Keywords

1 Introduction

Immersive technology is defined as technology that blurs the boundary between the physical and virtual worlds, thus enabling users to experience a sense of immersion [39]. Immersive technology, including augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), is becoming increasingly pervasive in education [26, 29], commerce [27, 28], and entertainment [11, 43]. For example, VR has been introduced into the news industry to enhance the audience’s sense of presence related to an event and impart the illusion that the user is located in the place where the event occurred [17, 36]. By optimizing 360-degree videos in VR, news outlets can provide their audiences with immersive experiences [20, 70].

Previous studies have argued that 360-degree VR videos enhance audience engagement by increasing the audience’s sense of presence, enjoyment, involvement, and empathy [63, 67]. While these immersive videos are gaining popularity, some researchers have pointed out that they may limit the user experience [62, 69]. Users have reported feeling sick, uncomfortable, bored, or distracted when watching 360-degree VR videos [45, 57, 74]. Inconsistent findings and anecdotal evidence regarding the effects of immersive technology on the user experience have led to the question of how 360-degree VR videos can enhance audience engagement. Despite the increasing scholarly attention toward this subject, little research has systematically examined the influence of immersive technology on audience engagement within the news industry. To fill this gap, the present study seeks to answer the research question: How do audiences engage with 360-degree VR videos compared to non-VR videos?

This study examines the case of The New York Times (NYT), which launched a VR project, called NYT VR, in collaboration with Google in 2015. The project distributed 1.3 million Google Cardboard VR headsets to The NYT subscribers for free [19], and several hundreds of 360-degree VR videos have been produced to date. To analyze the degree to which the audience has engaged with NYT VR videos, this study collected data from 598 videos updated to The NYT’s YouTube account, including 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos, produced by The NYT. Several indicators, such as number of views, comments, likes, and dislikes, were compared for analysis.

2 Related Work

2.1 360-Degree VR Videos

Known for their spherical views, 360-degree VR videos allow viewers to observe a virtual environment in any direction [49]. They provide an innovative way to portray events and locations so that viewers feel they are present within the virtual space [47, 71]. Many applications have incorporated 360-degree VR videos captured by omnidirectional cameras to offer users more realistic, navigable views. Such videos are becoming popular on video-streaming platforms, including YouTube and Facebook [72]. Recent advancements have made it possible to view 360-degree videos using several types of devices. Content can be viewed through head-mounted displays (HMDs) with stereoscopic capabilities, which enable users to experience full immersion as well as mobile devices that use a smartphone as a VR display, which enables users to experience partial immersion [70]. With HMDs, users control the camera’s orientation and can turn their head at any time to view the surrounding environment. Users watching 360-degree VR videos through a mobile device can control the camera by physically moving the device or by tapping on the screen to pan around the virtual space [73]. Additionally, in desktop-based players, users can drag the video horizontally and vertically with their cursor to rotate the camera [56]. These viewing conditions represent a continuum of the degree of immersion; control of the viewport can be actuated through standard peripheral devices, such as a mouse and keyboard on desktop computers or sensors on a mobile device, either by manually moving it in sync with one’s head movements to simulate real-life view changes [79]. While researchers have generally conclude that audiences are interested in and excited to explore their 360-degree surroundings, HMDs are crucial to enhancing the audience’s sense of presence and immersion [21, 55, 73]. Each display device has a distinct advantage. For example, Magnus [49] found that while the use of an HMD increases the user’s sense of presence, which is beneficial for navigational purposes, most users prefer using a mobile device due to its practicality. Van den Broeck et al. [74] also suggested that users may prefer watching 360-degree videos on their smartphones due to the simplicity of exploration and their familiarity with navigational controls.

2.2 360-Degree VR Videos in the News Industry

The proliferation of inexpensive devices and 360-degree VR videos brought VR to masses, thus giving rise to practical applications in various industries, such as education, entertainment, and news [9, 33, 61]. In the news industry, many organizations, such as The NYT, The Guardian, Euronews, CNN, and BBC, have adopted VR to produce news media, which allows their audiences to experience the incidents or situations described in their stories [17, 76]. The 2014 launch of Google Cardboard provided a low-cost solution to these organizations and allowed VR news to reach larger audiences. Additionally, video-streaming platforms (e.g., Facebook and YouTube) began offering support for publishing and viewing 360-degree VR videos, which has shaped the development of VR technologies [31]. Watching 360-degree VR videos through Google Cardboard headsets become the most accessible form of immersive technology for broad audience consumption [24].

With the advent of VR technologies in the news industry, journalists had to develop new skills and innovative forms of storytelling. Currently, two types of 360-degree VR videos have been adopted by news organizations. The first type refers to documentary-style films, which are usually about 5 to 15 min, that are intended for audiences using VR headsets. The second type are short-form videos (under two minutes), typically intended for “magic window”/browser viewing, which are created with at low cost and with short production periods. Both types of videos are distributed on social media, such as YouTube 360 and Facebook [76]. By creating a sense of presence, 360-degree VR videos enable audiences to witness the emotions of others and thereby feel empathy for them, more so than other media forms [63]. Studies have found that audiences highly enjoy and become emotionally attached to the 360-degree VR videos they watch [9].

2.3 Current Features of 360-Degree VR Videos

Features unique to 360-degree VR videos compared to non-VR videos, include a wide field-of-view, partial control of viewing direction, multiple storylines, and a first-person perspective. First, 360-degree VR videos display a spherical viewing area (i.e., 360° horizontally and 180° vertically). Field-of-view refers to the extent of the observable area [59], and 360-degree videos offer a subset of the full field-of-view to give audiences a natural viewing experience. Second, the audience can control the camera orientation by manually rotating the display or turning their head to view the surrounding environment. Advanced 360-degree VR videos provide functions that zoom and enhance regions of interest [46]. Third, 360-degree VR videos can present multiple storylines simultaneously [40]. For video producers this feature brings both opportunities and challenges. Fourth, a 360-degree video offers a first-person perspective that makes the viewer feel like they are experiencing the depicted event or situation as a video producer would [17] (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison between 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos
Full size table

2.4 Current Advantages of 360-Degree VR Videos

Compared to non-VR videos, 360-degree VR videos offer several advantages to enhancing audience experiences and engagement.

Sense of Presence.

Presence refers to a psychological state in which the user feels they are in one place, even when they are physically situated in another place [28]. This sense of presence can be enhanced through 360-degree VR videos. First, a wider field-of-view raises the authenticity and realism of the viewing experience, which helps viewers develop greater spatial awareness [30, 44, 58]. Second, a first-person perspective within an event or situation also enhances the sense of presence [64]. Third, as the viewer has the ability to rotate the display and observe any point of their surroundings, 360-degree VR videos impart a greater sense of presence than non-VR videos [57, 71, 74]. It is noteworthy that only a partial sense of presence could be achieved in some studies, as the participants could not be separated from the real-world environment while watching 360-degree VR videos [9]. Research shows that the type of display device influences the sense of presence. For example, HMDs perform better than tablet and desktop displays in increasing the user’s sense of presence [21, 55, 71, 74].

Empathy.

Prior studies have shown that VR can increase the user’s empathy toward characters presented in a virtual environment [22, 25], including 360-degree VR videos [66, 67] by conveying another person’s experiences or feelings to the audience [65]. In VR environments, viewers may strongly empathize with another person’s emotions or situation because they feel as if they are occupying the same physical space and are therefore close to that person [66]. Research has shown that viewers who experience stories through 360-degree VR videos outperform those who read the same stories via text and pictures, not only in terms of presence, but also empathy [71].

Emotion.

As several studies have indicated, there are strong correlations between presence and emotions [18, 75] as well as between empathy and emotions [17, 63]. As first-person perspectives tend to draw out a deeper emotional response, 360-degree VR videos are more likely to elicit viewers’ emotions and make viewers emotionally engaged with the content [63]. It has been also found that the viewer’s dominant mood during watching the 360-degree VR videos was related to positive emotions (e.g., fun, happiness, surprise) [60].

Involvement.

Involvement is a state of consciousness in which the audience’s attention is attracted to the content [24]. Some researchers argue that, due to the increased display fidelity via an increased field of view and added stereoscopy, the use of 360-degree VR videos encourages more active involvement in the content [49, 50].

2.5 Current Challenges of 360-Degree VR Videos

Despite these advantages over non-VR videos, researchers suggest that 360-degree VR videos have their shortcomings, such as causing motion sickness and physical discomfort among users [32, 74].

Motion Sickness.

Motion sickness is characterized by an adverse sense of discomfort, disorientation, nausea, and/or vomiting, which is common for users of contemporary HMD systems [15, 52]. The ailment typically occurs when there is a conflict between the motion of the video and the viewer’s real-world perceptions, such as when the viewer is not in control of the protagonist’s movements [51]. Moving the camera while capturing a 360-degree VR video is very likely to induce motion sickness in the viewer [24, 74]. Audiences may not view a 360-degree VR video for the same duration that they would a regular video, due to feeling uneasy or experiencing motion sickness [2].

Physical Discomfort.

VR devices with HMDs have often been reported as uncomfortable. For devices with manual displays, discomfort occurs when users must hold up the device at the eye level to view the content. Devices that require other movements, such as uncomfortable hand postures and almost complete extension of the arm, can produce tiredness even after a relatively short time [16, 23].

Cognitive Barriers.

The novelty of 360-degree VR videos may distract viewers from the content, thereby creating a cognitive barrier. Viewers who experience a greater sense of presence may focus on exploring the environment and fail to recall the key points [62]. Previous studies also found that although 360-degree VR videos with moving viewports elicit higher engagement from viewers and offer a superior viewing experience, these videos are cognitively demanding as they require the user’s constant user attention [74].

Orientation and Attention.

The viewer’s ability to actively control the camera orientation creates a new challenge for 360-degree VR video producers. Because viewers can observe any part of the surrounding environment at any time, they may look in the wrong direction and miss important content [56]. Viewers may also be easily distracted by their surroundings and unintentionally lose track of the VR story [33]. This issue influences the audience’s interest in 360-degree VR videos. Viewers often express concerns about whether they are looking in the correct direction [57]. Audience interest is also influenced by the desire to watch a video that follows a narrative or explores an environment [45]. Prior studies have proposed several reorientation techniques to help viewers return to the video’s region-of-interest when their attentions are focused outside the intended field-of-view [45, 46, 56, 57].

Satiation.

Satiation is a natural human response that occurs when a product is consumed repeatedly [13]. All consumers are likely to feel a decrease in their product enjoyment over time [13]. Repetitive viewing of 360-degree VR videos may cause audiences to lose their curiosity, along with other salient costs. It has been found that the 360-degree VR viewing experience becomes monotonous after several seconds (5–10 s) of initial exploration [74]. To overcome this effect, the information density of the content should be well designed.

Visual Quality.

Another important shortcoming mentioned in prior studies is the lower resolution of existing 360-degree VR videos, which are constrained by the current capturing devices [33]. Low visual quality can have a negative effect on audience engagement, regardless of the level of visual realism [47, 55]. Higher quality videos require more storage space and greater network bandwidth for transmission, which introduces yet another challenge [79].

2.6 Audience Engagement in the NYT VR Project

Online content providers, such as news portals, constantly seek to keep their users engaged [38]. Previous studies have defined user engagement as the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral connection that exists between a user and a resource [4]. The connection between the audience and the news content is called audience engagement [14, 41]. The present study examines the audience’s experiences and engagement with 360-degree VR videos published by The NYT on YouTube. In this study, audience engagement refers to online behavioral engagement in particular, which is measured through actions such as viewing, liking, disliking, and commenting [35]. Table 2 provides descriptions for these actions.

Table 2. Examples of online behavioral actions by YouTube audiences
Full size table

Content Genres.

Previous studies have demonstrated that content genres influence audience engagement [38]. Content-related factors can influence the VR user’s sense of presence and may override the influence of technological factors [5, 6, 21]. Arapakis et al. [3] found that content sentimentality and polarity affected user engagement in online news. Koehler et al. [37] observed interacting effects between media format (i.e., video or text) and content genre. Extant literature also shows that the video content can influence the experience of 360-degree VR videos [8, 45]. Bleumers et al. [8] found that from a user perspective, certain genres are more suitable for 360-degree VR videos (e.g., hobbies, sports, or travel having scenes without change/with slow pacing). For instance, 360-degree VR videos enable multiple storylines, which can display sport or music events while allowing the audience to self-determine their focus (e.g., their favorite sports player or musician). In addition, as the audience can self-explore the environment by controlling the viewing direction, 360-degree VR videos are suitable for scenes in which the pacing is slow and display of the environment is the key motivation (e.g., documentaries and videos promoting tourism). While most immersive technologies are not suitable for news requiring high immediacy, due to the time- and resource-intensive nature of creating CG-based simulations, 360-degree VR videos can be rapidly captured and produced to meet the demand of immediacy [24]. Prior studies also suggest that different display devices should be adopted according to the content type [48].

360-degree VR videos may augment audience engagement by increasing sense of presence, empathy, emotion and involvement. In contrast, the audience may be less engaged in 360-degree VR videos because of motion sickness, physical discomfort, cognition barriers, orientation failure, satiation and low visual quality. One stream of extant studies stated that people might ignore the motion sickness when they had high sense of presence. For example, prior studies suggested that more presence and involvement could reduce motion sickness [34]. If the effects of advantages could override the disadvantages, 360-degree VR videos would better engage the audience than non-VR videos. Another stream of literature proposed that disadvantages like motion sickness could draw the audience’s attention away, decreasing involvement and the sense of presence [53, 77]. If the disadvantages could dominate the user experience, 360-degree technology might decrease the audience’s interest in the videos and the audience engagement would be worse than non-VR videos. Based on the extant literature, including the current advantages and challenges of 360-degree VR videos, the present researchers explored the following hypotheses:

  • Hypothesis 1a: 360-degree VR videos perform better than non-VR videos in enhancing audience engagement.

  • Hypothesis 1b: 360-degree VR videos perform worse than non-VR videos in enhancing audience engagement.

  • Hypothesis 2: The content genres of both 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos influence audience engagement.

3 Method

3.1 Case Selection

In this study, the researchers selected the case of the NYT VR project because The NYT has pioneered the publishing of 360-degree VR videos on YouTube, including an experienced team for VR news production [76]. Considering that 360-degree VR video techniques are still in development, the present researchers chose the NYT VR project to ensure the overall quality of the videos. The NYT has published hundreds of 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos to date, which provides the opportunity for comparison between these two types of videos using a sufficient data pool while controlling for publisher influences (e.g., [56, 71]). Figure 1 shows an example of a 360-degree VR video published by The NYT on YouTube.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

An example of a 360-degree VR video

Full size image

Considering that 360-degree VR video techniques are still in development, the present researchers chose the NYT VR project to ensure the overall quality of the videos. The NYT has published hundreds of 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos to date, which provides the opportunity for comparison between these two types of videos using a sufficient data pool while controlling for publisher influences.

Figure 1 shows an example of a 360-degree VR video published by The NYT on YouTube.

3.2 Sampling

360-Degree VR Videos.

The researchers obtained a sample of 360-degree VR videos from an NYT-published YouTube playlist called “The Daily 360” [1], which contains all the 360-degree VR videos produced by The NYT since 2015. At the time of sampling, this playlist included 299 videos.

Non-VR Videos.

To obtain the non-VR video sample, the researchers filtered all the videos published by The NYT on YouTube using several steps. First, to control for the impact of publication date, all videos published before 2015 were excluded. Next, all the 360-degree VR videos were excluded. These steps resulted in a total of 839 eligible non-VR videos. Finally, each video was tagged and 299 videos were randomly selected from the qualifying pool.

3.3 Data Collection

Data was collected from the two sample sets within one day, using Java 1.8 software. Each video was identified by its unique URL, along with the title, publication date, and other relevant information.

3.4 Content Coding

Professional editors at The NYT have identified the genre of each 360-degree VR video on their website (see Fig. 2). The present researchers combined some related genres and developed a more coarse-grained categorization, including seven genre subgroups: “U.S.,” “World,” “Culture,” “Science,” “Travel,” “Sports,” and “Politics.” Within the non-VR video sample, 72 videos lacked an official genre and 23 videos had multiple genres. One researcher identified the genre of each non-VR video based on its original genre and the researcher’s subjective judgment. The genres of all the videos were then recorded for further analysis.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Categories of 360-degree VR videos on The NYT website

Full size image

3.5 Measure

Eight indicators were used to measure the audience engagement, which contains three dimensions: popularity, engagement conversion, and audience preference. Popularity refers to the degree of audience reach, which was measured by the absolute number of views, likes, dislikes, and comments [7]. Engagement conversion refers to the conversion of views into active interactions, which was measured by the number of likes per view, dislikes per view, and comments per view [42]. Audience preference refers to the collective preference across audiences, which was measured by the proportion of dislikes (i.e., dislikes/(likes + dislikes)) [7, 54].

3.6 Data Analysis

Because extreme cases may cause bias, 15 outliers (VR: n = 6; non-VR: n = 9) whose number of views exceeded 300,000 (top 2.5% of the dataset) were excluded. Using the SPSS 20 software package, independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the differences between the 360-degree VR videos and the non-VR videos. To further examine the effects of video content, independent sample t-tests were performed on each genre.

4 Results

4.1 Independent Sample T-Tests

Table 3 details the t-test comparisons between the mean figures of each indicator in both samples. The results show that the means of all the popularity indicators (i.e., views, likes, dislikes, and comments) of the 360-degree VR videos are significantly smaller than those of non-VR videos. For example, the mean views of the 360-degree VR videos is significantly smaller than that of the non-VR videos (t = −4.170, p < .000). The means of all the engagement-conversion indicators (i.e., likes/view, dislikes/view, and comments/view) of the 360-degree VR videos are also significantly smaller than those of the non-VR videos. For example, the mean likes per view of the 360-degree VR videos is significantly smaller than that of the non-VR videos (t = −7.326, p < . 000). The mean of the audience-preference indicator (i.e., proportion of dislike) does not differ between the two samples (t = −0.950, p < .342), which suggests that audiences do not have a preference toward 360-degree VR videos versus non-VR videos.

Table 3. Total sample t-test results for views, likes, dislikes, comments, likes/view, dislikes/view, comments/view, and dislikes/(likes + dislikes) of the 360-degree VR/non-VR videos
Full size table

4.2 Genre Subgroups

Table 4 summarizes the seven subgroups based on the videos’ content genres, including their respective frequencies within each sample. The three most frequent genres within the 360-degree VR video sample are “U.S.” (n = 83, 28%), “World” (n = 82, 28%), and “Culture” (n = 53, 18%). For the non-VR video sample, “Politics” (n = 105, 36%) is the most frequent content genre, followed by “World” (n = 61, 21%) and “U.S.” (n = 56, 19%). Across these genres, “Travel” and “Politics” hold the largest discrepancies in frequency between the 360-degree VR videos and the non-VR videos (Travel: 31 vs. 2; Politics: 14 vs. 105). As “Travel” and “Politics” failed the assumptions of the t-tests, these two genres were excluded from the following analyses.

Table 4. Description of Subgroups based on content genres
Full size table

4.3 T-Tests for Subgroups

Table 5 details the t-test results for each subgroup. Regarding the popularity indicators, the results for “U.S.” and “World” are congruent with the total sample results; that is, all the popularity indicators of the 360-degree VR videos under the “U.S.” and “World” genres are significantly smaller than those of the non-VR videos under the same genres (p < 0.009). For 360-degree VR videos under the “Sports” genre, three of the four popularity indicators (excluding dislikes) are significantly smaller. Under “Culture” and “Science,” none of the popularity indicators are significantly different between the two samples, which indicates that the popularity of these genres is similar.

Table 5. Results of t-tests with subgroups for views, likes, dislikes, comments, likes/view, dislikes/view, comments/view and dislikes/(likes + dislikes) by 360-degree VR/non-VR
Full size table

Based on the total sample t-test results, all the engagement-conversion indicators (i.e., likes/view, dislikes/view, and comments/view) are significantly different between the two samples. However, engagement conversion is distinct across genres. Under “U.S.” and “Culture,” the results for dislikes/view are insignificant. Two of three engagement-conversion indicators are insignificant under “World” (i.e., likes/view and dislikes/view; p > 0.05), “Science” (i.e., dislikes/view and comments/view; p > 0.05), and “Sports” (likes/view and comments/view; p > 0.05).

The mean of the audience-preference indicator (i.e., proportion of dislikes) is not significantly different between 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos under the “U.S.” and “World” genres. However, under “Culture,” “Science,” and “Sports,” the proportion of dislikes of the 360-degree VR videos is significantly larger than that of the non-VR videos.

5 Discussion

This study explored the differences in popularity, engagement conversion, and audience preference between 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos published on YouTube by The NYT. The influence of each content genre was also investigated. The results reveal an interesting set of findings, as discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Popularity

360-Degree VR Videos vs. Non-VR Videos.

The results indicate that 360-degree VR videos are not as popular as non-VR videos in general. Although the means of all the popularity indicators show that 360-degree VR videos are slightly more popular, the audience pool is smaller for 360-degree VR videos than for non-VR videos.

Content Genres.

Across both samples, there are no significant differences between the popularity of “Culture” and “Science.” These results are demonstrated by the relatively low popularity of the non-VR videos and the relatively high popularity of the 360-degree VR videos under both genres.

In accordance with Koehler et al. [37], the present findings suggest that there is an interaction effect between video type and content genre on popularity; that is, the popular genres differ between the two samples. Among the non-VR videos, “Sports” is the most popular genre, followed by “World” and “U.S.” Prior studies found that the most popular genre on YouTube is sports, followed by news/politics, science, and travel [12], which is similar to the sequence in the present dataset. In contrast, “Culture” and “Science” are the most popular genres among the 360-degree VR videos. Previous literature may offer an explanation for this finding, as Bleumers et al. [8] suggested that 360-degree VR videos are most suitable for depicting scenes without any changes or with slow pacing. In the present study, “Culture” is a genre that involves the introduction of artwork, and most 360-degree VR videos under “Science” feature content related to the study of nature. Both genres require the audience to explore the content.

According to Bleumers et al. [8], the sports genre is also suitable for 360-degree VR videos; however, the present results do not support this statement. One explanation is that the overall quality of the 360-degree VR videos under “Sports” is problematic. Based on the present researchers’ observations, the narratives behind these videos are not sufficiently convincing or engaging for audiences, possibly due to low information density, disordered splicing, and other issues.

5.2 Engagement Conversion

360-Degree VR Videos vs. Non-VR Videos.

The results reveal that audiences are less engaged (e.g., liking, disliking, or commenting) after watching 360-degree VR videos than they are after watching non-VR videos. One possible explanation is that, as mentioned earlier, some shortcomings of 360-degree VR videos may decrease the quality of the audience’s experience and reduce audience engagement due to low visual quality, physical discomfort, and motion sickness [15, 33, 74].

Another explanation is that the present measures for engagement conversion only considered traditional online actions (e.g., clicking and commenting). Behavioral actions indicating engagement conversion that are unique to 360-degree VR videos (e.g., rotating the mouse/screen/head) were not measured. The criteria for evaluating engagement conversion of 360-degree VR videos needs further discussion.

Content Genres.

The interaction effect between video type and content genre on engagement conversion is more complex. Audiences had a similar probability to “like” a 360-degree VR video under the genres of “World” and “Sports” and to comment on a 360-degree video under the genres of “Science” and “Sports,” compared to audiences watching non-VR videos under the same genres. One explanation for these findings is that audiences tend to click “Like” at less frequency or leave fewer comments on non-VR videos under these particular genres. Prior literature has also suggested that science videos gain the least amount of comments, followed by sports, travel, and news/politics [68].

For most genres (except “Sports”), audiences generally show no interest in clicking “Dislike,” regardless of the video type, which is consistent with previous findings [10, 78]. For “Sports”, audiences click much fewer dislikes than other genres after watching non-VR videos. In our sample, “Sports” for 360-degree VR videos seems to be not sufficiently convincing or engaging for audiences as stated. As a result, audiences are inclined to click more dislikes after watching 360-degree VR videos than non-VR videos under “Sports”.

In general, we find that under “Culture” and “U.S.”, 360-degree VR videos perform worse in engaging audiences than non-VR videos. Our findings support prior statements that news genres vary significantly in their content, and each type of content has different effects on to what extent to which audiences are engaged with the videos [3].

5.3 Audience Preference

Although the audiences showed no general preference toward either video type, the present study found that, under the genres of “Culture,” “Science,” and “Sports,” the proportion of dislikes among the non-VR videos is significantly smaller than that of the 360-degree VR videos. This indicates that audiences are more inclined to click “Like” than “Dislike” after watching non-VR videos under these three genres.

6 Conclusion

This study contributes to the body of knowledge concerning how 360-degree VR videos enhance audience engagement compared to non-VR videos by clarifying the current advantages and challenges of 360-degree VR videos. Through the exploration of three dimensions (i.e., popularity, engagement conversion, and audience preference), this study shows how audience engagement with 360-degree VR videos manifests on YouTube. The findings indicate that 360-degree VR videos lack audience engagement, compared to non-VR videos. Further improvements to visual quality, as well as elements that induce physical discomfort and motion sickness among users, are required.

A few limitations must be acknowledged. First, the researchers did not control for the potential effects of device type on the viewing experience. There is no assurance that all audiences watched the videos using Google Cardboard or a more advanced headset, thereby receiving a fully immersive experience. Second, the sample size limited the researchers from exploring some genres (e.g., “Politics” and “Travel”). Third, the present measures of audience engagement are all objective. Subjective measures should be considered in the future to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the differences in audience engagement between 360-degree VR videos and non-VR videos. A new set of measures could be developed to capture the uniqueness of audience engagement with 360-degree VR videos on YouTube.