این متن رو پاراگراف به پاراگراف خلاصه کن به انگلیسی. تیتر هر پاراگراف حفظ بشه   Value Creation
To better understand the activities through which a firm develops com- petitive advantages, it is useful to separate its business system into a se-
 
ries of value-generating activities referred to as the value chain. The value chain categorizes the generic value-adding activities of an organi- zation and serves as an analysis tool for strategic planning. The ulti- mate goal is to maximize value creating while minimizing costs in this process. Porter’s (1998) model of the value chain is perhaps the most well known value-creating system (Sanchez & Heene, 2004). Porter pro- posed that a firm’s value-creating activities can be divided into primary and support activities. Whereas the primary activities include those that are directly concerned with creating and delivering a product such as outbound logistics, inbound logistics, operations, sales, marketing, and service, support activities involve those that are not directly connected to the production function but may increase the efficiency or effective- ness of the process such as infrastructure, human resource manage- ment, technology development, and procurement (Porter, 1998). Value chain analysis is critical in strategic management because a firm might outperform its competitors by capturing value through cost reduction or differentiation in a specific segment of the chain, better coordination of connected chain activities, or even the creation of new business mod- els that modify these value chain activities. The value chain concept has also been extended beyond individual organizations. It can be applied to the whole value creation system in an industry. Thus, the delivery of a product or service to the end customer (i.e., the extended industry value chain) would involve different parts of a value system such as the sup- plier value chain, channel value chain, organization value chain, and customer value chain, each managing its own value chain while inter- connecting to others (Porter, 1998). The value creation/value chain con- cept, though in need of modifications to apply to certain media products (e.g., intangible content product), is useful for identifying the vital ac- tivities that might lead to competitive advantages, optimizing the link- age between different activities, and identifying possible cost reduction opportunities in a rapidly changing media marketplace.

Competitive Dynamics

Competitive dynamics may be defined as a series of competitive actions and counter responses among firms pursuing superior performance in an industry. Thus, the study of competitive dynamics is the study of how a firm’s moves affect its competitors’ countermoves, competitive advantage, and performance (Smith, Ferrier, & Ndofor, 2001). Consider- ing the changing competitive landscape today—infused by technologi- cal advances, a global market, and changing competitive relationships (e.g., increasing use of alliance strategy)—an understanding of this topic seems to be even more critical. In essence, strategies are formulated to exploit the competitive asymmetries due to different firms’ different resources, capabilities, core competences, and external opportunities and threats in the environments (Hitt et al., 2001).
 
Research on competitive dynamics began in the 1980s; many studies investigated competitor response timing/orders, antecedents, predic- tors, consequences of competitive moves and countermoves, and rela- tionships between different kinds of rivalry and performance (Smith et al., 2001). Various models have been proposed to explain the competi- tive dynamics between firms. Most have examined the following com- ponents: the actor (i.e., the move initiator), the action, the responder, the response, drivers for competitive behavior, and the competitive envi- ronment of the industry. In researching the dynamic rivalry, one may examine the market commonality and resource similarity between the actor and responder; the awareness, capability, and motivation for competitive moves; the organizational characteristics of movers (e.g., reputations, dependence on the market, resource availability, size, speed, and innovativeness); likelihood of moves and countermoves by types of actions; types of environment in inducing certain rivalries (e.g., slow-, standard-, or fast-cycle market); and the sustainability of com- petitive advantage as a result of action or response. In general, studies in this area suggest the following (Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Dimmick, 2003; Hitt et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2001):

1.	Firms’ awareness of the competitive environment, the resource similarities, and relative characteristics between competitors is linked to the timing, actions, and reactions of the rivalry.
2.	The magnitude, scope, and threat of an action is related to the speed and likelihood of response.
3.	Organizational characteristics such as size, age, and reputation play a role in rivalry timing and initiation (e.g., smaller firms are more likely to initiate moves and do them quickly).
4.	There might be less rivalry when firms compete against one an- other in several product or geographic markets (i.e., multipoint competition or multimarket contact) because of fear of mutual re- taliation.
5.	The timing and magnitude of a response is linked to a competitor’s reliance on a particular market.
6.	Degrees of rivalry are negatively related to industry characteristics such as conditions of demand, concentration, and barriers to en- try.
7.	Because markets evolve over time, competitive dynamics may be examined as evolutionary interactions longitudinally.

Considering the asymmetric resources between many different types of media firms, the necessity of multimarket contact and competition be- tween media conglomerates, and the changing market environment due to technological development, one might garner additional insight by examining the strategies of media firms by applying the perspective of competitive dynamics.
 
Strategic Entrepreneurship
Today’s organizations are in a new landscape filled with threats to exist- ing ways of competition, new opportunities due to innovations, and temporary competitive advantages. Such an environment offers revo- lutionaries (i.e., entrepreneurs) the potential to capture market shares, develop new markets, and develop innovative resources and capabilities (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002). In other words, entrepreneurial strategies are vital for success in today’s media landscape. In fact, media industries are fundamentally shaped by many entrepreneurs who took the risks required to introduce a media product in response to opportu- nities presented by environmental changes. From Disney to CNN to the DISH Network, media entrepreneurs such as Walt Disney, Ted Turner, Charlie Ergen, and many more have offered new products and/or devel- oped new markets. In a sense, strategic entrepreneurship offers an excel- lent framework for investigating how media products evolve and develop over time.
Entrepreneurship is a well-established disciplinary area that is in- creasingly regarded as highly complementary to the study of strategic management. This is because both are primarily concerned with growth and wealth creation, albeit with slightly different emphases (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). Whereas strategic management is based mostly on the theories of competitive advantage, entrepreneurship often con- centrates on the theories of organizational creativity, innovation, and opportunity recognition and exploitation. Empirically, whereas entre- preneurship has mostly examined small businesses, strategic manage- ment focuses on large businesses (Meyer, Neck, & Meeks, 2002). Integrating entrepreneurial activities with strategic perspectives, stra- tegic entrepreneurship may be defined as the strategic management and deployment of resources for identifying and exploiting opportunities to form competitive advantages and thus superior performance in estab- lished firms or new ventures. In fact, entrepreneurial and strategic ac- tions are complementary and likely achieve the best results when integrated (Hitt et al., 2002).
Scholars have presented various models or frameworks for examining entrepreneurship in a strategic setting. Specifically, Johnson and Van de Ven (2002) suggested that one might utilize the theories in population ecology to study market opportunity recognition, new institutionalism models to examine the establishment of legitimacy for entrepreneurs, or- ganizational evolution theories to consider the subjects of adaptability and fitness of entrepreneurs, and industrial communities notions to ex- plore the issues involved in constructing an industrial infrastructure that facilitates entrepreneurship. Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon (2003) suggested four dimensions of strategic entrepreneurship for investigation: entre- preneurial mindset, entrepreneurial culture and leadership, the strategic management of resources, and the development of creativity and innova- tion. Specifically, the entrepreneurial mindset is defined as a way of ap-
 
proaching business with a focus on uncertainty in order to capture the benefits of uncertainty (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000). Such a mindset enables a firm to proactively and cognitively handle environmental risk and ambiguity because it is oriented toward growth opportunities and promotion of flexibility, creativity, and renewal. Entrepreneurial culture is defined as a set of shared entrepreneurial values that shape the behav- ioral norms and actions of a firm (and its members). The value system might include expectations of creativity, risk taking, occasional failure, learning and innovation, and continuous change. A related concept, en- trepreneurial leadership, is the ability to influence others, nurture the aforementioned culture, and manage resources to both exploit opportu- nities and sustain competitive advantages. Strategic management of re- sources in this context includes the functions of structuring, integrating, and leveraging financial, human, and social capital to enhance entrepre- neurial activities. Finally, the development of creativity and innovation involves the process of bisociation (i.e., the combining of previously unre- lated information or skills) (Koestler, 1964) and results in either disrup- tive (brand-new) innovation or sustaining (improved) innovation (Ireland et al., 2003).
Scholars have suggested that strategic entrepreneurship manifests it- self differently in established firms than in smaller firms or new ven- tures (Ireland et al., 2003). Although established firms are more skilled at developing sustainable competitive advantages, they are often less able to effectively identify new market opportunities. On the other hand, smaller firms or new ventures often excel at recognizing and ex- ploiting new market opportunities, but they are often less capable of sustaining competitive advantages. Nevertheless, entrepreneurial atti- tudes and conduct are important for firms of all sizes to survive and prosper in competitive environments (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999). The subfield of how large established firms can become entrepreneurial through integration of strategic and entrepreneurial actions is referred to as corporate entrepreneurship.
Hoskisson and Busenitz (2002) linked market entry modes to degrees of market uncertainty and learning distance, recommending entry modes from joint venture, to internal venture, to acquisition for markets with high to low uncertainty and learning distance. Because alliances and joint ventures have been a staple strategy in media industries, it would also be fruitful to investigate strategic entrepreneurship in the context of such strategies, especially the topic of alliance proactiveness, which might create access relationships to resources and capabilities that contribute to the exploitation of opportunities (Sarkar, Echambadi, & Harrison, 2001). Another concept that is especially suitable to incorpo- rate in a media context is entrepreneurial intensity. Scholars have found that firms in turbulent environments tend to be more innovative, risk taking, and proactive (Naman & Slevin, 1993). As the media environment continues to be infused with new technologies such as content digitization and the Internet, it would be interesting to examine how
 
strategic entrepreneurship in the media sectors is influenced by external contexts, in both intensity and approaches (e.g., attitudes and activities).