متن زیر را با ذکر عناوین به انگلیسی خلاصه کن   Digital Television: Opportunities and Challenges
Industry observers see the digital bandwidth, which enables high-defini- tion television, interactive television, and related commerce functions, as the next big thing in the Internet–TV converged world (Ha & Chan-Olmsted, 2004). The FCC specifically stated in its report that digital television (DTV) could enhance the ability of broadcasters to compete in the video marketplace (FCC, 2002). Different television broadcasters have approached the arrival of digital spectrum with various degrees of enthu-
 
siasm. Whereas CBS and ABC are actively utilizing HDTV format during primetime, NBC and Fox are less aggressive in this endeavor. Compared to their U.S. counterparts, the Europeans have been much more successful with their consumers’ adoption of DTV. Some suggested that DTV is less successful in the United States for reasons such as expensive reception equipment and poor business models. Others argued that the lack of a comprehensive copyright protection plan has slowed the transition to DTV (FCC, 2002). Furthermore, in spite of the fact that over 85% of TV households in the United States receive their TV signals via multichannel media systems such as cable or satellite TV, cable carriage of local digital broadcast signals is still a hotly contested issue. In a nutshell, DTV has the capacity to deliver clearer pictures, multicasting, better sound, and inter- active functions for broadcasters. To speed up the DTV transition, the FCC has even imposed the mandate for TV set manufacturers to include digi- tal tuners capable of receiving DTV signals over the air in all new TV sets larger than 13 inches by July 2007 (Harbert, 2002).
As important as DTV is to the future of television broadcasters, Chan-Olmsted and Chang (2004) found that there is a very low level of DTV awareness and knowledge among American consumers. The own- ership of many entertainment and digital media was found to have an impact on how much consumers know about DTV. Consumer Internet usage and tenure were especially significant in increasing the knowl- edge of DTV. Interestingly, interactivity, the function that was touted as the critical driver for generating economic return for DTV, was consid- ered by the consumers to be the least important DTV benefit. The find- ings here point to a few marketing implications. First, in the fluid, emerging DTV market, an established broadcast brand could serve as a base of consumer trust and for the possible transfer of equity to the new DTV product. In addition, the Internet and other newer media are valu- able channels for communicating with potential DTV adopters. Second, as relevancy and fit are some of the keys to brand extension success, it is essential for broadcasters to contemplate these brand factors in their de- sign of new products for the digital shelf space. There is a real danger of diluting their existing broadcast brands with inappropriate expansions into other product categories simply for the sake of diversifying revenue sources. Third, multicasting during non-HDTV times of the day pres- ents an opportunity for broadcasters to develop differentiated brand identities to various audience segments, thus more effectively compet- ing with MVPD services. Fourth, individual functions that consumers can easily relate to with their current television usage experience (e.g., time shifting, better picture quality, and more content choices), rather than new utilities such as interactivity, might be a more attractive dif- ferentiating identity or selling point at the initial DTV-marketing stage. Finally, with a total expected conversion cost of $16 billion (McConnell, 2004), broadcasters would need to not only explore new revenue sources and ways of developing competitive advantages from the new digital spectrum but also diligently pursue strategic networks in this
 
process. For example, 12 station groups formed the Broadcasters’ Digi- tal Cooperative, a coalition of stations that dedicate part of their digital television space to distribute data by renting the spectrum to companies that want to distribute broadband data such as Internet content, digital audio files, or business-to-business information. Such an alliance ap- proach is essential in an uncertain environment because it reduces the risk of introducing new products, shares partners’ resources, and is able to test different business models much more quickly.
Satellite and Internet Radio: Redefining the Radio Medium
Satellite radio, a subscription-based service, offers about 60–100 chan- nels of mostly commercial-free music, news, sports, and talk program- ming to subscribers that utilize a satellite antenna and receiver to receive the signal. The two major satellite radio providers, Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., offer a wide range of content that is unmatched by traditional radio services and are aggressively forming alliances with different outlets for the distribution of their ser- vices. For example, both companies have relationships with the major automakers, as well as car rental companies, which call for dozens of car models to come equipped with factory- or dealer-installed satellite radio receivers. Sirius Satellite Radio’s digital broadcasts became avail- able free of charge to some subscribers of DISH Networks (“Sirius Of- fered,” 2004). Sirius is also exploring distribution agreements with cable operators. Through a partnership with Dell, XM is getting into the Internet music business by way of a subscription-based online radio service. In response to the rapid development of satellite radio in recent years, major radio station groups such as Clear Channel plan to begin limiting the number of commercials on more than 1,200 stations. Cit- ing the desire to better compete with satellite radio, the radio industry leader, Clear Channel, also decided to improve the sound quality of its radio stations by aggressively converting 1,000 of its 1,200 stations to digital radio within 3 years at a cost of about $100,000 per station (”Ra- dio Giant Moves,” 2004). It is evident that as the switch cost for satellite TV becomes minimal, radio broadcasters, mostly through their corpo- rate owners, are attempting to counter the differentiated value of satel- lite radio, namely, broadcast quality, commercial elimination, and variety. It is our assertion that although all these are important, local- ism would still be the key differentiating point for radio broadcasters. Thus, stations with brand images based on music variety, sound qual- ity, or uninterrupted programming are likely to be more vulnerable as satellite radio continues to grow.
Internet radio, which includes terrestrial radio stations streaming online and Internet-based radio stations as defined in the context of this discussion, has grown tremendously since the late 1990s. According to Arbitron, American Internet users are not only flocking to the Internet for radio material, they are listening for up to 5 hours per week
 
(Arbitron, 2004). There are many inherent differences between the two groups of Internet radio stations. Most terrestrial radio stations webcast material that is similar to their on-air programs, whereas the majority of the Internet-based radio stations offer alternative, nonmainstream music. Terrestrial radio stations typically regard their online presence as a way of adding value to their off-line content, but Internet-only radio stations often need to find innovative, multiple rev- enue sources based solely on their online content (Palumbo, 2002).
Ren and Chan-Olmsted (2004) investigated the differences between these two groups of Internet radio stations based on their Web content and discovered that whereas both of them provided extensive informa- tional content, Internet-based radio stations tended to be more con- scious in collecting users’ information and developing relations with users through more interactive Web functions. The study also found that although the two groups of radio stations operate under very dif- ferent economic structures, they both relied mostly on advertising reve- nues. However, Internet-based stations also attempted to derive additional revenues from subscription, e-commerce, and affiliated pro- grams. It is evident that Internet-based stations, although struggling to find a commercially viable means of operation, are able to differentiate themselves from the more established terrestrial webcasters by ways of unique content and personal relationships.
The impacts of Internet radio on traditional radio stations can be evaluated from two perspectives, its influence on audiences’ radio usage and its impact on terrestrial radio stations’ advertising revenues. Specif- ically, the development of Internet radio changes the competitive dy- namics in the radio market in three ways: (a) It added a new group of competitors that appeal to certain niche audience segments with more variety and personal appeals; (b) it added another dimension of compe- tition for traditional radio stations as online content became a tool for marketing and for adding value to off-line content; and (c) it added more choices for radio audiences in general. Note that most of these impacts do not directly take away local audience shares and thus advertising revenues from local radio stations; however, the influence on audiences’ radio usage and expectations of online radio experience have important implications for how traditional radio stations should reformulate their marketing strategies. It is our assertion that Internet-based radio sta- tions are unlikely to become major competitors of traditional radio sta- tions because the value of their differentiated quality is somewhat limited (i.e., limited popular content). On the contrary, the growth of Internet radio, fueled by many Internet-based radio stations, has trans- formed traditional radio stations into a multifaceted medium with un- precedented potentials. In essence, the characteristics of unlimited geographical reach and the enhancement that furthers the personable nature of radio, now available through the Internet medium, present an attractive opportunity for the radio industry to boost its competitive- ness in the increasingly crowded media marketplace.
 
Internet Business Models: A Work in Progress
Moving our focus again to television, television broadcasters have adopted a variety of Internet strategies, from outsourcing the Internet operations, utilizing the Web to create interactive advertising experi- ences, employing the Internet as a marketing tool for on-air content or station brands, and positioning Web sites as local portals, to producing content for enhanced television (Kerschbaumer, 2000). Specifically, var- ious surveys of television stations revealed that the news and promo- tions departments were most frequently impacted by the Internet, most stations had focused on utilizing their Internet operations to generate advertising revenues rather than to develop e-commerce or content on demand, and different broadcast groups have internalized the Internet with various approaches. For example, whereas CBS stations explored ways to package existing sales forces, content, and promotion into prof- itable Internet businesses, Fox stations focused on online branding and developing local personalities and content with a national infrastruc- ture and technical support. As NBC stations emphasized the building of local portals with their news products, station groups such as Tribune Broadcasting that also own newspaper properties integrated the print and broadcasting Internet operations to provide a more competitive lo- cal content. On the other hand, ABC stations worked toward a Web ver- sion of network–station programming relationships, whereas the Chris-Craft Industries stations developed niches that are data- base-driven (e.g., used cars and employment listings) and have immedi- ate revenue potentials. Most station groups have also invested in the broadband and wireless sector, and some have supplied information content to their local broadband systems to ensure a presence in the growing broadband market (Greene, 2000; Nitschke, 1999). With the arrival of digital television, many television broadcasters are even con- templating the feasibility of Web-enhanced television applications such as on-screen links to advertisers’ Web addresses, localized news services, late-breaking news, sports statistics, interactive polling, background to documentary material, online chat, and links to movie trailers and tick- eting services (Nelson, 2001; Pavlik, 2001).
Because business models that evaluate ways in which firms may lever-
age the Internet to develop competitive advantage are still evolving, it is quite a challenge for firms to decide on the extent and approaches of in- volvement with this new medium. The development of an appropriate business model is especially critical as well as intricate for television broadcasters because the Internet offers an alternative distribution chan- nel for its products and strengthens its position with the audiences while at the same time it competes with television for audience attention.
Chan-Olmsted and Ha (2003) put forward a framework for analyz- ing Internet business models of television broadcasters (see Fig. 5.1). They proposed that firm-specific, internal forces such as the types of core products, changes required to integrate the Internet operations, de-
 

pendency of the online revenue, relationships with channel members re- garding the Internet, size of the organization, market position, alliances relating to the Internet, and branding capability would affect a televi- sion broadcaster’s Internet competency. Externally, market forces such as economic conditions, regulatory environment, technological devel- opment, and the audience’s Internet adoption rate and patterns would impact a television broadcaster’s Internet competency. Consequently, depending on its competency, a television broadcaster may choose to utilize the Internet to generate revenues from the sales of online adver- tising space or sponsorships, e-commerce (i.e., selling either merchan- dise or per-unit content online), content subscription (i.e., charging online users a monthly subscription fee for the right to access exclusive content online), content syndication (i.e., selling exclusive online con- tent to other Web sites), and/or affiliate programs (i.e., receiving a per- centage of all sales generated by customers traveling through a station’s Web site to the online storefront of the partner). A broadcaster may use the Internet to reduce costs by managing its relationships with channel members like advertisers and programming syndicators more effi- ciently or by improving the overall operational efficiency within its sta- tion. The broadcaster may also utilize the Internet to support or complement its off-line operations by developing stronger customer (i.e., audience) relationships and collecting audience information through the Internet. It was suggested that most stations would have a
 
combination of Internet operations that aim to accomplish multiple ob- jectives (Chan-Olmsted & Ha, 2003).
Based on the proposed framework, Chan-Olmsted and Ha (2003) surveyed television stations nationally and found that a broadcaster’s Internet competency is critically dependent on its manager’s view of the relative revenue contribution of the Internet. These broadcasters have also focused their online activities on building audience relationships, rather than generating online ad sales. In other words, the Internet was used as a “support” to complement their off-line core products. Stations also felt inadequate about selling or syndicating content via the Internet. In fact, the revenue potential of “content” is minimal as per- ceived by the managers. Although continuing to view the strategy of customer/audience relations management as critical, the stations also began to value the importance of audience intelligence and the cost-cut- ting utility of the Internet in managing channel relations. The findings of this study point to a mix of business models that first utilize the Internet as a supplemental medium for developing a relationship with the audience of an off-line core product, and continue to increase the value of this relationship by building better audience intelligence, which then, in turn, improves the stations’ ability to sell online ads and imple- ment e-commerce, thus harvesting the value of its Internet operations (see Fig. 5.2). It is likely that not all broadcasters would go through this progression of Internet business models because they have different re-

sources and capabilities, set different goals for their Internet operation, and play different strategic roles in regard to their corporate holdings.

FINAL THOUGHTS

As the oldest incumbent in electronic media, broadcasters are facing the most threats from the emergence of new media services enabled by the tremendous technological advances in the last few decades. Although their primary revenue source, advertising, has not been significantly afftected, the fact that there have been a migration of audiences to the new media and a change of expections as well as consumption patterns indicates an urgent need for broadcasters to revamp their competitive strategies. This chapter identified several business and corporate strate- gies that seem to provide broadcasters with various ways to adapt to their changing environments. These strategies include: (a) consolida- tions/alliances that improve broadcasters’ negotiation power and effi- ciency, (b) Internet and digital spectrum ventures that compensate broadcasters’ one-way, mass-appeal shortcomings, (c) reexamination of networks’ marketing utility for media conglomerates, (d) application of brand management tools, and (e) consumer-centered, brand-sensi- tive experiments of different business models utilizing the new digital shelf space and the Internet. It is our assertion that the broadcast media will continue to strive, not as the previously general-appeal electronic media dominator, but as an essential media property that develops the resouces (e.g., programming content, brand names, etc.) and marketing capability necessary for a media corporation to compete in today’s un- certain, multifaced media environment.