16
CCT 300 Spring 2006 Class 6: Media Ownership and Control

CCT 300 Spring 2006

  • Upload
    damon

  • View
    22

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

CCT 300 Spring 2006. Class 6: Media Ownership and Control. Previously…. Various forms of analyzing media form and genre Social influence and culture jamming. Media Ownership and Media Control. Most media privately funded - why? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: CCT 300 Spring 2006

CCT 300 Spring 2006

Class 6: Media Ownership and Control

Page 2: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Previously…• Various forms of analyzing media form

and genre

• Social influence and culture jamming

Page 3: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Media Ownership and Media Control

• Most media privately funded - why?

• Effects of media ownership on form and content of media product - examples from Network

Page 4: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Horizontal Integration• Ownership of most/all players in media field• Cost savings, cost control and manipulation

of barriers to entry can be managed in monopoly/oligopoly

• Mass mediascape - rationalization of industry to few major players (examples?), a trend that continues

Page 5: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Vertical Integration• Ownership of all stations within supply

and distribution chain

• Control and profit potential at every stop - “sum is greater than the parts”

• Also good for branding and cross-promotion - examples?

Page 6: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Alliances• Often not a question of outright

purchase but adhoc alliances (examples?)

• Enabled by interlocking boards of directors, “gentlemen’s clubs”, social class

Page 7: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Limits to Integration• Synergy helps - some mergers don’t make

much conceptual sense (examples?)• Not absolute control - still independent

operators on the fringe, especially in high-risk, low-profit endeavours

• Size and power not absolute - changes in interest or technology can compromise even the big brands

Page 8: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Effects on Media Production• Steinem’s struggles with Ms. Magazine

• Initially ad-supported, moved to subscriber-funded model in 1989- why?

Page 9: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Advertiser bias• Women’s magazines = women’s

products (e.g., beauty products and food, but not cars or technology)

• Activist magazine “not our audience”• Position held even in presence of

contrary evidence that women hold real power and influence on purchases, and not just on “women’s products”

Page 10: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Product Placement• Double standard in women’s vs. “real”

publications • Product placement linked to copy (e.g.,

recipes linked directly to food ads) deliberately part of contract - without such manipulation, no ads

• Does this happen in other publications? Somewhat, but not as blatant as this

Page 11: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Alternative Finance Models• Ms. moved to subscriber model

• Others include:

• Member support

• Public/government support

• Hybrid models

• Pay-per-use

Page 12: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Changes…• New media brings costs of production

and dissemination down - reduces barriers of entry and barriers to distribution, allows for new players to emerge at reasonable cost

• New payment options and technologies also have emerged in recent years

Page 13: CCT 300 Spring 2006

McCloud• Micropayments as means to reward

artists directly for their work while streamlining distribution overhead

• Can/does this work?

• Examples where it is?

• What are the limitations of this model?

Page 14: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Wiki• Specify media type with some

specificity - can you break it down further?

• Look to apply analytical frameworks and concepts from first two weeks

• Provide exemplars

• Note overlap with other media types

Page 15: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Culture Jamming/Influence• Assignment outline expanded

• Group formation

• Proposal due Tuesday - hard copy for review, online to show others what you’re doing and get feedback there (wiki discussions)

Page 16: CCT 300 Spring 2006

Next Class• Propaganda, Truth and Objectivity

• Group Proposals Due