Selected Papers of #AoIR2024: The 25th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers Sheffield, UK / 30 Oct - 2 Nov 2024 Suggested Citation (APA): Parke, J. (2024, October). A Systematic Review of VirtualHumans.org and its Role in Virtual Influencer Research, 2019 to Present. Paper (or panel) presented at AoIR2024: The 25th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Sheffield, UK: AoIR. Retrieved from http://spir.aoir.org. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF VIRTUALHUMANS.ORG AND ITS ROLE IN VIRTUAL INFLUENCER RESEARCH, 2019 TO PRESENT Jul Jeonghyun Parke University of Toronto Introduction Virtual Influencers are CGI-rendered, 2D-drawn, or AI-generated characters with social media accounts in their own name. Often driven by a team of creators, an agency, or conglomerate which participates in their aesthetic design, storyline, tone of voice, and real-time interaction with followers in the comments section or inbox (Oosterom et al., 2023; Sands et al., 2022), virtual influencers represent a nascent presence on social media platforms. VirtualHumans.org, a privately owned website, functions as a significant database and information hub for this emergent virtual influencer industry. Inspired by Ben T. Pettis's study (2022) of the website and database Know Your Meme, I investigate the considerable influence of VirtualHumans.org on the emerging field of virtual influencer research. I present findings from a systematic review (n=29) of academic articles published between 2019 and 2024 that reference the website. I examine how often and in what capacity VirtualHumans.org is cited in these articles and whether the website’s commercial affiliations are critically considered. My initial findings indicate frequent reliance on the website for quantitative data, with limited acknowledgment of its role as an industry participant. I conclude by highlighting the risks of homogenization in academic narratives when research relies too heavily on industry-driven resources, proposing a need for more diversified and contextualized approaches in the study of emergent social media phenomena. Background Since 2019, VirtualHumans.org has described itself as “the best source of information on virtual influencers, directly from industry insiders” (homepage). Founded by Christopher Travers, an entrepreneur based in Atlanta, USA, the website was originally formed to collect information about virtual influencers shortly after a viral stunt by Lil Miquela, a Brazilian-American social media influencer on Instagram, revealed that the nineteen-year-old was not a human but a CGI-generated character by tech company Brud Inc. (Brachtendorf, 2022). The website’s influence continued past 2020, when the creation and use of virtual influencers became more popular in response to the COVID- 19 crisis (Choudhury et al., 2022; Hund, 2023). VirtualHumans.org catalogues the broad landscape of virtual influencers, offering detailed profiles, categorization systems, and background information of the companies and developers behind each character. In late 2022, the website was formally acquired by Offbeat Media Group, a digital marketing agency; a year later, Offbeat Media Group was acquired by entertainment company and gaming network, Vertiqal Studios Corp. These acquisitions led to shifts in the website's focus, becoming more actively involved in brokering relationships between brands and virtual influencer agencies. Travers departed the website in January 2023. While the website has been described as the “most comprehensive” (Hofeditz et al., 2023) resource for virtual influencer data, its commercial affiliations and potential biases remain underexplored in academic research. With the underlying political economy context in mind, I examine references to VirtualHumans.org across 29 articles, inspired by Pettis (2022)’s critique of the database and wiki Know Your Meme, which demonstrated how uncritical reliance on industry-driven resources could narrow scholarly perspectives. The core question guiding this review is whether academic studies adequately contextualize VirtualHumans.org’s dual role as a database and an active industry player. Method In February 2024, a search for “virtualhumans.org” was conducted on Google Scholar, limited to the website's existence from 2019 to 2024. This search yielded 189 results. A parallel search for "virtual influencers" within the same time frame yielded 1,030 results, indicating that nearly one in five studies about virtual influencers referenced VirtualHumans.org. To focus on scholarly work, the initial 189 results were filtered to include only peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings in English and Korean. This selection process resulted in a corpus of 29 studies. Each study was then manually read and analyzed for the frequency and nature of references to VirtualHumans.org, examining how the website was being contextualized within the research. Additionally, a use-based analysis of the current VirtualHumans.org website was conducted. This analysis included reviewing staff profiles, website organization, frequently cited content, public statements from founders and staff, and information about stakeholders on platforms like Instagram and LinkedIn. Findings and Impact A wide range of disciplines engaged with VirtualHumans.org, including media studies, marketing, computer science, and sociology. Despite this diversity, few studies critically assessed the website’s commercial interests or its influence on defining the boundaries of virtual influencer research. Notably, 20 out of 29 studies referenced VirtualHumans.org as a quantitative resource, utilizing the website to provide statistics on the virtual influencer industry, such as the number of active virtual influencers and trends in follower counts. Researchers often derived legitimacy for their methodology or information from VirtualHumans.org, going beyond merely acknowledging it as a legitimate resource. This reliance was evident in the rationale statements for data collection, methodologies, and even in defining the phenomenon of virtual influencers or virtual humans. Studies cited former and current VirtualHumans.org staff writers alongside academic and news media citations without further commentary. These citations originated from blog posts, interviews, and independent research content produced by the website, effectively blurring the lines between industry-produced content and academic research. Most significantly, none of the studies contextualized VirtualHumans.org or its writers as a for-profit entity or broker in the virtual influencer industry. There are several implications regarding these initial findings. VirtualHumans.org, as a singular commercially driven platform, appears to be shaping research questions, methodologies, and interpretations within the field. This reliance is concerning given that VirtualHumans.org has a vested interest in promoting a particular view of the industry, one that aligns with its commercial goals. To start, the website’s industry focus may downplay controversies of representation and identity politics, potentially excluding diverse perspectives and cultural nuances of the infamously racialized virtual influencer landscape (Sobande, 2021). The platform's categorization system, which relies on keywords such as ‘doll-like’ or ‘feminine,’ might not adequately capture the complexities of virtual influencers operating in non-Western contexts or within specific subcultural communities. Moreover, failing to acknowledge the website's commercial interests and potential biases could lead to an oversimplified and potentially misleading understanding of the industry. Finally, relying heavily on VirtualHumans.org for foundational data and definitions could undermine the development of independent and rigorous research methodologies. Ultimately, an overreliance on this platform as a primary source of information could compromise the originality, significance, and quality of research in several ways. I contend that future studies must strive to diversify their data sources and critically evaluate the information presented on the platform. Conclusion By conducting a systematic review of the use of VirtualHumans.org as a major resource and database for virtual influencer research, I questioned whether studies of virtual humans adequately consider the rooted industry contexts of VirtualHumans.org, potentially overlooking its position as a for-profit broker in the virtual influencer economy when relying on its extensive database of historical and commercial knowledge about virtual humans across multiple platforms. Echoing Pettis (2022)'s concerns regarding Know Your Meme on classifying, historicizing, and interpreting meme content, I argue the need for a more critical and contextualized approach to studying virtual influencers, one that moves beyond a single source and embraces the complexity and diversity of this emerging phenomenon. Exploring alternative data sources, such as social media platforms, interviews with creators and audiences outside the VirtualHumans.org network, and analysis of industry reports from diverse sources, may offer opportunities to challenge VirtualHumans.org’s popular monopoly over virtual influencer discourse, particularly for critical academic inquiry. There appears to be a clear need to further investigate the platform's editorial practices, classification systems, and potential influence on research questions and interpretations. Ultimately, VirtualHumans.org has become a starting point and even a validation tool for emerging research, creating a risk of inadvertently shaping a constrained view of the virtual influencer landscape. This analysis suggests that while VirtualHumans.org serves as an invaluable database, an uncritical reliance on it could oversimplify the complex, culturally diverse, and evolving nature of virtual influencers. As a case study, it cautions the potential of homogenization when a single source assumes the authority to define and frame digital phenomena. References Audrezet, A., & Koles, B. (2023). Virtual influencer as a brand avatar in interactive marketing. In C. L. Wang (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Interactive Marketing (pp. 353–376). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14961-0_16 Awdziej, M., Plata-Alf, D., & Tkaczyk, J. (2022). Real or not, doesn’t matter, as long as you are hot: Exploring the perceived credibility of an Instagram virtual influencer. Extending Boundaries, 33. Brachtendorf, C. (2022). Lil Miquela in the folds of fashion: (Ad-)Dressing virtual influencers. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 9(4), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00157_1 Byun, K. J., & Ahn, S. J. (2023). A systematic review of virtual influencers: Similarities and differences between human and virtual influencers in interactive advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 23(4), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2236102 Choudhry, A., Han, J., Xu, X., & Huang, Y. (2022). 'I felt a little crazy following a “doll”': Investigating real influence of virtual influencers on their followers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492862 Conti, M., Gathani, J., & Tricomi, P. P. (2022). Virtual influencers in online social media. IEEE Communications Magazine, 60(8), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.001.2100786 De Brito Silva, M. J., De Oliveira Ramos Delfino, L., Alves Cerqueira, K., & De Oliveira Campos, P. (2022). Avatar marketing: A study on the engagement and authenticity of virtual influencers on Instagram. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 12(1), 130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-022-00966-w https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14961-0_16 https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00157_1 https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2236102 https://doi.org/10.1145/3492862 https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.001.2100786 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-022-00966-w De Leon, P. (2019, July 4). What does the daily routine of a 'virtual idol' look like? We spoke with 4 to find out. Hypebae. Franke, C., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Müller, K. (2023). Consumers’ responses to virtual influencers as advertising endorsers: Novel and effective or uncanny and deceiving? Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2154721 Ham, J., Li, S., Looi, J., & Eastin, M. S. (2024). Virtual humans as social actors: Investigating user perceptions of virtual humans’ emotional expression on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 155, 108161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108161 Ham, J., Li, S., Shah, P., & Eastin, M. S. (2023). The ‘mixed’ reality of virtual brand endorsers: Understanding the effect of brand engagement and social cues on technological perceptions and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 23(2), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2185557 Hofeditz, L., Erle, L., Timm, L., & Mirbabaie, M. (2023). How virtuous are virtual influencers? A qualitative analysis of virtual actors’ virtues on Instagram. Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hund, E. (2023). The influencer industry: The quest for authenticity on social media. Princeton University Press. Hwang, S., & Lee, M. C. (2021). Changes in meaning of ‘virtual human’ through semantic network analysis: Focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Digital Contents Society, 22(12), 2039–2047. https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2021.22.12.2039 Kovacic, M. (2021). Cyborg in idology studies: Symbiosis of animating humans and machines. In A. Hiroshi, P. W. Galbraith, & M. Kovacic (Eds.), Idology in Transcultural Perspective (pp. 91–131). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82677-2_5 Kozminski University, Tkaczyk, J., & Awdziej, M. (2022). Extending boundaries: The impact of the digital world on consumers and marketing. Poltext. https://doi.org/10.7206/9788366502062 Lee, E. J. (2024). Minding the source: Toward an integrative theory of human–machine communication. Human Communication Research, 50(2), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad034 Li, H., Lei, Y., Zhou, Q., & Yuan, H. (2023). Can you sense without being human? Comparing virtual and human influencers endorsement effectiveness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103456 https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2154721 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108161 https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2185557 https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2021.22.12.2039 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82677-2_5 https://doi.org/10.7206/9788366502062 https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103456 Liu, F., & Lee, Y. H. (2022). Unveiling behind-the-scenes human interventions and examining source orientation in virtual influencer endorsements. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences (pp. 175–192). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3505284.3529962 Luo, L., & Kim, W. (2024). How virtual influencers’ identities are shaped on Chinese social media: A case study of Ling. Global Media and China, 9(3), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364231188353 Moon, H., Kwon, E.-Y., & Woo, K. (2023). Technology-enhanced suggestions for customizing CLIL materials: With the topic of virtual humans. Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 23, 696–712. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202309.696 Oosterom, E. B., Baytar, F., & Maher, M. (2023). Fashion marketing with virtual humans as influencers. In A. S. M. Sayem (Ed.), Digital Fashion Innovations (pp. 163– 178). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003264958-13 Pettis, B. T. (2022). Know Your Meme and the homogenization of web history. Internet Histories, 6(3), 263-279. Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Campbell, C., & Kietzmann, J. (2022). Who is the human in human-AI interaction? The avatar as an extension of self. Psychology & Marketing, 39(10), 2053-2065. Sobande F (2021) Spectacularized and Branded Digital (Re)presentations of Black People and Blackness. Television & New Media, 22(2): 131– 46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3505284.3529962 https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364231188353 https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202309.696 https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003264958-13