متن زیر را پاراگراف به پاراگراف به انگلیسی خلاصه کن با ذکر عناوین و تیترها ضمنا ترجمه فارسی هر پاراگراف را هم بنویس
Political economy approaches

When media management does not fall under the umbrella of media economics, it is ften a subset of political economy scholarship. This field combines perspectives from economics, politics and sociology to analyse the structure of the media industries and regulatory and policy issues, looking particularly at the economic determinants, ownership structures and political allegiances (Cottle, 2003).

Political economy approaches involve the ‘study of social relations, particularly power relations, that mutually constitute the production, distribution, and onsumption of resources’ (Mosco, 1996: 25). In practice, the application of such theories to the media field tends to involve (often but not exclusively neo-Marxian) ritical studies of cultural production, looking also at the public policies that shape edia systems and the political debates about media and communication policies (McChesney, in Cottle, 2003). Typical examples would be Burns’ seminal study of the BBC (1977), Tracey’s study of how political, technological and economic forces have undermined public service broadcasting (1998), or Tunstall and Palmer’s study of media moguls (1998).

Media studies

This cross-disciplinary field applies concepts from sociology, cultural studies, nthropology, psychology, art theory, information theory and economics to analyse the output of media organisations as a means of understanding society and its ultural discourses, and the effects of mass media upon individuals and society, as ell as analysing actual media content and representations (Cottle, 2003). A typical tudy might analyse a film’s aesthetic or narrative quality, but within the perspective of the filmmaking process and the movie industry’s economic, technological and industrial context. There are separate strands looking at journalism, film, gaming, audience studies, television studies and radio studies, how corporate ownership of media production and distribution affects society, and the effects and techniques of advertising. Contemporary media studies include the nalysis of new media, with an emphasis on the internet, social media, gaming and ther forms of mass media which developed from the 1990s onwards.

Mass communications and journalism studies

The nature of media content and how it is processed and delivered to audiences forms the core focus of this discipline. It encompasses how the mass media have ome to be organised in the way they are, how the mass media actually function – how content is produced and delivered – and the effect such content – particularly journalistic content – has on audiences, individually and collectively.

Media management – the state of play

These, then, are the major ‘host’ disciplines that have made the main incursions to date into the field of media management. The current state of the discipline reflects this development path. Viewed from a management perspective, media rganisations have been largely addressed as businesses rather than organisations, t a macro rather than micro level, and much attention has been focused on the xogenous changes (technology, policy, regulation and consumption, for example) nd their impact on media firms’ output.

Viewed from an historical perspective, research into management in the media can be seen as reflecting changes in its strategic environment. The 1980s and 1990s ere characterised by liberalisation, deregulation and globalisation, and scholars esponded by focusing particularly on issues of industry structure, the growth of the onglomerates and its implications, increases in alliances and joint ventures, and transnational management. Towards the end of the 1990s a first and second tier of global media conglomerates became established. These were multiproduct divisional entities that presented a more complex management task, and media anagement scholars began to focus on the specific challenges they presented, particularly in terms of structures and processes. A focus on strategic resources merged during this period, applying approaches such as the resource-based view (RBV). The turn of the millennium saw dramatic developments in the media industry’s underlying technologies. This gave rise to research looking at the merging distribution architecture and its ramifications for the established media industry, as well as at the concept of convergence and its ramifications. The current fast pace of technological change, the development of new boundary-spanning ategories of media products, and increasing competition for audience attention have led contemporary researchers to focus on business models, and approaches to rganisational adaptation, particularly the issue of innovation.

Defining the media industry

Having defined the theoretical boundaries of the field, it is time to establish the boundaries of the empirical context, the media industry. Defining the media industry as always surprisingly tricky, and it is even more so since convergence has gained hold.

Even before convergence muddied the waters, there was no commonly accepted definition of the ‘traditional’ media industries or agreement as to their constituent ectors. In view of the transformations taking place and range of motivations for those doing the defining, this is unlikely ever to emerge.

Europeans had, until the onset of convergence and the associated unifying impact of digital distribution, tended to view the media industries more narrowly than their US peers. They limited the sector to broadcasting (radio and television), print (newspapers, magazines, journals and books), motion picture and recording industries. US analysts often include gaming, sports and theme parks (see, for xample, Vogel, 1999; Wolf, 1999). When these are included, the name often shifts from the ‘media’ to the ‘entertainment’ industries. If the ‘performing arts’ are included, the sector can sometimes become the ‘cultural industries’. An additional ariation is to include advertising, marketing and public relations, which can lead to the name altering to the ‘creative industries’.

During the early 2000s, as the digital technology sector grew and encroached on the ass media industry (as well as many others) definitions of the media sector hanged as a result. This is, of course, a symptom of the convergence process that is discussed in subsequent chapters, driven by the increasing centrality of software nd digital technologies.

Characteristics of the mass media

The term ‘media’ was long been synonymous with ‘mass media’. Mass media products and firms were understood by scholars as sharing a number of common nd defining characteristics, many of which influence strategic activities on the part f the media firm.

First, media products are experiential goods. Their value derives from their immaterial attributes, from their originality, from the intellectual property, message r stories they contain, from their use of symbols to engage and manipulate perception, experience and emotion (Garnham and Locksley, in Blumler and Nossiter, 1991; Lampel et al., 2000).

Traditional mass media products are based on technologies that allow the massive duplication of material – whether physical duplication via printing and record presses or electronic duplication via broadcast systems. The production process typically involves a single cycle of product development followed by mass production. Fixed costs are high. First copy costs are also high since the content investment is front-loaded in the initial development of the product. Thereafter production costs are low and economies of scale effects mean these reduce rapidly ith volume.

Because many traditional mass media products can be re-versioned into different formats, media firms can sell and resell the same media product indefinitely with inimal additional production costs. This encourages them to maximise returns from sunk investments in content through expansion into as many product lines, utlets and geographic markets as possible. These factors influenced decisions oncerning levels of content investment, marketing, distribution and pricing (Shapiro and Varian, 1999; Napoli, 2003) as well as the extent of vertical integration and scale of diversification (Chan-Olmsted, 2006).

However, media products are also heterogeneous. Each one is unique – no two ewspapers, magazines, news broadcasts, books are identical, although there are tandard formats (often dictated by production technologies). A substantial proportion of media products are also perishable – newspapers, for example.

This, coupled with the fickle nature of public taste, means that there has always been a high degree of product risk. (Which products will strike a chord with the arket? Which content investments will pay off?) Constant product innovation is a fundamental requirement. Further, the value of media products derives from the knowledge and creative inspiration of those creating the content: the higher the level of novelty and creativity, the greater the potential for competitive advantage – thus the primacy of creativity as an organisational resource (these issues are discussed in Chapter 5).

Mass media products are also defined by the fact that they deliver an identical essage to a potentially unlimited audience. Communication is one-way – the eceiver of the message cannot communicate with the sender of the message using the same media, and the presentation or packaging of products is linear and fixed.

Broadcast mass media products, as historically conceived, are non-excludable and on-depletable public goods, that is, the cost of production is independent from the umber of people who consume it – consumption by one individual does not limit the quantity available to other people. The cost of producing a television series or adio broadcast is independent of the number who will watch it. Other media products, such as books and films, have the characteristics of both private and public goods (Picard, 2002c). Their content can be classified as a public good in that the costs of its generation remain the same irrespective of how many consume it. But the form in which they are delivered to the consumer can be identified as a private good: if consumed by one person that product is not available to others (thus a shop may sell out of copies of a particular book, and a cinema may sell all f its seats for a particular showing).

Mass media business models

The business model for traditional media businesses (with the exception of public ervice broadcasters) is that they receive revenues from advertisers in return for ‘delivering’ audiences to them, those audiences having been attracted by the content edia products offer. Characteristics of this model are that it has a significant omponent of indirect payment (a large proportion of costs being born by dvertisers), is collective (payment models are based on aggregating the largest possible number of consumers) and based on standardised products.

Therefore, many media organisations producing advertising-supported media – ewspapers, magazines, television and radio – operate in a dual-product arketplace: in addition to producing content, they also ‘produce’ audiences – that is, they provide content to attract audiences, and these audiences are ‘sold’ to dvertisers (Picard, 2002a; Napoli, 2003). This influences the content strategy. In general the goal will be to provide content which appeals to the largest number of onsumers. However, within this broad market those demographic groups that are ost attractive to advertisers will receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

Even before the onset of convergence, this model was undergoing a process of estructuring, spurred by the introduction of cable and satellite transmission technologies which allowed direct payment for specific programming through ubscription-based and pay-per-view systems. The indirect, collective business odel which underpinned the mass media was beginning to be undermined. The ew media, however, have undermined this model even further.

Digital media

Since the advent of the internet the term ‘mass media’ has been synonymous with ‘traditional media’ and increasingly ‘legacy media’, which are seen as very different from the new forms of media that have emerged with digital technologies. While there is substantial consensus concerning what the mass media constitute, the digital media field is challenging to define, largely because it is developing so fast. Usage displays tremendous definitional variety, but common to these is an nderstanding that digital or new media are based on computing technologies, use digital information, and deploy the internet as a delivery network.

These characteristics mean the new media sector is profoundly different from the ass media one and the differences between the two look set to grow. A decade go this domain was confidently termed ‘The New Economy’. The collapse of the dotcom sector put paid to such hyperbole, but there is still undisputedly a new dimension to the media industry, now entirely equivalent to, if not larger than, the ‘old’ one, and with a number of characteristics that make it very different from the ‘old’ one – notable among these are the close links between content, communicatio nd community, the active role of users, and very close ties to the technology sector.

Social responsibility requirements and regulation

One issue that distinguishes the media sector, and deeply influences the task of leadership in the media, is the expectation that media organisations, irrespective of their commercial goals, act in a socially responsible way and promote specific ocial values. It reflects an assumption that the media is a cultural force: it shapes ociety and its messages are fundamental to democracy. So the media must not only eek to maximise profits and returns to shareholders, but must also act in the public interest and promote social values such as social interaction, engagement, democratic participation, collective knowledge and cultural identities (Cottle, in Cottle, 2003; Picard, 2004). This requirement is enforced by law and as a result edia firms contend with a slew of regulations affecting many aspects of strategic ctivity, for example, the scope for growth, the types of product that can be made nd the prices that can be charged.

There is no uniform understanding as to what constitutes social responsibility lthough a number of core societal functions have been identified:

providing a forum for the exchange of opinions between different groups in a democratic society acting as an integrative influence – especially important in countries with high levels of immigration or linguistic differences protecting core values – the interests of children or a diversity of cultural expression, for example furthering innovation in technological systems – for example, to encourage citizens’ uptake of new technologies. (Bertelsmann Foundation, 1995)

These core functions give rise to strictures designed to limit the potentially negativ ffects of media products and promote potentially positive ones. Negatively-framed trictures limit and prevent socially undesirable elements such as the violation of human dignity, sexually explicit or violent content, content that could pose a threat to children, the violation of privacy, discrimination against minorities, the co- ption of broadcasting into the service of powerful interests. Positive ones seek to nsure independence from political or commercial influences, plurality of opinion, promote the robust functioning of democracy through acting as a check on government, facilitate political discourse and ensure a diversity of opinions have a platform for expression, as well as ensure a plurality of opinions are expressed and that minority views have a platform. These requirements tend to affect generalist broadcasters more than thematic or niche ones, and the journalistic function, in particular.

The presence of regulation, and its influence on the operations of media rganisations, is well known to scholars of political economics, mass ommunications and journalism theory, but can be a foreign notion to those pproaching the media industry from purely business perspectives. What it means in practice for the media manager is that the regulatory framework exerts a strong influence on strategic options and by extension corporate strategies. These in turn guide programming and editorial decisions.

Overview of subsequent chapters

This book has nine chapters and they address the following issues.

This first chapter, the Introduction to the book, describes its goals, structure and cope.

Chapter 2, ‘The Strategic Context’, analyses the strategic context that influences trategy in the media and identifies a number of themes that are shaping the strategic genda in the field.

Chapter 3, ‘Strategic Concepts for the Media Industries’ provides an overview of the rich and variegated nature of strategic theory. Strategic theory is an enormous, diverse and fragmented field. To reduce this complexity and variety, this chapter pplies a categorisation that ‘organises’ strategic theory into three core schools that re situated on a continuum moving from rationalist to symbolic approaches. It xplores the relevance of each school or approach for the media field, situates xisting work on strategy in the media industries within this categorisation and uses it to provide an overarching framework for the subsequent chapters in the book.

Chapter 4, ‘Strategic Responses to Technological Change’, explores the often intricate relationship between technology, technological change, strategy and the edia industries. It discusses the increasing strategic significance of technology for the sector, distinguishes between different types of change and identifies the equirements these place on firms and the factors that help or hinder effective esponses.

Chapter 5, ‘Creativity and Innovation’, explores the role of creativity in the media, its strategic importance, and why this is increasing. It reviews theoretical nderstanding of the topic and explores the distinctions between creativity and innovation. Through discussion of one particular body of theory, theories of rganisational creativity, it reviews how media organisations can raise levels of product creativity over the long term. It also examines how creativity and innovation can be applied to media organisations’ wider strategy, structures, processes and business models.

Chapter 6, ‘Culture, Mindset and Strategy’, addresses core elements of the interpretative school of strategy, and their relevance for strategy in media firms. In particular it looks at the roles of organisational culture and mindset (that is, ognitive structures in strategy processes and firm performance).

Chapter 7, ‘Organisation Structure and Strategy’, reviews how the structures of rganisations in the media are adapting in response to a changed strategic nvironment, and the implications of these developments for strategy and company performance. It reviews the generic drivers of changes in structure in general and then looks more closely, from a chronological perspective, at the changes taking place in the media, particularly mergers, alliances, start-ups, networks and project- based organisations.

Chapter 8, ‘Leadership’, explores leadership in the media industries and its influence on strategy. It reviews theoretical understanding of leadership and the trands of this research that are most frequently applied to the sector. A number of ases are highlighted, including Michael Eisner, Rupert Murdoch, Greg Dyke and Jonah Peretti, to both contextualise the theory and provide insights into the specific equirements and challenges surrounding strategic leadership in the media.

Chapter 9, ‘Conclusions – The End of the Digital Beginning’ has as its main task pattern recognition. Drawing on the analysis and discussion contained in this olume, this chapter draws conclusions about the current shape and future contours f the media industries, the implications of these for the strategic management task nd for further research in the field, particularly concerning research themes and ethodologies.