Is the media being increasingly democratized? Especially with the development of alternative media forms? And with the widespread use of the internet?
Do people have free choice when it comes to advertised products? Do we receive information via the mass media for free? Or do we pay with our time?
Are Canadian cultural content regulations and legislation hurting or improving the media? Is Canadian content desirable? Has the US enabled Canadians to be more diverse? Or has it hurt Canadian culture?
What do YOU think?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
moves to democratize
Two different ways of democratizing the media have been suggested in recent years. The first is the reform of the existing media. Several proposals have been in made in regards to this notion of media reformation. These include imposing limits on ownership, amending the Competition Act (taking into consideration diversity in the expression of news and information) and legislating a code of ethics for media organizations, just to name a few.
The second suggestion is the to democratize the media through the establishment of alternative media outlets, which seek to serve particular community and social interests. Some examples of this sort of media are Co-op Radio in Vancouver or various independent media centres all over the World Wide Web.
The second suggestion is the to democratize the media through the establishment of alternative media outlets, which seek to serve particular community and social interests. Some examples of this sort of media are Co-op Radio in Vancouver or various independent media centres all over the World Wide Web.
Privatized media - benefical or what?
Well-known economist Adam Smith coined the metaphor known as "the invisible hand" - in a free market, one pursuing their own individual interest tends to also promote the good of their community as a whole, meaning that the individual maximizing revenue for himself is thus maximizing the total revenue of society as a whole.
Without focusing too much on economic principles, this concept developed by Smith relates to the first social benefit of private media enterprise, which is to stimulate the condition of affordable goods and services that consumers have expressed a need or want for through their buying decisions. Of course, one might argue that consumers buying decisions cannot be exactly calculated, even with polls and focus group studies. Take the example of major Hollywood blockbusters. Few succeed in comparison to the amount that flop. So the studios lose money on the flops and depend on the big hits to make up for their losses. It's similar in the case of television programs. New programs are introduced every Fall and while some prove to be popular, some fail and are canceled within weeks. Advertising plays a large role in publicizing and generating consumer demand around new films and shows. That being said, it is still very difficult for media economists to predict peoples tastes.
The second supposed benefit is that consumers receive media content for free (ie: radio) or at a minimal cost (ie: newspapers) due to the fact that this industry is subsidized by advertising. Now, let's be honest, this is not entirely true. Although the programming on the radio may seem to be "free" because we do not directly pay for it, we do, in fact, pay for it in other ways. Every time a consumer buys a product that was advertised on the radio station they listen to daily, they just helped to support it. Advertising costs are built into the price of the product (from toothpaste to potato chips), so everyone is technically supporting media programming in some way.
Selling the attention of consumers is a key element in the success of commercial media. A popular TV sitcom will attract a large audience and thus advertisers with commercials airing throughout that broadcast will gain the attention of a lot of people. Media managers collect data on their audiences (demographics such as age, income, sex, etc.) using advanced measurement techniques and then sell the information to advertisers. So basically, "they" know what we're watching...do you find that creepy? "Big Brother" comes to mind.
In a nutshell, supply generally governs demand. Consumers can only choose from what is being presented to them. Is that really free choice?
Without focusing too much on economic principles, this concept developed by Smith relates to the first social benefit of private media enterprise, which is to stimulate the condition of affordable goods and services that consumers have expressed a need or want for through their buying decisions. Of course, one might argue that consumers buying decisions cannot be exactly calculated, even with polls and focus group studies. Take the example of major Hollywood blockbusters. Few succeed in comparison to the amount that flop. So the studios lose money on the flops and depend on the big hits to make up for their losses. It's similar in the case of television programs. New programs are introduced every Fall and while some prove to be popular, some fail and are canceled within weeks. Advertising plays a large role in publicizing and generating consumer demand around new films and shows. That being said, it is still very difficult for media economists to predict peoples tastes.
The second supposed benefit is that consumers receive media content for free (ie: radio) or at a minimal cost (ie: newspapers) due to the fact that this industry is subsidized by advertising. Now, let's be honest, this is not entirely true. Although the programming on the radio may seem to be "free" because we do not directly pay for it, we do, in fact, pay for it in other ways. Every time a consumer buys a product that was advertised on the radio station they listen to daily, they just helped to support it. Advertising costs are built into the price of the product (from toothpaste to potato chips), so everyone is technically supporting media programming in some way.
Selling the attention of consumers is a key element in the success of commercial media. A popular TV sitcom will attract a large audience and thus advertisers with commercials airing throughout that broadcast will gain the attention of a lot of people. Media managers collect data on their audiences (demographics such as age, income, sex, etc.) using advanced measurement techniques and then sell the information to advertisers. So basically, "they" know what we're watching...do you find that creepy? "Big Brother" comes to mind.
In a nutshell, supply generally governs demand. Consumers can only choose from what is being presented to them. Is that really free choice?
Friday, May 30, 2008
the private sector
As with the public sector, the private sector is expected to contribute to the production and dissemination of Canadian cultural products. To ensure this will happen, the government has implemented policy measures (both regulations and inducements).
Several issues arise in regards to disseminating Canadian content. For instance, it is far cheaper for Canadian television broadcasters to purchase American programming than indigenous programming (since US producers make so much money domestically, they can then sell their programming to foreign markets at lower costs). It is also less of a risk for Canadian broadcasters to buy and air American programs since they have usually already proven to be popular amongst audiences. By airing successful American programs, Canadian broadcasters gain more attention and media coverage, thus benefiting from the publicity of foreign programming.
Then there is the film industry. It is quite difficult for Canadian films to penetrate the market. This is because major Hollywood production companies have ownership ties with Canadian movie theater chains (think vertical integration) and so their movies are given preference. Obviously, for commercial interests, these theater chains would rather book big blockbusters that have been promoted through magazines and entertainment shows rather than small time Canadian films who have a director who's name you've never heard of.
Several issues arise in regards to disseminating Canadian content. For instance, it is far cheaper for Canadian television broadcasters to purchase American programming than indigenous programming (since US producers make so much money domestically, they can then sell their programming to foreign markets at lower costs). It is also less of a risk for Canadian broadcasters to buy and air American programs since they have usually already proven to be popular amongst audiences. By airing successful American programs, Canadian broadcasters gain more attention and media coverage, thus benefiting from the publicity of foreign programming.
Then there is the film industry. It is quite difficult for Canadian films to penetrate the market. This is because major Hollywood production companies have ownership ties with Canadian movie theater chains (think vertical integration) and so their movies are given preference. Obviously, for commercial interests, these theater chains would rather book big blockbusters that have been promoted through magazines and entertainment shows rather than small time Canadian films who have a director who's name you've never heard of.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
media ownership: public and private
There are two types of ownership of media: public and private. The first type, public ownership, refers to providing communication as a public service and addressing audiences as citizens rather than consumers. This differs from private ownership, which provides communication for the purpose of generating profit.
Public ownership in Canada provides a "nation building service". It is a state monopoly that exists side by side with private sector broadcasters. This can be illustrated in the public broadcasting sector of Canada, where Canadian content laws (CanCon) have been formally put into place in order to maintain the nation's cultural identity and keep it distinct from its neighbor (the United States). The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was originally set up due to the fear that the US would "take over" in terms of programming. What started out as a radio station eventually expanded to television, with the goal of bringing information reflective of Canada's cultural identity to the greatest number of Canadians. Although the government of Canada does fund the CBC, the network is independent of direct government control and has its own board (though government appointed) controlling program policies.
In recent years, the idea of a national public monopoly has been challenged by questions such as "should governments be spending money on protecting indigenous culture in this way?" and "is cultural production an appropriate sort of state activity?". Colin Sparks in the 1980s coined the term "cultural discourse" which sees cultural production as primarily a cultural activity. Today, we see a shift from a cultural discourse to an "economistic discourse", which sees cultural production as a commercial enterprise. Is it just another way to make money?
Private ownership differs from public ownership in various ways. First of all, there are two types of private ownership; ownership can be held by an individual or a small group of people, or, ownership of a company can be held by shareholders (who buy and sell shares of the company through the stock market). The primary focus of the private (or commercial) media outlet is surviving in the marketplace and producing profit. Unlike public media institutions, those of private media have the ability to change their course in seeking more lucrative markets for the purpose of profit. An example of this would be the Thomson Corp., which was once one of Canada's two main newspaper chains (as well as a newspaper owner in both the United States and the United Kingdom), who withdrew itself from the newspaper industry in the 1990s and moved its assets to other business opportunities with more potential financial growth (specifically, markets of financial, legal and scientific information).
There are multiple forms of private ownership. There is the 'single enterprise' structure in which an independent firm (usually operating on a small scale) has only one owner and limits itself to one business. These sorts of small businesses have become fewer and fewer as large chain corporations have begun to take over the market.
The next type of ownership structure in private media is chain ownership or horizontal integration, where numerous companies in the same business occupy different markets (like in the case of newspapers, radio and television stations). This is a common form of media organization in Canada. For example, CanWest MediaWorks (owned by CanWest Global Communications Corp.) operates a chain of 13 daily newspapers (like the National Post, the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen to name a few). CanWest also owns the Global Television Network which is made up of 11 stations in 8 provinces.
Another type of private ownership is vertical integration, which is the concentration of firms within a particular business that enables the company to have control over the entire production process. One example of this could be a newspaper company owning a paper mill. Or another example is major Hollywood companies owning production studios and distribution companies as well as being involved in theatrical exhibition, television and DVD rentals (this allows them to ensure their films reach audiences).
Then there is conglomerate ownership which is made up of large companies with a number of subsidiary firms in related and unrelated businesses. Media conglomerates use a media strategy called convergence, which is where they attempt to create synergies among their media properties. A clear example of a media conglomerate that employs such a strategy is Quebecor Inc. They are not only a newspaper publishing company but they also operate in other areas such as television broadcasting, new media, and music retailing.
Public ownership in Canada provides a "nation building service". It is a state monopoly that exists side by side with private sector broadcasters. This can be illustrated in the public broadcasting sector of Canada, where Canadian content laws (CanCon) have been formally put into place in order to maintain the nation's cultural identity and keep it distinct from its neighbor (the United States). The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was originally set up due to the fear that the US would "take over" in terms of programming. What started out as a radio station eventually expanded to television, with the goal of bringing information reflective of Canada's cultural identity to the greatest number of Canadians. Although the government of Canada does fund the CBC, the network is independent of direct government control and has its own board (though government appointed) controlling program policies.
In recent years, the idea of a national public monopoly has been challenged by questions such as "should governments be spending money on protecting indigenous culture in this way?" and "is cultural production an appropriate sort of state activity?". Colin Sparks in the 1980s coined the term "cultural discourse" which sees cultural production as primarily a cultural activity. Today, we see a shift from a cultural discourse to an "economistic discourse", which sees cultural production as a commercial enterprise. Is it just another way to make money?
Private ownership differs from public ownership in various ways. First of all, there are two types of private ownership; ownership can be held by an individual or a small group of people, or, ownership of a company can be held by shareholders (who buy and sell shares of the company through the stock market). The primary focus of the private (or commercial) media outlet is surviving in the marketplace and producing profit. Unlike public media institutions, those of private media have the ability to change their course in seeking more lucrative markets for the purpose of profit. An example of this would be the Thomson Corp., which was once one of Canada's two main newspaper chains (as well as a newspaper owner in both the United States and the United Kingdom), who withdrew itself from the newspaper industry in the 1990s and moved its assets to other business opportunities with more potential financial growth (specifically, markets of financial, legal and scientific information).
There are multiple forms of private ownership. There is the 'single enterprise' structure in which an independent firm (usually operating on a small scale) has only one owner and limits itself to one business. These sorts of small businesses have become fewer and fewer as large chain corporations have begun to take over the market.
The next type of ownership structure in private media is chain ownership or horizontal integration, where numerous companies in the same business occupy different markets (like in the case of newspapers, radio and television stations). This is a common form of media organization in Canada. For example, CanWest MediaWorks (owned by CanWest Global Communications Corp.) operates a chain of 13 daily newspapers (like the National Post, the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen to name a few). CanWest also owns the Global Television Network which is made up of 11 stations in 8 provinces.
Another type of private ownership is vertical integration, which is the concentration of firms within a particular business that enables the company to have control over the entire production process. One example of this could be a newspaper company owning a paper mill. Or another example is major Hollywood companies owning production studios and distribution companies as well as being involved in theatrical exhibition, television and DVD rentals (this allows them to ensure their films reach audiences).
Then there is conglomerate ownership which is made up of large companies with a number of subsidiary firms in related and unrelated businesses. Media conglomerates use a media strategy called convergence, which is where they attempt to create synergies among their media properties. A clear example of a media conglomerate that employs such a strategy is Quebecor Inc. They are not only a newspaper publishing company but they also operate in other areas such as television broadcasting, new media, and music retailing.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
mass media: the influence of advertising
One of the most major influences on the mass media is advertising. Commercial institutions are driven by the desire to generate profits. Advertising is one way of doing so. Print media, like newspapers and magazines, get most of their funding from advertisers. Most mainstream magazines, like Cosmopolitan or Maxim for example, always have an advertisement on the back cover. Obviously, the ad will depend on the particular target market of the magazine. It is the same idea with newspapers. Even years ago, when newspapers first began to appear, certain advertisements were placed in specific sections of the paper, like ads for household items in the sections designed for female readers (although we should note here that when newspapers first started, there were no "fashion" or "lifestyle" type of sections, since these news publications were primarily targeted at men, only supposedly "male" subjects filled the pages, like " business" for instance).
Television commercials are made up of different advertisements, and again, this will depend on the channel and program that is being featured. For example, a music channel will likely have ads for music stores and various recording artist's new albums, whereas cooking shows will probably consist of ads for household items and related food products.
Today, most TV shows and major motion pictures will have advertisements embedded within them; this is known as product placement. For instance, when one sees Lindsay Lohan drinking a Diet Pepsi to cool down, or Colin Farrel using a Gilette Mach 3 for his morning shave, they are likely to make a mental note of these products, although this is often subconsciously done. There are far less subtle examples, like the Sex and the City episode where one of the characters will do just about anything to get her hands on a Hermes bag. This creates the illusion that owning and consuming certain products will provide you with power and prestige.
Celebrities are often paid in "real life" to wear certain brands or to drive specific cars in order to advertise for these companies. This is extremely effective because people look up to famous Hollywood starlets and want to know "how can I be like them?" Well, buy the same stuff they buy of course! Then there are celebrities who are paid to endorse products in print ads and television commercials, like Jennifer Aniston and the Smart Water campaign or Mishca Barton being the face of Neutrogena. It is important to mention that there are celebrities who do advertisements for alternative media as well, like Dominique Swain for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), or other notably worthy causes, like Gap's RED Campaign which raises money to fight AIDS.
Television commercials are made up of different advertisements, and again, this will depend on the channel and program that is being featured. For example, a music channel will likely have ads for music stores and various recording artist's new albums, whereas cooking shows will probably consist of ads for household items and related food products.
Today, most TV shows and major motion pictures will have advertisements embedded within them; this is known as product placement. For instance, when one sees Lindsay Lohan drinking a Diet Pepsi to cool down, or Colin Farrel using a Gilette Mach 3 for his morning shave, they are likely to make a mental note of these products, although this is often subconsciously done. There are far less subtle examples, like the Sex and the City episode where one of the characters will do just about anything to get her hands on a Hermes bag. This creates the illusion that owning and consuming certain products will provide you with power and prestige.
Celebrities are often paid in "real life" to wear certain brands or to drive specific cars in order to advertise for these companies. This is extremely effective because people look up to famous Hollywood starlets and want to know "how can I be like them?" Well, buy the same stuff they buy of course! Then there are celebrities who are paid to endorse products in print ads and television commercials, like Jennifer Aniston and the Smart Water campaign or Mishca Barton being the face of Neutrogena. It is important to mention that there are celebrities who do advertisements for alternative media as well, like Dominique Swain for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), or other notably worthy causes, like Gap's RED Campaign which raises money to fight AIDS.
Monday, May 26, 2008
complaints...
The ASC receives all sorts of complaints from the public in regards to advertising. These complaints range in subject matter and are categorized by the type of infraction (falling under one of the 14 clauses of the Code). Lets look at some of the most recent complaints:
Complaint #1 - American Apparel
This complaint was filed in compliance with clause #14: unacceptable depictions and portrayals. The advertiser was American Apparel, an international clothing retailer. This particular complaint was regarding a magazine advertisement by the retailer in British Columbia. On the back of the free distribution magazine was an underwear advertisement that focused on the scantily covered behind of a woman, wearing nothing else besides the underwear, lying on her stomach on bed sheets. The complaint was that this ad was sexually exploitive of women. The ASC unanimously decided that the ad offended standards of public decency.
Complaint #2 - AIG Life of Canada
This complaint was filed in compliance with clause #1: accuracy and clarity (which appears to be the clause that most consumer complaints tend to fall under). A national insurance company, AIG Life of Canada, claimed in a television commercial that when a loved one dies, family members will have to pay for funeral costs and related expenses out of their own pockets. The complaint was that this advertisement was inaccurate because family members have no legal obligation to pay the debts of a deceased person. The ASC decided that this commercial did give inaccurate and misleading information and AIG Life of Canada made the necessary corrections due to the Council's conclusions.
Complaint #3 - Dell Canada
This compliant was filed in compliance with clause #1: accuracy and clarity. In a holiday season newspaper insert, a GPS navigational system was advertised at a special price. Two complaints were made in regards to this ad; the first was that the alleged product was not available for purchase, and the second was that the disclaimer text on the ad was too small to read. The Council found that although the ad contained a disclaimer stating that availability of the product may be limited, the text was in fact too small and therefore the ad held an inaccurate claim.
In my opinion, a lot of the time, people just like to complain; it gives them a sense of power and importance. While some advertisements can be genuinely offensive in nature, or potentially false in their claims, most are relatively harmless. Any thoughts???
Complaint #1 - American Apparel
This complaint was filed in compliance with clause #14: unacceptable depictions and portrayals. The advertiser was American Apparel, an international clothing retailer. This particular complaint was regarding a magazine advertisement by the retailer in British Columbia. On the back of the free distribution magazine was an underwear advertisement that focused on the scantily covered behind of a woman, wearing nothing else besides the underwear, lying on her stomach on bed sheets. The complaint was that this ad was sexually exploitive of women. The ASC unanimously decided that the ad offended standards of public decency.
Complaint #2 - AIG Life of Canada
This complaint was filed in compliance with clause #1: accuracy and clarity (which appears to be the clause that most consumer complaints tend to fall under). A national insurance company, AIG Life of Canada, claimed in a television commercial that when a loved one dies, family members will have to pay for funeral costs and related expenses out of their own pockets. The complaint was that this advertisement was inaccurate because family members have no legal obligation to pay the debts of a deceased person. The ASC decided that this commercial did give inaccurate and misleading information and AIG Life of Canada made the necessary corrections due to the Council's conclusions.
Complaint #3 - Dell Canada
This compliant was filed in compliance with clause #1: accuracy and clarity. In a holiday season newspaper insert, a GPS navigational system was advertised at a special price. Two complaints were made in regards to this ad; the first was that the alleged product was not available for purchase, and the second was that the disclaimer text on the ad was too small to read. The Council found that although the ad contained a disclaimer stating that availability of the product may be limited, the text was in fact too small and therefore the ad held an inaccurate claim.
In my opinion, a lot of the time, people just like to complain; it gives them a sense of power and importance. While some advertisements can be genuinely offensive in nature, or potentially false in their claims, most are relatively harmless. Any thoughts???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)