Karakteristik Konten TikTok Merek Lokal untuk Generasi Z di Indonesia: Analisis Isi Kualitatif
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30640/dewantara.v5i2.6898Keywords:
Content Analysis, Generation Z, Local Brands, Platform Logic, TikTokAbstract
This study examines TikTok content as a platform-native communication artifact shaped by brand strategy, platform logic, and Generation Z preferences. It adapts Munsch’s (2021) audience-perception model by shifting the analytical focus from audience responses to observable brand-generated content construction. Using qualitative content analysis supported by descriptive statistics, this study analyzes 69 TikTok posts, consisting of 64 videos and 5 photo/carousel posts from three Indonesian local brands, namely Somethinc, Scarlett Whitening, and Erigo, published from 1 to 15 May 2026. Seven communication elements were coded by two independent coders: compact format, viral music, humor, figure/creator/KOL presence, authenticity, informative message, and call-to-action. Intercoder reliability was strong across the six variable elements, with average Cohen’s Kappa and Krippendorff’s Alpha scores of 0.95. The analysis identifies three dominant content configurations: science-led educational content, figur/KOL-mediated community intimacy, and figur/KOL-led trend conversion. Humor emerges as the most strategic differentiator, supported by visual evidence from selected screenshots. The findings suggest that, within the observed corpus, the three brands do not rely on a single viral content formula. Instead, Indonesian local brands navigate algorithmic visibility through category-specific content construction.
References
Bhandari, A., & Bimo, S. (2022). Why’s everyone on TikTok now? The algorithmized self and the future of self-making on social media. Social Media + Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221086241
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
DataReportal. (2024, February 21). Digital 2024: Indonesia. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-indonesia
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y
Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). True gen: Generation Z and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms”. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
GoodStats. (2025, February 10). Mayoritas generasi Z menghabiskan waktu luang dengan media sosial. https://goodstats.id/article/mayoritas-generasi-z-menghabiskan-waktu-luang-dengan-media-sosial-KT9NM
Jin, S. V., Muqaddam, A., & Ryu, E. (2019). Instafamous and social media influencer marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(5), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2018-0375
Kaye, D. B. V., Chen, X., & Zeng, J. (2021). The co-evolution of two Chinese mobile short video apps: Parallel platformization of Douyin and TikTok. Mobile Media & Communication, 9(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920952120
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management. Pearson. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=UbfwtwEACAAJ
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Masuda, H., Han, S. H., & Lee, J. (2022). Impacts of influencer attributes on purchase intentions in social media influencer marketing: Mediating roles of characterizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121246
Munsch, A. (2021). Millennial and Generation Z digital marketing communication and advertising effectiveness: A qualitative exploration. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 31(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2020.1808812
Schellewald, A. (2021). Communicative forms on TikTok: Perspectives from digital ethnography. International Journal of Communication, 15, 21. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/16414
Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 205395171773810. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70
Vrontis, D., Makrides, A., Christofi, M., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Social media influencer marketing: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 617–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12647
Warren, C., & McGraw, A. P. (2016). Differentiating what is humorous from what is not. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000041
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1992.10673384
Zeng, J., Abidin, C., & Schäfer, M. S. (2021). Research perspectives on TikTok & its legacy apps: Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 15, 12. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/14539
Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2022). Extending the internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 24(8), 1872–1890. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820983603
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Andhini Winariyanti, Ridha Handayani, Juni Alfiah Chusjairi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
