
Food Communication and its Related Sentiment in Local and Organic Food Videos on YouTube
Author(s) -
Xanat Vargas Meza,
Toshimasa Yamanaka
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
jmir. journal of medical internet research/journal of medical internet research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.446
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1439-4456
pISSN - 1438-8871
DOI - 10.2196/16761
Subject(s) - framing (construction) , context (archaeology) , social media , sentiment analysis , the internet , psychology , advertising , computer science , geography , business , world wide web , artificial intelligence , archaeology
Background Local and organic foods have shown increased importance and market size in recent years. However, attitudes, sentiment, and habits related to such foods in the context of video social networks have not been thoroughly researched. Given that such media have become some of the most important venues of internet traffic, it is relevant to investigate how sustainable food is communicated through such video social networks. Objective This study aimed to explore the diffusion paths of local and organic foods on YouTube, providing a review of trends, coincidences, and differences among video discourses. Methods A combined methodology involving webometric, framing, semantic, and sentiment analyses was employed. Results We reported the results for the following two groups: organic and local organic videos. Although the content of 923 videos mostly included the “Good Mother” (organic and local organic: 282/808, 34.9% and 311/866, 35.9%, respectively), “Natural Goodness” (220/808, 27.2% and 253/866, 29.2%), and “Undermining of Foundations” (153/808, 18.9% and 180/866, 20.7%) frames, organic videos were more framed in terms of “Frankenstein” food (organic and local organic: 68/808, 8.4% and 27/866, 3.1%, respectively), with genetically modified organisms being a frequent topic among the comments. Organic videos (N=448) were better connected in terms of network metrics than local organic videos (N=475), which were slightly more framed regarding “Responsibility” (organic and local organic: 42/808, 5.1% and 57/866, 6.5%, respectively) and expressed more positive sentiment (M ranks for organic and local organic were 521.2 and 564.54, respectively, Z=2.15, P =.03). Conclusions The results suggest that viewers considered sustainable food as part of a complex system and in a positive light and that food framed as artificial and dangerous sometimes functions as a counterpoint to promote organic food.