Fernndez 1

Eric Fernndez
Prof. Mclaughlin
Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric
18 november 2015
YouTube channel owners, be careful of the Tradeoff
Since YouTube came up, Ive always been a fan of it. Once, I even tried to open a
YouTube channel that, because of embarrassment, no one will ever see. Nevertheless, it is a
hobby that captures the attention of many young adults. How much exactly? According to
Monica Anderson, six out of ten internet users use YouTube; also, 82% of people from ages 1829 use social networking sites. According to another article by Kristen Purcell, 58 % of adults
watch comedy videos. Considering the amount of viewers that visit YouTube, the amount of
adults who watch comedy videos is unbelievable. Most of these comedy videos fall in the range
of satire, both political and social. So I wonder, what type of video attracts more viewers?
First, we have to start from the root of the video, which would be its content. According
to Botha, satire entails the use of ridicule, irony or sarcasm to lampoon someone or something,
and is designed to generate laughter. In the case of social satire, it means mocking a social vice
or acting as a social corrective (Ziv 38). In other words, by mocking the social vice, the mockery
acts as a social corrective by informing the people about the so-called problem. In the case of
political satire, it acts in a similar manner; but, instead of being a social corrective, it is more of a
political mockery that exposes the truth. For example, one of the most prominent satirical figures
now a day is Stephen Colbert. The quote Colberts satire is unique; it has a huge fan base; it has
had a memorable effect on the public psyche, visible, for example, in the presence of Colberts
neologisms in the U.S lexicon; and it has radically transformed satire (McClennen 97) talks

Fernndez 2

about how Stephen Colbert has revolutionized satire, making it seem more like news than
satirical news. These two genealogies of the satire are one of the most effective ways of
attracting the online audience, as shown by the relevance of satire in todays viral YouTube
videos.
Satire, and comedy in general, gather more than half the attention of the YouTube
population. Therefore, one can believe that satire is a great way to gather views in comparison to
other types of videos, such as news or educational. I plan to investigate which is more prominent,
social satire or political satire. This is especially important, because for YouTube channels, there
is a trade off between producing one or the other. Hopefully, with this study I will find out which
type of video is worth investing time in. One concrete example is the Hitler parodies, thoroughly
explained by Patrcia Dias De Silva in her article. The Xbox live parody video is a social satire
criticizing game addiction, and the Obama parody video is a political satire that criticizes
Romneys failure as a making of his own. In this particular case, the social satire beats the
political satire by about 7 million views. It could be a product of content since, personally, both
werent equally as funny. This is directly related to the view count, because when investigating
the effectiveness of view count in viral content, one has to take into account the intensity of the
emotion, or laughter in this case (Botha).
Now, when one analyzes the viewers objectively, one can reach a different conclusion to
Bothas research. On one hand, social satire should get a much broader comedy seeking audience
base, since it is universal and not only for people who follow politics. On the other hand, the
relevance that political satire has acquired (McClennen) increases its view count , not only by
comedy seekers, but also by news seekers. That is why, personally, I believe political satire

Fernndez 3

videos will have a higher view count, since they have a broader audience base and, as a
consequence, more viewers.
Although this sounds true in theory, I will analyze it in depth experimentally. Further on,
the question of which satire attracts more viewers will be addressed as follows. In a form of a
one two punch, I will address the highly relevant sources I have acquired. For each source, which
will provide more depth and analysis towards the topical question, there will be two paragraphs.
The discussion begins with the content of the source, which will lead directly to the videos. After
discussing the content of the source, I will state which parts are worth analyzing and why. After
providing data on the content, I will analyze each piece of content, and this analysis will provide
a backbone to my research. Further discussion will display my analysis, in which I will discuss
how each topic justifies (individually) either political or social satire. Then, I will provide a
counterargument for each possible conclusion, from which I will aim to deduce which is more
effective in terms of acquiring and attracting viewers. With the information I have written, I will
be able to reach a conclusion on whether political or social satire is more proficient in acquiring
views.
In YouTubers as Satirists: Humour and Remix in Online Video by Patrcia Dias De
Silva and Jos Luis Garca, they discuss the role of humor in social media in a scholarly
analytical context. The article revolves around the parody making of a scene from Den
Untergang, a movie that recalls Hitlers last days in the Berlin bunker, where he rants in one
particular scene. These parody makers have altered this scene by simply changing the subtitles,
since the dialogue is in German. These parody makers change the complete meaning of the scene
by mocking social situations, deviating from the actual scene, which is when Hitler gets
informed of his impending defeat. I will focus on three particular parodies, which are mainly

Fernndez 4

social satire. The first parody is called Hitler Gets Banned from Xbox live. The second is called
Usain Bolt breaks 100m record. The third one is called Hitler Reacts to Losing the Epic Rap
Battle of History. In the next paragraph, I will analyze each video individually, identifying each
view count, and also the content behind each video.
After viewing the Hitler parody videos, I noticed a pattern in the content. Each video has
the same order of events, since it is the same scene but with different subtitles. Taking this into
consideration, we can assume that the difference in view count is due to the level of humor, since
they are the same thing but with different themes. Also, all of them contain the same type of
humor, which would be a breach to the usual order of things (Monro 40-42). The first video I
analyzed was one where Hitler gets banned from Xbox live because he modded his console (an
act which is not allowed). The video has 8,804,200 million views, and consists of social satire
due to its mockery of Xbox addiction. The second video I analyzed was about Usain Bolt
breaking the 100m record (3,749,290 views), and Hitler making many racist remarks about how
black people have an unfair advantage in sports, mocking many stereotypical people. The third
video is about Hitler (1,427,827 views) reacting to losing the epic rap battle of history, which is
actually another social satire. It consists of him ranting about being beaten and making remarks,
which mock the actual existence of rap battles (a popular activity). These social satires have, on
average, 4,660,439 views (being the three of the most famous Downfall parodies). So, due to its
high view count, we can conclude the effectiveness of making a social satire of the Downfall
movie scene.
In Public Relations Review, Botha investigates two different viral videos, their view
count, and the reason of their virality. The videos were carefully selected because they are both
similar in humor, and in the length of time they have been published. Also, both use humor,

Fernndez 5

political satire, and mockery of South African political figures in order to gain virality, so their
techniques are similar. The first video, called Nandos Last Dictator Standing, is about Mugabe
(president of Zimbabwe) reminiscing in the past, in which Mugabe has nostalgic memories of
past dictators Hussein, Gaddafi, and others. The second video, Julius Malema Campaign ad, is
about a puppet named Julius which claims that change is buying Nandos product, since the sale
would give you (literally) more change. Through these videos, we can see the effect that political
satire has, since the virality that these videos commanded eventually led to the banning of the
videos in South Africa.
Both pieces were made as marketing strategies for Nandos. The way they achieved this
though, was through the creation of political satire. This proves that political satire is a useful
way to reach viewers, since they were quite successful in getting to their goal (views); so I will
analyze both videos. The Last Dictator standing uses a forbidden breach to the order of things
(Monro 40-42) since he was basically calling Mugabe a dictator, something that is not allowed in
Zimbabwe. Also, it was a veiled insult, criticizing Mugabe himself and the reign he possesses.
This mockery gave this video a total view count of 1,643,000 views, and considering that their
target was the South Africans, I would say that they were highly successful. The other video
mocks Julius Malema, since the video basically says that he is a puppet (controlled) and that he
lacks intelligence, since he is not able to build his own thoughts. This one, even if less viral, also
gathered many views, reaching 576,000. Both of these videos criticize African politicians, and
they acquired virality because of the content they possess. Taking in consideration that 1.8% of
South Africans have a computer and that their population is of 53 million, I would say political
satire is very proficient in reaching its intended audience.

Fernndez 6

In my personal research, Ive come across various videos which represent either political
satire or social satire. Although there is a broad research base which is possible, to keep it
practical and brief, I will choose two channels which do both political and social satire. The
channels, Collegehumor and Key and Peele, have fame for their mockery videos, and since they
are very viral, these videos are good for comparison with the Nandos videos and the Hitler
videos. Key and Peele has two social and two political satires which I will examine thoroughly.
The social satires are called Michael Jackson and Substitute Teacher. The political satires are
called Obama College Years and Al Qaeda Meeting. Collegehumor has two videos which I will
examine; one social and one political satire. The social satire is called Gay men will marry your
girlfriends. The political satire is called Barack Obamas BBQ. Due to the virality of these
videos, I can use these as reference points to be able to determine whether political or social
satire acquires more views.
All of these videos have great fan bases. We can clearly determine this from the view
count. For example, the Substitute Teacher video has 87,512,298 views. The video mocks the
pronunciation of peoples names, thus it is a social satire. And even though this is clearly an
outlier, it still counts as a great way to reach the YouTube audience. Another social satire is the
Michael Jackson video (7,216,940 views), which mocks people who dress as the passed away
pop star on Halloween. Collegehumor has another social satire called Gay men will marry your
girlfriends which has generated 12,230,298. This social satire criticizes people who dont support
same sex marriage, so as a retaliation, gay people claim to marry straight mens girlfriends. On
the other hand, there are the political satires, which both channels are proficient at making.
Obama College Years and Al Qaeda Meeting have, respectively, 10,440,560 and 6,084,573
views. Obama College Years is about how Obama used to smoke drugs in college (he admitted

Fernndez 7

to this), and this criticizes politics overall (and their shadiness). Al Qaeda meeting is a mockery
of TSA restrictions, and how they foil the plans of terrorists organizations. The political satire
video called Barack Obamas BBQ (2,118,266 views) metaphorically places the BBQ as
Obamas term, and mocks the remarks made by the people. On average, social satire has
35,653,179 views compared to political satires 18,643,399 views. This newly found information
shows that social satire acquires more views than political satire.
As Ive said before, satire is a great way to reach the young audience. YouTube statistics
state that it reaches more 18-34 and 18-49 year-olds than any cable network in the U.S. These
channels know that and that is why, when making a video, they face a tradeoff between making
political or satirical videos. The three most viral social satirical Hitler videos have 4,660,439
views on average, and my mixture of three social satire videos of Key and Peele and
Collegehumor have 35,653,179 views. On the other hand, the examined Nandos political satires
have 1,109,500 views on average, and my mixture of three political satire videos of Key and
Peele and Collegehumor have on average 18,643,399 views. So, by sheer numbers, we can
clearly see that social satire has more potential to go viral. One could state that my research is
too narrow, and maybe it is. In the future, this can be examined more thoroughly and broadly.
But for my purposes, I believe that what I chose is a good approximation of the satire market,
since I only chose the most viral videos I could find. From the data one can see that social satire
generates a lot more views, whether on the large scale (Key and Peele; Collegehumor) or on the
smaller scale (Hitler parodies; Nandos videos). As I stated after speaking of Colbert, I thought
that political satire would be more popular, since it has not only a comedy seeking audience base,
but also a news seeking audience base. But, since social satire generates more views, and its
viewers are comedy seekers, we can conclude that the news audience is smaller than the comedy

Fernndez 8

audience since social satires generate more views than political satires (for my findings). So from
my findings, if someone were to ask me what type of video to make, I would recommend social
satire, since the comedy (or social mockery) seeking audience base will increase view count
significantly more than the news/comedy seeking audience who searches for political satire.

Fernndez 9

Works Cited
Anderson, Monica. "5 Facts about Online Video, for YouTubes 10th Birthday." Pew Research
....Center RSS. 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

Botha, Elsamari. "A Means to an End: Using Political Satire to Go Viral." Industrial Marketing,
....INDEK, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 17 Jan. 2014.

Dias De Silva, Patrcia, and Jos Luis Garca. "YouTubers as Satirists: Humour and Remix in
....Online Video."Jedeem 2012. Repositrio Cientfico De Acesso Aberto De Portugal. Web. 9
....Nov. 2015.

McClennen, Sophia A. "America According to the Colbert Report: Or How a TV Show Can
....Change the Way a Nation Thinks." America According to Colbert: Satire as Public
....Pedagogy. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 96-168. Print.

Monro, D. H. "Types of Humor." Argument of Laughter. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame, 1963.
....Print.

Purcell, Kristen. "Main Findings." Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech RSS. 9 Oct.
....2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

YouTube. YouTube. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Fernndez 10

Ziv, Avner, and Francois Labelle. "The Social Function of Humor." Personality and Sense of
....Humor. New York: Springer Pub., 1984. Print.