A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Conglomeration vs. Consolidation?
In what ways could the industrialization of culture framework explain that the worry over conglomeration in the media is overblown and the greater concern is consolidation?
I would think that society probably worries about conglomeration because our cultural framework is concerned with systems and traditions and as the world of media progresses, companies develop and grow in order to stay up to speed and successful. In doing this, companies and corporations are larger than ever before and people become uncomfortable with the idea. In all actuality there is not much wrong with conglomeration, by companies reaching out and buying things horizontally it is simply allowing them to be sure that they are fully aware of what is happening in every aspect of the industry at all times. The bigger issue to be concerned about is conglomeration because when companies start buying too much they begin to monopolize the industry. If Disney begins to buy vertically rather than just horizontally, it is only a matter of time before three or our companies have control of everything. This is similar to our class discussion about Comcast buying Time Warner. If they managed to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion then they would control a large percentage of the market, potentially monopolizing it. If a company gets to that point of control over a market then they are able to set the price base for the entire industry, forcing consumers to either pay a certain amount for provided services or go without.
The worry about conglomeration in the media should concern us less than consolidation because it simply refers to when a single company wants to have control over as many divisions in the industry as possible, which doesn’t necessarily hurt us as a public. However, consolidation of ownership of conglomerates into few powerful industry players would allow those very few parties the ability to control much of the power and wealth in the industry.
That being said, through the framework, we can take into account technological conditions, like the growing prevalence of streaming media, that are pushing larger companies to make sure they own a player in every sphere of the industry to monetize every possible avenue. We can also see that consolidation would result in fewer competitors and therefore higher prices for consumers, which reflects economic conditions. If there are only two or three major companies that own everything vertically and horizontally in the media industry, audiences and the public will be hurt as monopolies and oligopolies arise with far too much control over the market. Further, these major companies will be able to charge extravagant rates for what we currently enjoy at relatively lower prices. The framework indicates that our culture influences all of these aspects, and I feel that our current cultural and social traditions support a competitive market and low prices rather than the creation of industrial behemoths with few competitors and the nearly-absolute power to control the market.
I think that people just aren’t completely aware that conglomeration isn’t particularly that harmful to us as consumers, yet the idea of one company being in control over a huge amount of the industry irrationally worries us. The misinformed public therefore perpetuates the stigma against conglomerates and the unawareness of the potential problem that consolidation of ownership poses to us as a global community.
A media conglomerate is a company that owns large numbers of companies in mass media such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet. The concentration of media ownership, also known as consolidation, is a process where progressively fewer organizations control increasing shares of mass media.
I think society is not well informed. There is actually nothing wrong with a conglomeration. In class, we talk about how Disney owns many of the television channels that exist and this poses as a threat to society because at some point there is definitely going to be a manipulation of information. Since Disney owns all those channels, the message that they send out starts to become more and more one-sided. We, as a public, are not receiving the correct variety of information to be well-informed.
A conglomeration on the other hand, is when a company owns many facets of the media industry, as described above. The example in the book was Time Warner, a company who owns a variety of companies ranging from the music industry to amusement parks. However, Time Warner also poses as a consolidation threat, owning CNN, HBO, Time, and Warner Bros.
I believe this consolidation of media effects much of the culture framework, notably the conditions, practices, and texts. As new technological conditions arise (an example being the Ipad) the 6 companies that own 90% of American media are the ones that are going to have the most money to dominate that condition. This sets into action, once again, that manipulation of information where society is not getting a range of information, rather just consuming narrow messages. This is something to worry about. The more a few companies own, the less transparency there is and the more ill informed society becomes.
When we think about media industries in the US, we primarily wonder about the ownership of these industries. I agree with Mckenzie's idea that we tend to only watch these companies' actions from afar and it becomes a scary thought that they can grow and make money so fast. We should be more concerned about consolidation of ownership because this idea really does limit the power to two or three companies and forces people to pay whatever price they put out because of the limited competition. Conglomeration, on the other hand, is when a company chooses to monetize products in various ways that would benefit them, but not in a way that turns them into one of the "big players" like consolidation does. Paris shared an example in class about conglomeration that I found helpful: that if a company isn't making too much money at movie theaters but they can stream their film instead and make profit, they can do so. This is allowing a company to be a part of various divisions. The industrialization of culture framework emphasizes the different levels of influence in media and its flexibility, so it seems obvious that we should be more worried about consolidation and its restrictions.
Conglomeration is overblown and because of what a massive profit driver it is, which is good thing for both companies involved to the extent of who gets the majority of control.. Conglomeration is the act of a company buying out other franchises, industries, mediums, etc. A great example is Disney. Consolidation should concern us more than conglomeration because of the of the lack of combined ideas, leadership and expression of different values, different types of TV shows etc. Consolidation allows for less wealth and power to multiple companies whereas conglomeration has merely ownership of certain aspect of another company/franchise.
To many people, conglomeration seems like a scary thing; one company buying up other facets of the industry. But in reality, I don't think its something to fear. Disney has done this by buying Miramax, ABC, ESPN, etc. The smart thing about this is that though these entities are under the Disney umbrella, they are still individually run and thus do not become one 'voice' so to speak. A good example of this is in the book, when it states that General Electric also purchased NBC. These seemingly unrelated industries are owned by the same company, yet operate on their own. It is smart for companies to do this...keeping one hand in as many parts of the industry as they can enables the company to be prepared as the culture model shifts and use of new technologies/practices change the media industry. Consolidation on the other hand isn't as good. If Time Warner is successful in buying Comcast and everything that comes along with it, it will nearly monopolize the market. As we know, the media industry is all for profit, and with a merger such as TW and Comcast, there would be limited competition, which creates higher prices, and leaves the public no choice but to pay them.
I think what people really fear about conglomeration is the idea of a company having a reach in many areas. These companies aren't 'sticking to what they know'. Instead of just focusing on movies, for example, many companies are expanding out to also have television companies. This allows companies to have have a say in multiple mediums and have an understanding of what is happening in these different areas. It would be hard for a company to control what is happening to their movies on TV channels or streaming services if they had no idea what those mediums were like. Consolidation should be the real concern because it means that one company has a monopoly on the content in that realm. For example, if Fox were to take over almost all of the television channels available, there would be a lot more content geared toward a conservative audience. While this would satisfy the conservative audience, there would be very little to no content for the liberal or middle of the road audience.
I don't really think that conglomerations in the media are that huge of a deal. Conglomeration is basically future proofing by putting out their "tentacles" into multiple media industries in case an industry ends up collapsing. Take Disney, as many have mentioned. They own every part of process, which monatizes the ways in which people are seeing content. Conglomeration actually diversifies existing non-media industry operations that can compete in media industries. I disagree with Lizzie about how Disney's content is one-sided and keeps the public uninformed. Although Disney is well-known for having a certain image and reputation, when you watch a Disney film or Disney-owned tv channel, or go to a Disney theme park, you are buying into what they are selling, with a preconceived notion of what Disney stands for. Have you ever noticed that almost all the Disney teens, like Selena Gomez, Hilary Duff, and even Miley Cyrus before she grew out of Disney, all had a certain image because they were role models to young children and the demographic that disney was aiming for on Disney Channel. Everyone knows that when some scandal breaks out about a Disney starlet, it's always a huge deal because it violates what Disney is all about. I really disagree that Disney, as a conglomeration, leaves the public uninformed. I do however agree with what Katelyn said about how certain tv channels, like ABC and ESPN, though they are owned by Disney, are still individually run.
Consolidation of ownership, on the other hand, is the taking of large companies and reducing them into "smaller players", which controls power and wealth. The Comcast Model is an example of this. Consolidation, I think, is more of a threat to society because it puts power into the hands of a very select few. It also limits ideas, which I think makes consolidation very one-sided. This concept is what creates monopolies, which aren't good.
Mandates, conditions, and practices all influence society’s perspective of conglomeration. People fear conglomeration because the thought of having one company own all components of production leads to less diversification and too much dominance. The U.S. functioning under a commercial mandate causes people to think that companies only care about profit and not for the best interests of the consumer. Similar to what McKenzie said, technological conditions are causing large corporations to try to own these different outlets. Conglomeration might also lead people to think that the content that is created might become more singular, as a result of the view of one company. I think that all of these misunderstandings about conglomeration should be attributed to consolidation. If the concentration of ownership increases, then I think that these problems could potentially happen. Conglomeration allows companies to get their hands on all aspects of production to increase profits, rather trying to consolidate the market.
I agree with the idea of many people. I think that conglomeration, which is the increased dominance of companies dealing with different many kinds of products and services in order to sell many kinds of people who buy in different ways, doesn't damage to us directly. However, I think that the result of conglomeration, consolidation, which the largest companies dominate or control the markets, damages us because the concentration of ownership makes lack of diversity of contents and makes the products and services' price higher than the today's original price by dominating in the culture frameworks, and pursuing profits and preventing consumers from buying for the price, which is possible in the competitive market.
Since the cultural framework tries to explain the constant change and flow between different medias and culture, it is clear that consolidation is a concern because this would mean that fewer and fewer voices are being heard and there would be one homogenous voice and culture which would be an echo of those already in power. Conglomeration would be less of a concern in comparison because this would simply mean that companies would have "their tentacles" in a bunch of different types of media but this does not necessarily mean that there are fewer companies with different voices in each of the categories of the cultural framework. While I understand this point I still feel as though conglomeration is threatening because while at times it maybe necessary for companies to merge or acquire another company it could also lead to the more powerful companies being the best in all arenas and subsequently smashing out any sort of competition because they will either buy the smaller companies or just not have any real competition because of differences in resources- KA
I agree with Elizabeth’s comment that it largely has to do with society not being informed. I think the word “conglomeration” has a negative connotation, which leads people to immediately assume it’s a bad thing. A company having a hand in multiple media branches may seem like a negative thing, since it may seem like this company is dominating our culture by being present in so many different branches and therefor so many aspects of our lives as consumers. However, consolidation is the real worry, because it leads to a large portion of power being placed in the hands of few. As a result, we see less diversity of ideas within the market.
The industrialization of culture framework helps us understand that there is a constant flux between the media industries and the cultures they operate within. Conglomeration in the media is a fear of many, but in actuality, it doesn’t affect the framework as much as consolidation. Disney is a prime example of conglomeration. While it has tentacles in virtually every division, there is still a division of leadership and entities within Disney that compete against themselves. This doesn’t hinder creativity or content, but it actually promotes it. If a particular entity within Disney doesn’t produce enough profits, they will get cut out. There is still competition which is a good thing. However, on the other hand, consolidation should be a greater concern because it features a concentration of ownership which would lead to less competition. This is the main argument against the fear of monopolies. A single entity could have vertical and horizontal integration, controlling all of the content and the prices of it. The quality and creativity of content would diminish, and we wouldn’t have control over the price of it. Therefore, this is why consolidation should be a greater fear than conglomeration.
The framework could explain this by showing the traditions and systems that work throughout our culture. Companies have to keep up with changing times and develop as time moves forward, and by illustrating this, the framework can show how conglomeration is not the issue. Consolidation is the issue because it can lead to monopolization of an industry. Jamie makes a great point about Disney and how if they bought vertically rather than horizontally, they could potentially control everything in that market.
I've heard people blur the lines between conglomeration and monopoly—or get it confused with consolidation. I think if you aren't well informed on the (very confusing) way the media industry operates, you can think one leads to another. Conglomeration sounds scary because it means "big business" and lots of power. Yet at the same time, businesses like Disney need conglomeration to really gain revenue. By having a hand in everything they can generate profit. The way media texts are being distributed have a positive relationship to how culture changes, and as culture changes, business practices change. It also doesn't completely homogenize creativity, because each section within the greater business operates independently. Consolidation on the other hand is a more dangerous issue. Consolidation is the idea that the media industry could be controlled by a few large companies. Sometimes consolidation seems necessary: new businesses are always happening and big businesses need to reinvent themselves. These new revolutionary companies need the financial support. But unlike conglomeration, this could actually stunt creative growth.
I've heard people blur the lines between conglomeration and monopoly—or get it confused with consolidation. I think if you aren't well informed on the (very confusing) way the media industry operates, you can think one leads to another. Conglomeration sounds scary because it means "big business" and lots of power. Yet at the same time, businesses like Disney need conglomeration to really gain revenue. By having a hand in everything they can generate profit. The way media texts are being distributed have a positive relationship to how culture changes, and as culture changes, business practices change. It also doesn't completely homogenize creativity, because each section within the greater business operates independently. Consolidation on the other hand is a more dangerous issue. Consolidation is the idea that the media industry could be controlled by a few large companies. Sometimes consolidation seems necessary: new businesses are always happening and big businesses need to reinvent themselves. These new revolutionary companies need the financial support. But unlike conglomeration, this could actually stunt creative growth.
The fear of past monopolies that have reduced innovation, versatility, and overall customer satisfaction has concerned the masses for years. Although conglomeration in the media can be a positive thing such as Opera's O Network, O magazine, and Oprah's chai lattes at Starbucks, when companies take this idea to an extreme making tens of billions of dollars a quarter, the future affects can be detremintal to society as a whole. For example, the Disney "industry" as we should now be calling it, owns not only it's own productions, but also ESPN, Pixar, ABC, and Lucas Film. Although Disney may not be a conventional monopoly like Rockefeller Oil with fixed prices, Disney has major control over the media market. This doesn't allow for competition and the content becomes incredibly one-sided.
17 comments:
I would think that society probably worries about conglomeration because our cultural framework is concerned with systems and traditions and as the world of media progresses, companies develop and grow in order to stay up to speed and successful. In doing this, companies and corporations are larger than ever before and people become uncomfortable with the idea. In all actuality there is not much wrong with conglomeration, by companies reaching out and buying things horizontally it is simply allowing them to be sure that they are fully aware of what is happening in every aspect of the industry at all times. The bigger issue to be concerned about is conglomeration because when companies start buying too much they begin to monopolize the industry. If Disney begins to buy vertically rather than just horizontally, it is only a matter of time before three or our companies have control of everything. This is similar to our class discussion about Comcast buying Time Warner. If they managed to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion then they would control a large percentage of the market, potentially monopolizing it. If a company gets to that point of control over a market then they are able to set the price base for the entire industry, forcing consumers to either pay a certain amount for provided services or go without.
The worry about conglomeration in the media should concern us less than consolidation because it simply refers to when a single company wants to have control over as many divisions in the industry as possible, which doesn’t necessarily hurt us as a public. However, consolidation of ownership of conglomerates into few powerful industry players would allow those very few parties the ability to control much of the power and wealth in the industry.
That being said, through the framework, we can take into account technological conditions, like the growing prevalence of streaming media, that are pushing larger companies to make sure they own a player in every sphere of the industry to monetize every possible avenue. We can also see that consolidation would result in fewer competitors and therefore higher prices for consumers, which reflects economic conditions. If there are only two or three major companies that own everything vertically and horizontally in the media industry, audiences and the public will be hurt as monopolies and oligopolies arise with far too much control over the market. Further, these major companies will be able to charge extravagant rates for what we currently enjoy at relatively lower prices. The framework indicates that our culture influences all of these aspects, and I feel that our current cultural and social traditions support a competitive market and low prices rather than the creation of industrial behemoths with few competitors and the nearly-absolute power to control the market.
I think that people just aren’t completely aware that conglomeration isn’t particularly that harmful to us as consumers, yet the idea of one company being in control over a huge amount of the industry irrationally worries us. The misinformed public therefore perpetuates the stigma against conglomerates and the unawareness of the potential problem that consolidation of ownership poses to us as a global community.
A media conglomerate is a company that owns large numbers of companies in mass media such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet. The concentration of media ownership, also known as consolidation, is a process where progressively fewer organizations control increasing shares of mass media.
I think society is not well informed. There is actually nothing wrong with a conglomeration. In class, we talk about how Disney owns many of the television channels that exist and this poses as a threat to society because at some point there is definitely going to be a manipulation of information. Since Disney owns all those channels, the message that they send out starts to become more and more one-sided. We, as a public, are not receiving the correct variety of information to be well-informed.
A conglomeration on the other hand, is when a company owns many facets of the media industry, as described above. The example in the book was Time Warner, a company who owns a variety of companies ranging from the music industry to amusement parks. However, Time Warner also poses as a consolidation threat, owning CNN, HBO, Time, and Warner Bros.
I believe this consolidation of media effects much of the culture framework, notably the conditions, practices, and texts. As new technological conditions arise (an example being the Ipad) the 6 companies that own 90% of American media are the ones that are going to have the most money to dominate that condition. This sets into action, once again, that manipulation of information where society is not getting a range of information, rather just consuming narrow messages. This is something to worry about. The more a few companies own, the less transparency there is and the more ill informed society becomes.
When we think about media industries in the US, we primarily wonder about the ownership of these industries. I agree with Mckenzie's idea that we tend to only watch these companies' actions from afar and it becomes a scary thought that they can grow and make money so fast. We should be more concerned about consolidation of ownership because this idea really does limit the power to two or three companies and forces people to pay whatever price they put out because of the limited competition. Conglomeration, on the other hand, is when a company chooses to monetize products in various ways that would benefit them, but not in a way that turns them into one of the "big players" like consolidation does. Paris shared an example in class about conglomeration that I found helpful: that if a company isn't making too much money at movie theaters but they can stream their film instead and make profit, they can do so. This is allowing a company to be a part of various divisions. The industrialization of culture framework emphasizes the different levels of influence in media and its flexibility, so it seems obvious that we should be more worried about consolidation and its restrictions.
Conglomeration is overblown and because of what a massive profit driver it is, which is good thing for both companies involved to the extent of who gets the majority of control.. Conglomeration is the act of a company buying out other franchises, industries, mediums, etc. A great example is Disney. Consolidation should concern us more than conglomeration because of the of the lack of combined ideas, leadership and expression of different values, different types of TV shows etc. Consolidation allows for less wealth and power to multiple companies whereas conglomeration has merely ownership of certain aspect of another company/franchise.
To many people, conglomeration seems like a scary thing; one company buying up other facets of the industry. But in reality, I don't think its something to fear. Disney has done this by buying Miramax, ABC, ESPN, etc. The smart thing about this is that though these entities are under the Disney umbrella, they are still individually run and thus do not become one 'voice' so to speak. A good example of this is in the book, when it states that General Electric also purchased NBC. These seemingly unrelated industries are owned by the same company, yet operate on their own. It is smart for companies to do this...keeping one hand in as many parts of the industry as they can enables the company to be prepared as the culture model shifts and use of new technologies/practices change the media industry. Consolidation on the other hand isn't as good. If Time Warner is successful in buying Comcast and everything that comes along with it, it will nearly monopolize the market. As we know, the media industry is all for profit, and with a merger such as TW and Comcast, there would be limited competition, which creates higher prices, and leaves the public no choice but to pay them.
I think what people really fear about conglomeration is the idea of a company having a reach in many areas. These companies aren't 'sticking to what they know'. Instead of just focusing on movies, for example, many companies are expanding out to also have television companies. This allows companies to have have a say in multiple mediums and have an understanding of what is happening in these different areas. It would be hard for a company to control what is happening to their movies on TV channels or streaming services if they had no idea what those mediums were like.
Consolidation should be the real concern because it means that one company has a monopoly on the content in that realm. For example, if Fox were to take over almost all of the television channels available, there would be a lot more content geared toward a conservative audience. While this would satisfy the conservative audience, there would be very little to no content for the liberal or middle of the road audience.
I don't really think that conglomerations in the media are that huge of a deal. Conglomeration is basically future proofing by putting out their "tentacles" into multiple media industries in case an industry ends up collapsing. Take Disney, as many have mentioned. They own every part of process, which monatizes the ways in which people are seeing content. Conglomeration actually diversifies existing non-media industry operations that can compete in media industries. I disagree with Lizzie about how Disney's content is one-sided and keeps the public uninformed. Although Disney is well-known for having a certain image and reputation, when you watch a Disney film or Disney-owned tv channel, or go to a Disney theme park, you are buying into what they are selling, with a preconceived notion of what Disney stands for. Have you ever noticed that almost all the Disney teens, like Selena Gomez, Hilary Duff, and even Miley Cyrus before she grew out of Disney, all had a certain image because they were role models to young children and the demographic that disney was aiming for on Disney Channel. Everyone knows that when some scandal breaks out about a Disney starlet, it's always a huge deal because it violates what Disney is all about. I really disagree that Disney, as a conglomeration, leaves the public uninformed. I do however agree with what Katelyn said about how certain tv channels, like ABC and ESPN, though they are owned by Disney, are still individually run.
Consolidation of ownership, on the other hand, is the taking of large companies and reducing them into "smaller players", which controls power and wealth. The Comcast Model is an example of this. Consolidation, I think, is more of a threat to society because it puts power into the hands of a very select few. It also limits ideas, which I think makes consolidation very one-sided. This concept is what creates monopolies, which aren't good.
Mandates, conditions, and practices all influence society’s perspective of conglomeration. People fear conglomeration because the thought of having one company own all components of production leads to less diversification and too much dominance. The U.S. functioning under a commercial mandate causes people to think that companies only care about profit and not for the best interests of the consumer. Similar to what McKenzie said, technological conditions are causing large corporations to try to own these different outlets. Conglomeration might also lead people to think that the content that is created might become more singular, as a result of the view of one company. I think that all of these misunderstandings about conglomeration should be attributed to consolidation. If the concentration of ownership increases, then I think that these problems could potentially happen. Conglomeration allows companies to get their hands on all aspects of production to increase profits, rather trying to consolidate the market.
I agree with the idea of many people. I think that conglomeration, which is the increased dominance of companies dealing with different many kinds of products and services in order to sell many kinds of people who buy in different ways, doesn't damage to us directly. However, I think that the result of conglomeration, consolidation, which the largest companies dominate or control the markets, damages us because the concentration of ownership makes lack of diversity of contents and makes the products and services' price higher than the today's original price by dominating in the culture frameworks, and pursuing profits and preventing consumers from buying for the price, which is possible in the competitive market.
Since the cultural framework tries to explain the constant change and flow between different medias and culture, it is clear that consolidation is a concern because this would mean that fewer and fewer voices are being heard and there would be one homogenous voice and culture which would be an echo of those already in power. Conglomeration would be less of a concern in comparison because this would simply mean that companies would have "their tentacles" in a bunch of different types of media but this does not necessarily mean that there are fewer companies with different voices in each of the categories of the cultural framework. While I understand this point I still feel as though conglomeration is threatening because while at times it maybe necessary for companies to merge or acquire another company it could also lead to the more powerful companies being the best in all arenas and subsequently smashing out any sort of competition because they will either buy the smaller companies or just not have any real competition because of differences in resources- KA
I agree with Elizabeth’s comment that it largely has to do with society not being informed. I think the word “conglomeration” has a negative connotation, which leads people to immediately assume it’s a bad thing. A company having a hand in multiple media branches may seem like a negative thing, since it may seem like this company is dominating our culture by being present in so many different branches and therefor so many aspects of our lives as consumers. However, consolidation is the real worry, because it leads to a large portion of power being placed in the hands of few. As a result, we see less diversity of ideas within the market.
The industrialization of culture framework helps us understand that there is a constant flux between the media industries and the cultures they operate within. Conglomeration in the media is a fear of many, but in actuality, it doesn’t affect the framework as much as consolidation. Disney is a prime example of conglomeration. While it has tentacles in virtually every division, there is still a division of leadership and entities within Disney that compete against themselves. This doesn’t hinder creativity or content, but it actually promotes it. If a particular entity within Disney doesn’t produce enough profits, they will get cut out. There is still competition which is a good thing. However, on the other hand, consolidation should be a greater concern because it features a concentration of ownership which would lead to less competition. This is the main argument against the fear of monopolies. A single entity could have vertical and horizontal integration, controlling all of the content and the prices of it. The quality and creativity of content would diminish, and we wouldn’t have control over the price of it. Therefore, this is why consolidation should be a greater fear than conglomeration.
The framework could explain this by showing the traditions and systems that work throughout our culture. Companies have to keep up with changing times and develop as time moves forward, and by illustrating this, the framework can show how conglomeration is not the issue. Consolidation is the issue because it can lead to monopolization of an industry. Jamie makes a great point about Disney and how if they bought vertically rather than horizontally, they could potentially control everything in that market.
I've heard people blur the lines between conglomeration and monopoly—or get it confused with consolidation. I think if you aren't well informed on the (very confusing) way the media industry operates, you can think one leads to another. Conglomeration sounds scary because it means "big business" and lots of power. Yet at the same time, businesses like Disney need conglomeration to really gain revenue. By having a hand in everything they can generate profit. The way media texts are being distributed have a positive relationship to how culture changes, and as culture changes, business practices change. It also doesn't completely homogenize creativity, because each section within the greater business operates independently.
Consolidation on the other hand is a more dangerous issue. Consolidation is the idea that the media industry could be controlled by a few large companies. Sometimes consolidation seems necessary: new businesses are always happening and big businesses need to reinvent themselves. These new revolutionary companies need the financial support. But unlike conglomeration, this could actually stunt creative growth.
I've heard people blur the lines between conglomeration and monopoly—or get it confused with consolidation. I think if you aren't well informed on the (very confusing) way the media industry operates, you can think one leads to another. Conglomeration sounds scary because it means "big business" and lots of power. Yet at the same time, businesses like Disney need conglomeration to really gain revenue. By having a hand in everything they can generate profit. The way media texts are being distributed have a positive relationship to how culture changes, and as culture changes, business practices change. It also doesn't completely homogenize creativity, because each section within the greater business operates independently.
Consolidation on the other hand is a more dangerous issue. Consolidation is the idea that the media industry could be controlled by a few large companies. Sometimes consolidation seems necessary: new businesses are always happening and big businesses need to reinvent themselves. These new revolutionary companies need the financial support. But unlike conglomeration, this could actually stunt creative growth.
The fear of past monopolies that have reduced innovation, versatility, and overall customer satisfaction has concerned the masses for years. Although conglomeration in the media can be a positive thing such as Opera's O Network, O magazine, and Oprah's chai lattes at Starbucks, when companies take this idea to an extreme making tens of billions of dollars a quarter, the future affects can be detremintal to society as a whole. For example, the Disney "industry" as we should now be calling it, owns not only it's own productions, but also ESPN, Pixar, ABC, and Lucas Film. Although Disney may not be a conventional monopoly like Rockefeller Oil with fixed prices, Disney has major control over the media market. This doesn't allow for competition and the content becomes incredibly one-sided.
Post a Comment