively Constantly and positively Whenever it appears positively Constantly and positively No Source: Authors’ adaptation of the model of McRoberts et al. (2016). Although the of McRoberts et al. (2016) establishes three levels to classify the editing complexity of content (low, medium and high), table 5 only presents two complexity levels since none of the analysed channels had a medium level. As we can see in table 5, the editing complexity of the contents is low in most cases, producing a more natural effect that is closer to viewers, except in MikelTube, which is more professional. Table 5. Indicators of editing complexity. La diversión de Martina Los juguetes de Arantxa MikelTube Los mundos de Nico Juguetes MaryVer % % % % % 4.1. Low 100 100 - 80 80 4.3. High - - 100 20 20 (N) 5 5 5 5 5 Source: Authors’ adaptation of the model of McRoberts et al. (2016).