Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mac301 Global Media Vs New Media


Published on

Commodity vs creativity

  • Be the first to comment

Mac301 Global Media Vs New Media

  1. 1. MAC301
  2. 2. <ul><li>Global media ownership and questions of imperialism/McDomination </li></ul><ul><li>Standardisation of product/services vs creativity of media sector </li></ul><ul><li>Case studies: YouTube and Twitter </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>the rapid increase in cross-border economic, social, political, cultural, and technological exchange under conditions of capitalism. </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>19 th – 20 th centuries </li></ul><ul><li>Mass </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Urbanisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industrialisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumerism </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Economies of scale </li></ul><ul><li>Fordist production technique </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>Growth </li></ul><ul><li>Integration </li></ul><ul><li>Globalization </li></ul><ul><li>Concentration of ownership </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Crocteau & Hoynes, 2005: 77) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>Transnational business interests as driving force </li></ul><ul><li>Global communication networks </li></ul>
  7. 7.
  8. 8. <ul><li>Herbert Schiller (1979) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>US transnational companies creating US global capitalist culture </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Polly Toynbee (2001: 206) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>US exports 72% of the worlds TV programmes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UK exports 9% (2 nd place) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>US imports only 2% </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>‘ What you are seeing is the creation of a global oligopoly. It happened to the oil and automotive industries earlier this century; now it is happening to the entertainment industry’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Christopher Dixon cited in McChesney, 2003: 261 </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Production Distribution Consumption Publishing Radio Television Press Vertical integration Horizontal integration
  11. 11. <ul><li>General Electric </li></ul><ul><li>AT&T/SBC communications </li></ul><ul><li>Sony </li></ul><ul><li>Disney </li></ul><ul><li>Time Warner AOL </li></ul><ul><li>News Corporation </li></ul><ul><li>Viacom </li></ul><ul><li>Vivendi Universal </li></ul><ul><li>Bertelsmann </li></ul>
  12. 12.
  13. 13. <ul><li>‘ The global media system is better understood as one that advances corporate and commercial interests and values and denigrates or ignores that which cannot be incorporated into its mission’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>McChesney, 2003: 266 </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>See the work of: </li></ul><ul><li>Mark Deuze, 2007, Media Work , Cambridge: Polity </li></ul><ul><li>David Hesmondhalgh, 2007, The Cultural Industries – 2 nd Edition, London: Sage </li></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><li>“ Whatever we do with our media – what we read, watch, listen to, participate in, create, or use – is much more than the tightly corporate controlled substance offered through cable television, dot-com websites, or frequency modulation (FM) radio. It is also the bewildering array of community and ‘alternative’ media, pirate radio, our use of office photocopier as ‘the people’s printing press’, letters we write, Short Message Service (SMS) texts we send to participate in a TV show or to ask someone for a date, pictures taken with the built-in digital camera of our cell phones and uploaded to photosharing social networking sites like Flickr ; postings we make to our own or someone else’s weblog … and so on, and so forth.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Deuze, 2007: p50) </li></ul>
  16. 16. <ul><li>“ management’s plot against the endemic freedom of culture is a perpetual casus belli [‘case of war’]. On the other hand, cultural creators need managers if they wish […] to be seen, heard, and listened to, and to stand a chance of seeing their task/project through to completion” </li></ul><ul><li>Bauman, 2005: p55 </li></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>‘ Such an approach all too often limits one to instrumental explanations of media production, focussing on the complicity of media industries in the commodification and mainstreaming of culture, or on the resistance by increasingly savvy audiences to the inscribed and preferred meanings of media messages.’ </li></ul><ul><li>(Deuze, 2007: p52) </li></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>Berlusconi Effect: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ the disproportional political power that ownership over mass media outlets gives its owners or those who can pay them’ </li></ul><ul><li>Baywatch Effect: </li></ul><ul><li>‘ displacement of public discourse by the distribution of commodifiable entertainment products’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yochai Benkler (2003: p8) </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>Craigslist (eBay paid around $30m for 25% share Aug 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Flickr (Yahoo – March 2005 $35m) </li></ul><ul><li>MySpace (News Corp $580 July 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Skype (eBay $2.6b Sept 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>XFire (MTV Networks/Viacom $102m April 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>YouTube (Google $1.65bn Oct 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Last.FM (CBS $240m May 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Facebook (Microsoft pay $246m for 1.6% share Oct 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>CNET (CBS $1.8b – May 2008) </li></ul>
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23. <ul><li>Idea </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual property (IP) </li></ul><ul><li>Venture capital (VC) </li></ul><ul><li>Exit strategy </li></ul>
  24. 24. <ul><li>Private equity capital typically provided to immature, high-potential companies </li></ul><ul><li>Return generated through eventual ‘realization’ such as an IPO (initial public offering) </li></ul><ul><li>Exchanged for shares in the invested company </li></ul><ul><li>Managerial and technical advice </li></ul>
  25. 25.
  26. 26. <ul><li>Monetising the IP </li></ul><ul><li>Typically via merger or sale </li></ul>
  27. 27. <ul><li>Scale first </li></ul><ul><ul><li>R apid growth, huge ‘reach’, potentially large user-base </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Convert them to paying later? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monetise first </li></ul><ul><ul><li>D e velop unique service, keeps costs low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Out-flanked by free competitor? </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. <ul><li>2005: VC Sequoia Capital invest $3.5 million </li></ul><ul><li>2006: Sequoia Capital invest further $8 million </li></ul><ul><li>Revenue? What revenue? </li></ul><ul><li>Scale first </li></ul><ul><li>Google buys in Oct 2006 for $1.65 billion </li></ul>
  29. 29. <ul><li>2006 launch </li></ul><ul><li>2007: rapid growth </li></ul><ul><li>Raised about $15 million in VC ( Union Square Ventures) </li></ul><ul><li>2008: SMS updates disabled in some regions </li></ul>
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32. <ul><li>Global media is constantly in need of growth potential </li></ul><ul><li>Anxieties around taking risks lead to conservatism </li></ul><ul><li>A global oligopoly attempting to colonise the world? </li></ul><ul><li>In order for innovation to occur, a symbiotic relationship is needed between big media and little media. </li></ul><ul><li>In a climate where global financial turmoil is hindering potential investment in small businesses, the future may be hostile to innovation, and this can have implication for new businesses and users of new media tools and services </li></ul>
  33. 33. <ul><li>Is the relationship between managed global risk (by BIG media) and uncertain business propositions by new media start-ups a tenable one for future investments? </li></ul><ul><li>Is there a future for innovation within an era of uncertain financial investment (credit crunch)? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it best to scale or monetise first? </li></ul><ul><li>How successful are companies like Facebook or MySpace at realising th ei r assets? </li></ul>