verne.elpais.com
Staged Viral Videos Garner 205 Million Views
The Woolshed Company created eight viral videos featuring staged events, achieving 205 million views by employing narrative structures and sparking debate about their authenticity.
- How did the debate surrounding the authenticity of the videos contribute to their viral success, and what does this reveal about audience engagement with online content?
- The experiment revealed that narrative structure (beginning, middle, end) and a promise of surprising or entertaining content within the first ten seconds are crucial for virality. Debate surrounding authenticity also significantly boosted viewership.
- What specific strategies did The Woolshed Company employ to achieve 205 million views across eight viral videos, and what are the immediate implications for content creators?
- The Woolshed Company, an Australian production company, created eight viral videos garnering 205 million views. These videos, featuring staged events like a snowboarder narrowly avoiding a bear and hunters pursued by a lion, were intentionally designed to spark debate about their authenticity.
- What are the long-term implications of this experiment for media consumption and the creation of viral content, and what ethical considerations arise from such fabricated videos?
- This project highlights the power of staged content to achieve viral success. Future implications suggest a need for media literacy to discern authentic from fabricated online content, and a potential shift in content creation strategies towards pre-planned, narrative-driven videos designed for virality.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story as a success story, highlighting the high viewership and media attention garnered by the fabricated videos. The headline and introduction emphasize the impressive reach and entertainment value, potentially downplaying the deceptive nature of the content. The focus is on the creators' cleverness rather than the ethical questions involved.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and descriptive. However, phrases like "espectacular" and "entretenidas" (entertaining) could be considered slightly loaded, as they subtly suggest positive connotations without explicitly addressing the deceptive nature of the videos. More neutral terms like "remarkable" and "engaging" might be more appropriate.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the success of the viral videos and the creators' intent, but omits discussion of potential ethical concerns regarding the deception involved and the impact of spreading misinformation. It doesn't explore the viewers' reactions or the broader implications of consuming such fabricated content. While brevity may be a factor, the lack of this context is a notable omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate solely around whether the videos are real or fake, overlooking the nuances of ethical implications and the impact of manufactured viral content on media consumption habits. The focus on "real or fake" simplifies a complex issue.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the creation and distribution of fake viral videos, which promotes irresponsible consumption of media and contributes to the spread of misinformation. The massive viewership achieved by these fabricated videos points to a concerning trend of prioritizing entertainment over factual accuracy and responsible media consumption.