Education Is Entertainment? Zoo Science Communication on YouTube

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution addresses an interesting topic and provides some interesting suggestions.

It is suggested:

- to underline in Introduction the difference between seeing animals and seeing videos of animals as a way to promote pro-conservation behavours. There is a huge discussion about this difference and the contribution would benefit from considering also this topic to better introduce and give value to the study.

- to devote some considerations in the Discussion session to the limitations of the study and, eventually, to further developments

Regarding the methodology:

1) Did you consider the average display time of videos as a variable? Could you explain this point?

2) Could you explain why it seems you did not consider "like" and "dislike" regarding visualizations?

Below some detailed hints:

It is suggested to check formatting, both regarding the text and figures didactics

Lines 5 and 6: it is suggested to check affiliation

Lines 24-25: could you reformulate the sentence?

Lines 22-23 and 40-43: could you make the link between science communication and education more explicit here?

Line 176: could you check the title of Figure 2?

Line 208: check

Line 213: check punctuation

Lines 233-236: could you consider reformulating this sentence to better explain the content?

Lines 327-329: could you consider to expand this sentence and detail more this result?

Line 339: check the English

Lines 341-344: could you consider to detail more this result?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The contribution addresses an interesting topic and provides some interesting suggestions.

It is suggested:

- to underline in Introduction the difference between seeing animals and seeing videos of animals as a way to promote pro-conservation behaviours. There is a huge discussion about this difference and the contribution would benefit from considering also this topic to better introduce and give value to the study.

Thank you for the comment. This ‘seeing animals in person vs seeing videos of animals’ dynamic is an interesting area of research and one that deserves further investigation; however, this study is primarily focused on zoos' use of YouTube, with the end result being the promotion of pro-conservation behaviours. We believe this is a discussion point more suited for the ‘further extensions’ section, where the new post-covid environment may have altered the dynamic between in-situ/online experiences.  

- to devote some considerations in the Discussion session to the limitations of the study and, eventually, to further developments.

Thank you for the comment. We have taken this on board and edited the manuscript. Please see a more detailed reply to this below.

Regarding the methodology:

1) Did you consider the average display time of videos as a variable? Could you explain this point?

Thank you for the comment. We are not too sure of your question here, but because we have the full length of the video, we deemed that to be a more suitable predictor (as total length may be more daunting to some people wishing to watch all the way through) rather than average but we have taken the idea of analysing the average length too, and included an area of extension in the discussion.

2) Could you explain why it seems you did not consider "like" and "dislike" regarding visualizations?

Thank you for the comment. Due to time constraints, we only collected likes to be standardised in the measurement of engagement across all of the videos from all of the zoos but we appreciate that collecting dislikes could also provide interesting information for future study. As dislikes tend to be lower than likes, a longer period of data collection may be required to gather sufficiently robust data.

In response to both of the above comments, a new section in the discussion, 4.5, has been created to evaluate research extensions.

Below some detailed hints:

It is suggested to check formatting, both regarding the text and figures didactics

Thank you for your comment. We believe that all of the tables and figures have been adjusted correctly in accordance with the JZBG author guidelines.

Lines 5 and 6: it is suggested to check affiliation

Thank you for the comment. We have taken this on board and edited the manuscript.

Lines 24-25: could you reformulate the sentence?

Thank you for the comment. We have now re-written this sentence in the manuscript.

Lines 22-23 and 40-43: could you make the link between science communication and education more explicit here?

Thank you for the comment. We have taken this on board and edited the manuscript.

Line 176: could you check the title of Figure 2?

Thank you for the comment. We have taken this on board and edited the title for Figure 2.

Line 208: check

Thank you for the comment. We have taken this on board and edited the manuscript.

Line 213: check punctuation

This line, and the end of this paragraph has been re-written. Thank you for the comment.

Lines 233-236: could you consider reformulating this sentence to better explain the content?

Thank you for the comment, we have re-written this section for clarity.

Lines 327-329: could you consider to expand this sentence and detail more this result?

The sentence has been expanded and a note on species popularity has been added to the ‘future research’ of the discussion. Thank you for the comment.

Line 339: check the English

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Lines 341-344: could you consider to detail more this result?

Thank you for the comment. This sentence has been expanded to explain the differences between the perception of value; zoo channels producing more entertainment-focused content, but longer and more educational videos receiving more views.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

Education is entertainment? Zoo Science Communication on YouTube is an interesting topic that should absolutely be explored to help the zoological field improve in their communications with the public. I think this paper would be best presented in a series with perspectives from PR/Communications teams to create a broader discussion on not just the what, but the why behind these types of decisions. The crux of the paper is that zoos are missing an opportunity to be the educational entities they say they are in their YouTube output, and I wonder if that’s how PR/Comms teams see the intent of how they connect with folks via YouTube – are they drawing them in through that angle to reach a different aim (ultimately supporting a greater concept)? Do they know something we don’t about the efficacy of education through online video platforms? This could be something worth discussing more in the introduction (and help beef it up) – are people learning from online videos (e.g., does watching = learning)? What can we learn from non-zoo studies about this topic that will be relevant here?

I have just a few questions/recommendations to share:

Title: Should “entertainment” be capitalized to match the rest of the title capitalization?

Lines 10-12: the “we analyzed…” line of the abstract was confusing to process when I initially read the abstract. I read it again after finishing the paper and it made more sense… I mention this because it might be worth re-wording in some capacity to not lose folks early on.

Line 40: “a genuine opportunity” – just curious about the qualifier word, is that different than just an opportunity? I imagine this represents the way the author speaks – totally fine, just jumped out at me as unexpected.

Line 54: WAZA does not accredit institutions. This would be better worded as “WAZA-member institutions”. I’m not sure if listing them as member institutions provides any value – I see what you’re going for in listing them as accredited. Perhaps you could look to see if they were accredited with their regional association. Worth mentioning that zoos can be listed under EAZA without being accredited by them – recommend looking carefully here before listing anything specifically.

Line 56: Zoos are presented in an alternative order only known to the researchers in order to anonymize channel results. This felt out of place here. Best suited in a description of how videos were viewed in the main text rather than listed in this Table as a footnote?

Lines 88-89: Data on animal species was recorded by common name rather than sub-species…” – Do you mean common name rather than scientific name? It seems like a jump to think about names on the sub-species level.

Lines 98 (Table 2): Recommend omitting “clearly” as it’s used in all but one definition.

Line 110 (and throughout): Disclaimer, I’m not sure what JZBG prefers for formatting – but can there be commas in the numbers above one thousand?

Line 136: How was the diversity of species in the zoo’s animal collection evaluated? Please add in more details. Is this based on what they share on their website? ZIMS info?

Lines 150-152: The display format of this model is not how it was displayed for the previous Poisson regression – recommend using continuity in how you share this information.

Line 175 (Figure 2): This might be a question bigger than just this figure… are these percentages scaled for what the zoo has? Not every zoo has penguins, so are the proportions of zoos showing videos of penguins controlled for based on who has them? Should it be presented in that context?

Line 193 (Figure 3): Please provide info on the abbreviations/acronyms in the legend. Check this throughout the figures.

Lines 219-220: Is it relevant to point out when it’s nearing significance?

Line 227 (Table 4): Is there missing info for the last two Taxonomic Class rows?

Line 250 (Figure 4): Consider labeling these as 4a and 4b rather than top and bottom. Please also use the same scale when figures are presented in the same figure.

Line 262-263: “…but the educational messaging within these videos has dropped, which is consistent with education messaging for other taxonomic groups too” – do you mean consistent with “a lack of” educational messaging or “rates of” educational messaging for other groups?

Line 277 (Table 5): No recent data for Profiles?

Line 308: Recommend referring to defined terms in caps, e.g., “full profile” – check continuity for this concept throughout.

Lines 322-323: The audience bias towards mammalian species – is this a chicken/egg situation? Are audiences innately bias towards mammals or are we providing more mammal content and creating mammal-biased people?

Line 351: The use of “exploit” feels harsh – the word is fitting, but seems like if you want to encourage zoos to do this, helping them feel like they aren’t inappropriately taking advantage of folks would be helpful.

Lines 357-359: This sentence made me wonder, “ok, so they can create more of it and check the box of educating, but does it matter/is it still educational if people don’t watch?” This ties into my earlier comment about efficacy of educating on YouTube.

Line 371: “an effective tool for conservation education”… does this equate numbers viewed with absorbing/understanding/paying attention? Please elaborate on this a bit more.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Education is entertainment? Zoo Science Communication on YouTube is an interesting topic that should absolutely be explored to help the zoological field improve in their communications with the public. I think this paper would be best presented in a series with perspectives from PR/Communications teams to create a broader discussion on not just the what, but the why behind these types of decisions. The crux of the paper is that zoos are missing an opportunity to be the educational entities they say they are in their YouTube output, and I wonder if that’s how PR/Comms teams see the intent of how they connect with folks via YouTube – are they drawing them in through that angle to reach a different aim (ultimately supporting a greater concept)? Do they know something we don’t about the efficacy of education through online video platforms? This could be something worth discussing more in the introduction (and help beef it up) – are people learning from online videos (e.g., does watching = learning)? What can we learn from non-zoo studies about this topic that will be relevant here?

Thank you for the comments. We hope that our edits have strengthened the paper further.

I have just a few questions/recommendations to share:

Title: Should “entertainment” be capitalized to match the rest of the title capitalization?

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Lines 10-12: the “we analyzed…” line of the abstract was confusing to process when I initially read the abstract. I read it again after finishing the paper and it made more sense… I mention this because it might be worth re-wording in some capacity to not lose folks early on.

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Line 40: “a genuine opportunity” – just curious about the qualifier word, is that different than just an opportunity? I imagine this represents the way the author speaks – totally fine, just jumped out at me as unexpected.

Thank you for the comment. We mean genuine in the sense that people get real value out of viewing its content and therefore we would like to retain this phrasing.

Line 54: WAZA does not accredit institutions. This would be better worded as “WAZA-member institutions”. I’m not sure if listing them as member institutions provides any value – I see what you’re going for in listing them as accredited. Perhaps you could look to see if they were accredited with their regional association. Worth mentioning that zoos can be listed under EAZA without being accredited by them – recommend looking carefully here before listing anything specifically.

Thank you for the comment. We have edited to WAZA member and member of their regional association where appropriate.

Line 56: Zoos are presented in an alternative order only known to the researchers in order to anonymize channel results. This felt out of place here. Best suited in a description of how videos were viewed in the main text rather than listed in this Table as a footnote?

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Lines 88-89: Data on animal species was recorded by common name rather than sub-species…” – Do you mean common name rather than scientific name? It seems like a jump to think about names on the sub-species level.

Thank you for the comment, we mean that the common name was recorded even if there were subspecies (for example, giraffe was for all types of giraffe rather than Rothschild’s giraffe or reticulated giraffe being treated as separate types of animal). We have edited for clarity.

Lines 98 (Table 2): Recommend omitting “clearly” as it’s used in all but one definition.

Edited accordingly.

Line 110 (and throughout): Disclaimer, I’m not sure what JZBG prefers for formatting – but can there be commas in the numbers above one thousand?

Thank you for your comment. We believe the exclusion of commas in numbers over one thousand is accepted based on previously published papers in the journal, but will ask the JZBG team about this to confirm.

Line 136: How was the diversity of species in the zoo’s animal collection evaluated? Please add in more details. Is this based on what they share on their website? ZIMS info?

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Lines 150-152: The display format of this model is not how it was displayed for the previous Poisson regression – recommend using continuity in how you share this information.

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Line 175 (Figure 2): This might be a question bigger than just this figure… are these percentages scaled for what the zoo has? Not every zoo has penguins, so are the proportions of zoos showing videos of penguins controlled for based on who has them? Should it be presented in that context?

Thank you for the comment. Figure 2 is a representation of the frequency that certain zoo species appeared in the sample of 1000 most viewed videos (across the 20 channels). As such, this is not scaled for each zoo, but a metric of general species frequency in popular videos - the title has been adjusted to better explain this and a sentence added to the discussion section.

Line 193 (Figure 3): Please provide info on the abbreviations/acronyms in the legend. Check this throughout the figures.

Edited for clarity.

Lines 219-220: Is it relevant to point out when it’s nearing significance?

Removed the near significance.

Line 227 (Table 4): Is there missing info for the last two Taxonomic Class rows?

Edited to all include all categories. We were attempting to highlight those of most difference. Not that amphibian is compared back to the original model estimate (it is the first taxonomic class “sucked into the model” so therefore is not listed as a separate coefficient).

Line 250 (Figure 4): Consider labelling these as 4a and 4b rather than top and bottom. Please also use the same scale when figures are presented in the same figure.

We have renamed these figures as 4a and 4b.

Line 262-263: “…but the educational messaging within these videos has dropped, which is consistent with education messaging for other taxonomic groups too” – do you mean consistent with “a lack of” educational messaging or “rates of” educational messaging for other groups?

This sentence has been edited with the term ‘reduced’, as the educational messages has universally decreased over time, both within the specific amphibians, reptile and fish videos, as well as the other described groups.

Line 277 (Table 5): No recent data for Profiles?

Yes, that is correct. This did not feature in the recent categories of posts.

Line 308: Recommend referring to defined terms in caps, e.g., “full profile” – check continuity for this concept throughout.

Thank you for the comment, this has now been edited.

Lines 322-323: The audience bias towards mammalian species – is this a chicken/egg situation? Are audiences innately bias towards mammals or are we providing more mammal content and creating mammal-biased people?

Thank you for the comment. We feel that there is an inherent bias towards mammals, based on the fact that animal collections that are not completely mammal-focussed (e.g., aquariums) still record higher engagement with mammal posts.

Line 351: The use of “exploit” feels harsh – the word is fitting, but seems like if you want to encourage zoos to do this, helping them feel like they aren’t inappropriately taking advantage of folks would be helpful.

Thank you for the comment, this sentence has been edited to be more appropriate.

Lines 357-359: This sentence made me wonder, “ok, so they can create more of it and check the box of educating, but does it matter/is it still educational if people don’t watch?” This ties into my earlier comment about efficacy of educating on YouTube.

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, this would be an area for future research to investigate, rather than an aspect that we could directly comment on. We have identified that there is a balance/dynamic between educational and entertaining content on YouTube, but more research would have to be done in order to clarify the specific factors here, as it pertains to in-depth profiling of a species, i.e. ‘Is this video less entertaining because it is less educational, or because of something else such as the thumbnail, duration, animal etc.

Line 371: “an effective tool for conservation education”… does this equate numbers viewed with absorbing/understanding/paying attention? Please elaborate on this a bit more.

Edited to better explain how YouTube could become a tool for reaching a wider variety of people with conservation content. Thank you for the comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your thoughtful replies to my comments. I'm accepting as is, with one tiny thing that I think/hope you can edit if you want to. I think I caused confusion -  line 337 lists "Full Profile" - I didn't mean to suggest using quotes in addition to the capitalized letters for Full Profile. I think just the caps works there. If that wasn't based on my recommendation and is your preference to also have the quotes, please go with the formatting you prefer. Thanks.