skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858532acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fast, Cheap, and Good: Why Animated GIFs Engage Us

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Animated GIFs have been around since 1987 and recently gained more popularity on social networking sites. Tumblr, a large social networking and micro blogging platform, is a popular venue to share animated GIFs. Tumblr users follow blogs, generating a feed or posts, and choose to "like' or to "reblog' favored posts. In this paper, we use these actions as signals to analyze the engagement of over 3.9 million posts, and conclude that animated GIFs are significantly more engaging than other kinds of media. We follow this finding with deeper visual analysis of nearly 100k animated GIFs and pair our results with interviews with 13 Tumblr users to find out what makes animated GIFs engaging. We found that the animation, lack of sound, immediacy of consumption, low bandwidth and minimal time demands, the storytelling capabilities and utility for expressing emotions were significant factors in making GIFs the most engaging content on Tumblr. We also found that engaging GIFs contained faces and had higher motion energy, uniformity, resolution and frame rate. Our findings connect to media theories and have implications in design of effective content dashboards, video summarization tools and ranking algorithms to enhance engagement.

References

  1. Eytan Adar, Lada Adamic, and others. 2005. Tracking information epidemics in blogspace. In Web intelligence, 2005. Proceedings. The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on. IEEE, 207--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Saeideh Bakhshi and Eric Gilbert. 2015. Red, Purple and Pink: The Colors of Diffusion on Pinterest. PloS one 10, 2 (2015), e0117148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Saeideh Bakhshi, David Shamma, Lyndon Kennedy, and Eric Gilbert. 2015. Why We Filter Our Photos and How It Impacts Engagement. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI Press, 12--22. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/ view/10573/10484Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Saeideh Bakhshi, David. A Shamma, and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Faces Engage Us: Photos with Faces Attract More Likes and Comments on Instagram. In in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems,. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Eytan Bakshy, Jake M Hofman, Winter A Mason, and Duncan J Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 65--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Rex Briggs and Nigel Hollis. 1997. Advertising on the web: is there response before click-through? Journal of Advertising research 37 (1997), 33--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelly Burke and Laku Chidambaram. 1999. How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal examination of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS quarterly (1999), 557--579. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Adrian Colin Cameron and Pravin K Trivedi. 2009. Microeconometrics using stata. Vol. 5. Stata Press College Station, TX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Peter J Carnevale, Dean G Pruitt, and Steven D Seilheimer. 1981. Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, 1 (1981), 111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Pablo Cesar, Dick CA Bulterman, Jack Jansen, David Geerts, Hendrik Knoche, and William Seager. 2009. Fragment, tag, enrich, and send: Enhancing social sharing of video. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) 5, 3 (2009), 19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yi Chang, Lei Tang, Yoshiyuki Inagaki, and Yan Liu. 2014. What is Tumblr: A Statistical Overview and Comparison. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.5206 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ann G Cropper and SJW Evans. 1968. Ergonomics and computer display design. Computer Bulletin 12, 3 (1968), 94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Richard L Daft and Robert H Lengel. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science 32, 5 (1986), 554--571.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marco de Sa, Vidhya Navalpakkam, and Elizabeth F. Churchill. 2013. Mobile Advertising: Evaluating the Effects of Animation, User and Content Relevance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 2487--2496. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Alan R Dennis, Robert M Fuller, and Joseph S Valacich. 2008. Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS quarterly 32, 3 (2008), 575--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Alan R Dennis and Susan T Kinney. 1998. Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information systems research 9, 3 (1998), 256--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Benjamin H Detenber, Robert F Simons, and Gary G Bennett Jr. 1998. Roll 'em!: The effects of picture motion on emotional responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42, 1 (1998), 113--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Maha M El-Shinnawy and M Lynne Markus. 1992. Media richness theory and new electronic communication media: A study of voice mail and electronic mail. In ICIS. 91--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Janet Fulk and Brian Boyd. 1991. Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of management 17, 2 (1991), 407--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Janet Fulk, Joseph Schmitz, and Charles W Steinfield. 1990. A social influence model of technology use. Organizations and communication technology 117 (1990), 140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. Gilbert, S. Bakhshi, S. Chang, and L. Terveen. 2013. I need to try this?: a statistical overview of pinterest. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2427--2436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, Jure Leskovec, and Andreas Krause. 2010. Inferring networks of diffusion and influence. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1019--1028. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Amit Goyal, Francesco Bonchi, and Laks VS Lakshmanan. 2010. Learning influence probabilities in social networks. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 241--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Daniel Gruhl, Ramanathan Guha, David Liben-Nowell, and Andrew Tomkins. 2004. Information diffusion through blogspace. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 491--501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Caroline Haythornthwaite. 2002. Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society 18, 5 (2002), 385--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Serena Hillman, Jason Procyk, and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. Tumblr fandoms, community & culture. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 285--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Larissa Hjorth. 2007. Snapshots of almost contact: The rise of camera phone practices and a case study in Seoul, Korea. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 21, 2 (2007), 227--238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. N. Hochman and R. Schwartz. 2012. Visualizing Instagram: Tracing Cultural Visual Rhythms. In Proceedings of the workshop on social media visualization (socmedvis) in conjunction with the sixth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM-12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Weiyin Hong, James YL Thong, and Kar Yan Tam. 2004. Does animation attract online users' attention? The effects of flash on information search performance and perceptions. Information Systems Research 15, 1 (2004), 60--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Yuheng Hu, Lydia Manikonda, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2014. What We Instagram: A First Analysis of Instagram Photo Content and User Types. In ICWSM. AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. David Kirk, Abigail Sellen, Richard Harper, and Ken Wood. 2007. Understanding videowork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. David Kirk, Abigail Sellen, Carsten Rother, and Ken Wood. 2006. Understanding photowork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, 761--770. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. David S Kirk, Abigail Sellen, and Xiang Cao. 2010. Home video communication: mediating 'closeness'. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 135--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Jarmo Kuisma, Jaana Simola, Liisa Uusitalo, and Anssi Öörni. 2010. The effects of animation and format on the perception and memory of online advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing 24, 4 (2010), 269--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Roy Lachman, Janet L Lachman, and Earl Butterfield. 1979. Cognitive psychology and information processing: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Peter J Lang. 1979. A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology 16, 6 (1979), 495--512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Brenda Laurel and S Joy Mountford. 1990. The art of human-computer interface design. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Allen S Lee. 1994. Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS quarterly (1994), 143--157. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Kristina Lerman and Rumi Ghosh. 2010. Information Contagion: An Empirical Study of the Spread of News on Digg and Twitter Social Networks. ICWSM 10 (2010), 90--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hairong Li and Janice L Bukovac. 1999. Cognitive impact of banner ad characteristics: An experimental study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 76, 2 (1999), 341--353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Andrew D Miller and W Keith Edwards. 2007. Give and take: a study of consumer photo-sharing culture and practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 347--356. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996. How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Joel Ross, Robert Simpson, and Bill Tomlinson. 2011. Media richness, interactivity and retargeting to mobile devices: a survey. International Journal of Arts and Technology 4, 4 (2011), 442--459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. David A Shamma, Ryan Shaw, Peter L Shafton, and Yiming Liu. 2007. Watch what I watch: using community activity to understand content. In Proceedings of the international workshop on Workshop on multimedia information retrieval. ACM, 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Yale Song, Jordi Vallmitjana, Amanda Stent, and Alejandro Jaimes. 2015. TVSum: Summarizing Web Videos Using Titles. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 5179--5187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Bongwon Suh, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H Chi. 2010. Want to be retweeted? large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In Social Computing (SocialCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on. IEEE, 177--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. S Shyam Sundar and Sriram Kalyanaraman. 2004. Arousal, memory, and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising 33, 1 (2004), 7--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Richard Szeliski. 2010. Computer vision: algorithms and applications. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Nancy A Van House. 2011. Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies 26, 2 (2011), 125--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Shawnee K Vickery, Cornelia Droge, Theodore P Stank, Thomas J Goldsby, and Robert E Markland. 2004. The performance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service environment: Direct versus indirect effects. Management Science 50, 8 (2004), 1106--1119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Joseph B Walther and Kyle P D'Addario. 2001. The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social science computer review 19, 3 (2001), 324--347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhou Wang, Hamid R Sheikh, and Alan C Bovik. 2002. No-reference perceptual quality assessment of JPEG compressed images. In Image Processing. 2002. Proceedings. 2002 International Conference on, Vol. 1. IEEE, I--477.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Harry F Wolcott. 1994. Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Susan P Wyche, Thomas N Smyth, Marshini Chetty, Paul M Aoki, and Rebecca E Grinter. 2010. Deliberate interactions: characterizing technology use in Nairobi, Kenya. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2593--2602. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Fast, Cheap, and Good: Why Animated GIFs Engage Us

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2016
        6108 pages
        ISBN:9781450333627
        DOI:10.1145/2858036

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 May 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate565of2,435submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader