متن زیر را با ذکر عناوین به انگلیسی خلاصه کن   Potential Entrants
Because of the substantial barriers against entry into broadcast indus- tries, there is little continuous threat of potential entrants to the existing incumbents. With the addition of Fox and two other minor networks, the market of broadcast television networks seems to have reached its saturation point with declining audience market shares and the fact that most local stations have already aligned with a network. Further- more, the entry barriers, namely, governmental policy (e.g., localism), economies of scale (e.g., ownership of many stations, especially in ma- jor markets), and access to distribution channels or programming (e.g., network affiliation or high-profile programs), are likely to persist in these markets. In other words, existing broadcasters can expect minimal threats posed by potential entrants to their markets to further divide up the shrinking market shares or dilute their bargaining power with sup- pliers or buyers. There is also very limited room for new entrants to the radio market as the radio syndication and network segment is already crowded with suppliers although there has been no increase in the num- ber of local radio stations. The growth of large radio station groups also means a tremendous scale economy advantage possessed by these group owners.
Internal Rivalry Intensity
The nature of competition in broadcast industries has changed signifi- cantly since the 1980s with the injection of more broadcast networks, the growth of station groups, and the formation of media conglomer- ates with broadcast holdings. Specifically, in the television industry, there has been a slight increase in the number of competitors, which typically contributes to more rivalry intensity. Nevertheless, the exis- tence of a still relatively small number of equivalent competitors (e.g., the big four networks or the major affiliates in a local market) points to oligopolistic, mutually dependent behavioral patterns (i.e., the don’t-rock-the-boat syndrome). By comparison, radio markets are gen- erally more crowded and thus more competitive, but the growth of ra- dio station groups has also led to more strategic, selective competition (e.g., format saturation). In fact, faced with a stagnant industry with 
little growth, many broadcasters have chosen the strategy of differenti- ation rather than direct pricing competition because differentiated products typically induce loyalty, which lessens the need for the rivalrous behavior that might lower a firm’s profitability.
Although conventional wisdom tells us that with more competitors and saturating consumer demands, there should be more rivalry in the broadcast industries, the result is really best reflected by the strategic stakes of broadcast properties as an investment for diversified media corporations, considering the extent of media consolidations involving broadcast outlets in recent years. As Hitt et al. (2001) put it, competitive rivalry is more intense when achieving success in a particular industry is crucial to most companies. In other words, broadcasters’ competitive rivalry is also determined by the importance of success in the broadcast sector in influencing a media conglomerate’s effectiveness in other mar- kets. In this context, broadcasters are strategically significant in that they offer the most extensive brand communications channels and effi- cient cross-promotional tools for their corporate owners. Broadcast sta- tions also generate one of the highest profit margins compared to other media sectors (Albarran, 2001). Thus, it is still crucial for media con- glomerates to compete aggressively in broadcast markets. In essence, the rivalry in broadcast markets today is more intense but different. The concentration of ownership means a certain degree of mutual depend- ency with selective rivalry. Competitive behavior is more likely to be based on corporate interests rather than responses to local or single-sec- tor rivalry.
Several themes seem to permeate throughout our discussions thus far of the changes impacting the broadcast media: (a) the development of networks and ownership groups that make corporate and alliance strategies more relevant nowadays, (b) the transforming role of broad- cast networks that requires a more holistic, resource-based reexamina- tion of the broadcast business, (c) the necessity of brand management that goes beyond tactical applications but is also full of application chal- lenges, and (d) the reformulation of business models that might allevi- ate broadcasters’ reliance on one single revenue source and perhaps make them more competitive in the new digital marketplace. The fol- lowing sections elaborate on each of these themes.
FORMATION OF STRATEGIC NETWORKS AND CONSOLIDATED OWNERSHIP
Chapter 3 alluded to the benefits of corporate acquisition and alliance strategies for gaining access to critical resources, reducing costs, gener- ating scale/scope economies, improving competitive positions, and en- tering new markets. Evidence shows that broadcasters have adopted these strategies in their attempt to align with the changing environ- ment. The following section assesses the specific approaches they have taken and examines the implications of these actions.
Strategic Alliances
Why do broadcasters choose to form alliances and how have they allied? Adopting an RBV approach of strategic network formations, we first in- vestigate the drivers for alliances in this market. From an RBV perspec- tive, strategic alliances are formed because firms seek partners that have resources complementary to their own or allow them to acquire new ca- pabilities (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Harrison, Hoskisson, & Ireland, 2001). Strategic alliances can take a variety of forms. Das and Teng (2000) categorized alliances in terms of dichotomy of alliance structure: equity alliances versus nonequity alliances, differentiated by the creation or absence of new entities, or ownership transfer of existing entities (Gulati, 1995). As described in chapter 3, Das and Teng further suggested that a firm will prefer an equity joint firm if it primarily con- tributes property-based resources, and its partner primarily contributes knowledge-based resources; a firm will prefer a minority equity alliance if it primarily contributes knowledge-based resources, and its partner primarily contributes property-based resources; a firm will prefer a bi- lateral contract-based alliance if both partner firms primarily contrib- ute knowledge-based resources; and a firm will prefer a unilateral contract-based alliance if both partner firms primarily contribute prop- erty-based resources. Utilizing the Das and Teng alliance typology, Liu and Chan-Olmsted (2003) found that the broadcast television net- works’ preferences for alliance structure were indeed influenced by the resources they brought to the alliances. In cases of expansion into online businesses, broadcasters used their property-based resources as a basis to form alliances with Internet firms, and in return they acquired access to the Internet firms’ knowledge-based resources that were essential to their Internet strategies. Liu and Chan-Olmsted also noticed that this group of broadcasters was most interested in developing flexible access to content (knowledge) resources (e.g., minority equity alliances with niche Web sites that are content-based firms). Specific alliance examples include NBC’s partnership with iVillage, CBS’s investments in the con- tent sites MarketWatch and SportsLine, and News Corp./Fox’s align- ment with Yahoo!
It is also our observation that broadcasters have attempted to capital-
ize on the growth of new media services through strategic alliances with members of the Internet, computing, and other media markets in the following three categories: community/content building, access facili- tating, and e-commerce enabling.
	
Community/Content-Building Alliances. 
Broadcasters have formed alliances aimed at building virtual communities of similar interests, topical or geographic. For example, CBS partnered with ThirdAge, a Web destination that offers news, expert advice, and self-assessment tools with interactive chat and forums to create an online community of baby
 
boomers. NBC entered an agreement with TalkCity, which in turn pro- vided chat room services for NBC.com. NBC also invested in iVillage.com and created a presence in a virtual community of women. Similar to the attempt to enrich the overall media experience of their au- diences through virtual communities, broadcasters have also formed al- liances to enhance their content competency, and they have even been contemplating the possibility of collaborating with local television sta- tions to offer multichannel services using the new digital spectrum. For instance, NBC, Hearst-Argyle Television, and Gannett Broadcasting formed a syndication-programming development and distribution partnership to share their content resources and capabilities (McClellan, 2000). NBC also entered programming joint ventures with MGM and Court TV, and Tribune Broadcasting entered a programming joint ven- ture with Universal Television Enterprises (McClellan, 2002a, 2002b). The community- and content-building effort is critical because it offers brand identity–building opportunities and brand image assessment av- enues, as well as a way of interactively connecting with audiences, which would compensate the broadcast media for its characteristicly in- adequate, one-way appeal to a general audience.

Access-Facilitating Alliances. 
Broadcasters have formed alliances to ensure that they are one of the players in the emerging, converging Internet-led broadband world of media. Specifically, they have tried to ex- plore new ways of reaching audiences and distributing their contents on multiple platforms through partnerships. For example, Granite Broad- casting Corp. entered an alliance with WB Network to form a Fort Wayne, Indiana, cable television station (“Granite Broadcasting Alliance,” 1999). NBC allied with Videoseeker, a video directory that offered stream- ing online content in entertainment, news, business, and shopping. Through an agreement with AOL, CBS is the exclusive broadcast news provider to AOL. CBS.SportsLine.com serves as the primary sports con- tent provider for AOL, Netscape, and Excite. To position themselves for the potential convergence between online and television content, the network broadcasters sought partnerships with computer and network heavy- weights such as Microsoft (with NBC), Oracle (with CBS), and Compaq (with ABC) (Elkin, 2000; “Walt Disney Internet,” 2000). To facilitate their technological capability in the new digital marketplace, the broadcasters have also allied with firms that produce software for interactive televi- sion. For instance, NBC invested in DigitalConvergence.com to facilitate its plan to allow NBC viewers to watch NBC programming and advertis- ing via their personal computers interactively (Mermigas, 2000). Such strategic networks are important in that they reduce the risk of equity di- versification into a new emerging market that is critical for the future of broadcast products while speeding up the broadcasters’ entrance into a new media market with their partners’ knowledge (e.g., online market- ing experience) and property (e.g., proprietary software) resources.
 
E-Commerce-Enabling Alliances.
 Broadcasters have also formed alliances to explore new business models via the Internet conduit. By al- lying with the e-commerce experts, broadcasters seek to develop addi- tional revenue sources and experiment with the Internet’s effectiveness in paid content delivery (e.g., selling fee-based or subscription content products) and online merchandising (e.g., selling program or station merchandise). Besides numerous partnerships between e-commerce de- velopers/stores and local broadcasters, networks such as NBC entered partnerships with leading e-commerce sites like Auto-By-Tel, Golf.com, Polo.com, and Preview Travel (Kaufman, 2000). ABC was affiliated with Pets.com (now Petsmart.com) and MBNA.com, an online banking ser- vice, whereas CBS, through its parent company, Viacom, allied with e-commerce sites such as RX.com and MVP.com. The alliances with e-commerce partners, although not most critical to the future direction of broadcasters, are significant in that they give broadcasters the oppor- tunity to develop online content distribution capabilities and experience in exploring nontraditional business models.

Mergers and Acquisitions
Under the justification that the nation is moving toward electronic abun- dance and that broadcasters increasingly face new electronic entrants and should be fully free to meet these new competitors, media ownership rules have been relaxed since the early 1980s. As a result of the deregula- tory climate as well as other environmental changes discussed in chapter 1, broadcast markets have witnessed tremendous waves of mergers and acquisitions. Many significant transactions occurred in the 1990s. There were conglomerate mergers such as the Westinghouse-CBS, Disney-Cap- ital Cities/ABC, and GE/NBC-Vivendi Universal deals; concentric mergers such as the Tribune Co.-Renaissance Communications Corp., Viacom-CBS, and News Corp.-New World Communications transac- tions; vertical mergers such as the acquisition of King World by CBS and Paramount by Viacom; and station group combinations such as those be- tween Hearst-Argyle and Pulitzer Broadcasting, Chancellor Media and LIN Television, and Fox and Chris-Craft. In the other broadcast market, there were major combinations of radio groups such as the mergers of Westinghouse/CBS-Infinity, Liberty Broadcasting-SFX Broadcasting, Sinclair Broadcast Group-River City Broadcasting and Sullivan Broad- casting, and Clear Channel’s acquisition of Paxson’s station properties (Bodipo-Memba & Brannigan, 1997; Brown, 1998a, 1998b; “Disney to Acquire,” 1995; Freeman, 1996a, 1996b; Gay, 2000; Heuton, 1995; Laureen, 1995; Miller & Jensen, 1996; Sherman, 2004; “Time Warner to Buy,” 1995; Trigoboff, 2001; “Westinghouse Will Make,” 1995). Today’s radio station group owners such as Clear Channel have more than 1,000 local stations (see Table 5.3). These major mergers and acquisitions changed the competitive dynamics in broadcast industries by creating
horizontally consolidated, vertically integrated markets and giving birth to more multimedia conglomerates.