Media Management Matters: Challenges and Opportunities for Bridging Theory and Practice 9780429265396, 9780367210991, 9780367211004

Citation preview

‘Media Management Matters is a welcome addition to the media management and economics field. Moving beyond a pure academic discussion, the contributors examine the numerous challenges and opportunities that exist in both practice and theory. This thought-provoking volume should spur more discussion of the topic and generate new ideas for study.’ —Dr . Alan B. Albarran, Professor Emeritus, University of North Texas, USA ‘Aiming at understanding media firms and the uncertain environment in which they operate, media management research builds upon theories from economics and management, media and communication studies, information technology, psychology, law and political science. It applies and develops these theoretical considerations with respect to real-life situations and developments in the media industry. The goal of Media Management Matters is to point to, discover, and sup­ port the practical relevance of media management research. Only a holistic understanding of the media industry can meet the challenges the complex and volatile media environment poses to media practice and research alike.’ —Dr. Alfonso Sánchez-Tabernero, Professor of Media Management, University of Navarra, Spain

MEDIA MANAGEMENT MATTERS

This edited volume explores media management as engaged scholarship, building a bridge between theory and practice and discussing research collaboration between academia, policymakers and the media industry. In addition to advancing the scho­ larly discipline, it also questions, investigates and discusses the practical value of the research undertaken, showing how media management research can provide action­ able, practice-relevant knowledge to decision makers throughout the media industry. The volume is broken into two parts: a section reflecting on the need for collaboration between research and practice, and a section overviewing specific projects that aim to deliver administrative value to stakeholders. The international research projects presented here span topics such as digital transformation, business models in news and digital journalism, media entrepreneurship and start-ups, adblocking, location-based services, audiovisual consumption preferences, the sus­ tainability of small television markets, co-located and clustered industries and digital privacy. Incorporating under-used methodological approaches, such as action research and ethnography, Media Management Matters brings suggestions for how scholarship might be promoted outside academia. Simply put, this book aims to demonstrate why media management matters. Featuring an international roster of contributors, this collection is essential reading for scholars and practitioners of media management, business and policy. Ulrike Rohn is Professor of Media Economics and Management at Tallinn University, Estonia, where she works at the Baltic Film, Media, Arts, and Communication School (BFM) and the Centre of Excellence in Media Innovation and Digital Culture (MEDIT). She served as President of the European Media Management Association (emma, 2016–2020), and is co-Editor of the Springer Series in Media Industries and Associate Editor of the Journal of Media Business Studies. Dr. Rohn’s research interests

include, among others, audiovisual policies, media business models and international media strategies. Latter research interest has led to her book publication Cultural Barriers to the Success of Foreign Media Content: Western Media in China, India, and Japan (2010). Tom Evens is an Assistant Professor at research group for Media, Innovation and Communication Technologies (imec-mict-UGent) at the Department of Com­ munication Sciences at Ghent University, Belgium. He teaches in media eco­ nomics, business model innovation and technology policy. He specialises in the economics and policies of media and technology industries, and has published widely on the media business. He is the lead author of The Political Economy of Television Sports Rights (2013) and Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Televi­ sion Markets (2018). He served as the Deputy President of the European Media Management Association between 2017 and 2019. He is a member of several editorial boards and has been consulting several governments and media organi­ sations on strategy and public policy issues.

MEDIA MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS SERIES Series Editor: Alan B. Albarran

Media Management Matters Edited by Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens Handbook of Media Management and Economics Edited by Alan B. Albarran, Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted, and Michael O. Wirth The Media Economy By Alan B. Albarran Webcasting Worldwide Business Models of an Emerging Global Medium Edited by Louisa S. Ha and Richard J. Ganahl The Social Media Industries Edited by Alan B. Albarran

MEDIA MANAGEMENT MATTERS Challenges and Opportunities for Bridging Theory and Practice

Edited by Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rohn, Ulrike, editor. | Evens, Tom, 1983- editor.

Title: Media management matters : challenges and opportunities for bridging

theory and practice / edited by Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens.

Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. |

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019053170 (print) | LCCN 2019053171 (ebook) |

ISBN 9780367210991 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367211004 (paperback) |

ISBN 9780429265396 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Mass media--Management.

Classification: LCC P96.M34 M427 2020 (print) | LCC P96.M34 (ebook) |

DDC 384.068--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019053170

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019053171

ISBN: 978-0-367-21099-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-21100-4 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-0-429-26539-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo

by Taylor & Francis Books

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Foreword by Alfonso Sánchez-Tabernero Introduction Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens 1 Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

xi xii 1 9

2 University–Industry Collaboration in the Media Management Field Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

29

3 Why Policymakers Need to Collaborate with Academics on Media Policy and Why That Need Will Grow Steve Wildman

46

4 Managing Media Firms: Case Studies of Practice-led Research, Actionable Knowledge and Instrumental Impact John J. Oliver

59

5 Conducting Media Management Ethnography: A Journey toward Impacting Industry Stakeholders Sven-Ove Horst

75

x Contents

6 Evaluating Action Research to Innovate Digital Journalism Revenue Models Clare Cook

93

7 Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers: A Collaborative Study with the Ad Blocker Industry Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

107

8 Location-Based Services in Regional Media Communication: Insights from a Research Project Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

121

9 Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems: Lessons from Policy-Driven Research in Flanders Tim Raats

138

10 Researching News Media: Creating Societal Impact from Research for the Media Industry and Policymakers Mikko Grönlund, Katja Lehtisaari, Carl-Gustav Lindén and Mikko Villi

155

11 Research for Innovation: Improving the Management of Co-Located and Clustered Industries Erik Hitters

173

12 Eyes on Tech! Media Entrepreneurship and the Relevance of Technology in Business Models Andreas Will, Britta Gossel and Julian Windscheid

188

13 Managing Digital Transformation: The Case of the Finnish Broadcasting Company Päivi Maijanen

204

14 Shedding Light on Audiovisual Consumption Preferences: A Case Study from Spain Mercedes Medina

218

15 Digital Privacy and New Media: Reflecting on Lessons for Policy and Practice Conor O’Kane

233

List of Contributors Index

248 254

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

2.1 Summary of Characteristic Drivers and Barriers in University–Industry Collaboration, and Typical Anticipated Benefits (authors’ own) 5.1 The Nature of Impact on Industry Stakeholders over Time 7.1 Conceptual Model 11.1 Societal Impact Value Chain (adapted from Van den Burgwal et al., 2018) 13.1 General Model of the Research Project (MaijanenKyläheiko, 2014)

33 86 114 178 208

Tables

9.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13.1

Studies and Their Respective Subtasks and Methods Sample by Continent/Countries of Origin Description of Sample Case Description Emerging Technologies as a Crucial Part of Business Models Data Collection

142 193 194 194 196 210

FOREWORD

Before the mid-1990s, the buzzword in the media industry was growth. At that time, the main concern of CEOs working in the media was how to reinvest their companies’ profits both to protect margins (typically 25% of total income) and to diversify assets. But, from 1995 onwards, the Internet changed the rules of the game in quite a disruptive way. New competitors appeared, the power shifted from content providers to consumers, traditional business models were destroyed and old barriers to entry weakened. Since then, the buzzword in the media industry has become uncertainty. Aiming at understanding media firms and the uncertain environment in which they operate, media management research is highly interdisciplinary by nature and not only encompasses and builds upon theories from economics and management as well as media and communication studies, it also relates to the scientific fields of information technology, psychology, law and political science. This inter­ disciplinary approach is one of the key strengths of media management research. While media management research can rely on a multitude of theoretical approa­ ches, its other asset must be that it applies, discusses and develops theoretical con­ siderations with respect to real-life situations, constraints and developments in the media industry. In this context, it is the goal of Media Management Matters: Chal­ lenges and Opportunities for Bridging Theory and Practice to point to, discover and support the practice relevance of media management research. This book, edited by Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens, showcases various research projects that demonstrate both the challenges and opportunities of conducting practice-relevant media management research. The research projects presented have resulted in knowledge of relevance to various players in the media industries from state-owned companies to private players, from local newspapers and TV

Foreword xiii

stations to big online platforms, from journalistic brands to entertainment outlets, as well as media policymakers. One of the most frequently recurring concepts in Media Management Matters is collaboration. According to the editors and contributors, media management research that is to contribute to informed decision-making in media practice and that is to develop its unique set of theories needs to collaborate with its stake­ holders in the industry and policy in terms of research development, conduct and dissemination. The future of the media industry depends on putting together the perspectives, knowledge and assessment of all involved stakeholders. Only a hol­ istic understanding of the media industry can meet the challenges the complex and volatile media environment poses to media practice and research alike. Citizens are spending more and more time consuming media. In pointing to and discussing the practice relevance of the showcased research projects, Media Management Matters also contributes to an understanding of some of the most pressing issues that media practice is confronted with. This includes, among others, organisational transformation, audience attention in an overcrowded market, building and maintaining sustainable competitive advantage, and how organisations can get enough income to pay the salaries of creative professionals. I hope you enjoy the book. Alfonso Sánchez-Tabernero Professor of Media Management, University of Navarra

INTRODUCTION Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

We are very pleased to present our edited volume Media Management Matters: Challenges and Opportunities for Bridging Theory and Practice. The volume intends to showcase media management research of high relevance to industry and policy stakeholders. The chapters seek to question the practical value of the research undertaken and elaborate on how media management scholars can cooperate with public and private stakeholders, not only to access first-hand data and indepth insights but also to produce findings that create actionable knowledge. We believe that media management, as a growing field, should be driven both by a genuine interest to advance academic knowledge in terms of theoretical and methodological approaches and a deeper ambition to address and unpack ‘real­ world’ challenges faced by media and communications organisations, regulatory agencies, policymakers and other stakeholders. Various chapters in the book underpin our argument that, albeit relatively young, media management really matters when it comes to creating actionable knowledge. Key is a dialogue with the media industry and policymakers in terms of research topics and questions, a reflection as to what research results actually mean to stakeholders, as well as a targeted dissemination of research results outside academia. However, it is not our intention to showcase only success stories that legitimise media management as an indisputable field of research. Rather, the book also identifies, reflects on and discusses challenges that researchers face in terms of creating actionable knowledge for, and in cooperating with, their stakeholders. While inviting media management scholars to contribute to this volume, it became rapidly clear that research collaboration between university and industry is not so widespread in the media management community – a conclusion that is empiri­ cally supported by Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard further in this volume. Cooperation with industry and policymakers provides an opportunity for

2 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

researchers not only to write academic publications that further our theoretical and empirical understanding of managing media organisations and industries. Colla­ boration also enables the mutual exchange of knowledge and allows researchers, by translating academic knowledge into actionable knowledge, to demonstrate impact in terms of influencing business or policy practice. Based on the authors’ experi­ ence, the book presents ideas, tips and hints in terms of overcoming such challenges and working towards an engaged scholarship in collaboration with stakeholders. The idea for this edited volume came up in the context of past and more recent self-reflective accounts by media management scholars about the scholarship. These accounts often have a critical tone towards the scholarship and the main argument is that media management scholarship needs to improve in quality. While we agree that there is a lack of theoretical development in media management scholarship, we argue that one of the key problems with media management research is that much of it is not connected to real life in media practice, nor are its results visible to its sta­ keholders in industry and policy. We, therefore, argue that our research needs to have much greater relevance to media practice and benefit to society in general. We, as media management scholars, often lack our own reflections about the meaning and value of our research results to practice. Furthermore, we do not integrate enough stakeholders’ perspectives into our formulation of research questions and the planning and conduct of our research projects. We believe we must and can do much better in supporting informed decision-making in the media industries and media policy than our research currently does. This is key to media management, whose core task is to build a bridge between the general theoretical disciplines of management and the specificities of the media industry. We, the two editors of this volume, Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens, have served for many years on the Executive Board of the European Media Management Association (emma), which is an international not-for-profit academic organisation to support growth in media management research, scholarship and practice throughout Europe and around the world. Founded in 2004, it has become the world’s largest and most established community of researchers in the field of media management. At the time of the planning of this edited volume, Ulrike Rohn was President of emma, a position she held from 2016 to 2020, and Tom Evens was Deputy President, a position he held from 2017 to 2019. In this context, we see our edited volume as a follow-up to the book Managing Media Firms and Industries: What’s So Special about Media Management? written by Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Charles Brown, President and Deputy President at the time of the planning of this book. While they argue in their book that media management is, indeed, special and differs from management in other industries, we take their argument and reflect and collect input as to how media management scholarship can make a greater impact outside academia. Following our own long-lasting experience with practice-led, demand-driven research for and with media organisations and pol­ icymakers, we believe that a better collaboration with public and private stake­ holders is needed to advance media management as an academic field.

Introduction 3

As it is with all collections, there is a limit as to how many chapters can be fitted into it. We are well aware that there are many more practice-relevant research projects that could be showcased as examples of engaged scholarship that provide actionable knowledge to stakeholders than this book could possibly accommodate. The selection of the chapters for this edited volume followed a multi-stage process. On the advice of the publisher, we did not publish an open call for contribution proposals, but invited authors individually. We started with the community of researchers within emma, but we also invited authors who are more loosely connected to the association and/or whose work we noticed at related conferences and journals. Each manuscript underwent multiple rounds of reviews and revisions before it was eventually approved for publication. As a result, we are proud to present an edited volume that covers a great diversity of topics of relevance to the field, written by scholars from many different countries. It goes without saying that we owe an incredible debt of gratitude to all the authors for their contributions. We want to acknowledge a workshop that was organised at LUT University in Finland by Päivi Maijanen, Atte Jääskeläinen, Ari Jantunen and Amanda Pieppo­ nen in May 2019 and that brought together media management researchers with representatives of the media industry as well as academic funding organisations. The aim of the workshop was to discuss how academic research could be more relevant to its stakeholders. The workshop, and especially the presentation by Leona Achtenhagen from the Media Management and Transformation Centre at Jönköping International Business School, proved to be very useful in reflecting on arguments underlying this book. We also want to thank Gregory Ferrell Lowe from Northwestern University in Qatar for comments on the first draft proposal for this book. And we want to thank Alan B. Albarran from the University of North Texas, and the editor of the Media Management and Economics Series at Routledge, for his useful comments and guidance. Finally, we would like to acknowledge Ross Wagenhofer, Nicole Salazar, Brian Eschrich and Grant Schatsman at Routledge for their editorial assistance and support.

Contents of the Book This book is a collection of 15 chapters written by established media management scholars affiliated with academic institutions in Belgium, Finland, Estonia, Ger­ many, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, the US and Qatar. In most of the chapters, the author(s) present how they went about developing a collaboration with exter­ nal stakeholders and in retrieving practice-relevant knowledge. In addition to a variety of research topics covered, some chapters present and reflect upon metho­ dological approaches that are less commonly applied by media management researchers but that are of especial importance due to their enabling to further bridge theory and practice. As such, the book presents a selection of timely topics and approaches to further improve media management scholarship.

4 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

In the first chapter, Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens sketch the contours of media management scholarship, stressing its focus on the specifics of the media business and its wider impact on culture and society. Furthermore, they put forward some new directions to advance the scholarship. They identify challenges in terms of developing new analytical lenses and methodological approaches, as well as a challenge to create more impact outside academia. Rohn and Evens make a call for more problem-focused and interdisciplinary forms of knowledge production in media management scholarship so as to exchange knowledge and inspire decisionmaking at several levels. They argue that, in addition to advance academic litera­ ture, media management scholars should get into dialogue with practitioners and help them to solve real-world challenges. In Chapter 2, Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard report on the findings of a worldwide survey among 132 media management researchers about uni­ versity–industry collaboration (UIC). The results indicate that a minority of the surveyed population is engaged with consulting industry or policymakers. Despite the increasing call from universities for raising external funding and creating social impact, Lowe and Picard point to the underlying structural problems within these institutions to explain this incongruity. They find that consulting and public out­ reach is generally of low or no priority for decisions on tenure or promotion, while publishing scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals remains the highest priority. They conclude that this presents an opportunity for media management scholar­ ship to take a leading role to grow collaboration with industry and push universities to actually practise what they are preaching. In the third chapter, Steve Wildman reflects on his experience as Chief Economist at the Federal Communications Commission and points to the need for policy­ makers to collaborate with media management scholars. In the chapter, Wildman makes the argument that, as the rapid acceleration of technological change drastically impacts the media environment, the challenges confronting both policymakers and practitioners will multiply and become more complex. He stresses that different types of actors should turn to university experts for help in addressing the challenges that media pose to both of them. The media are being transformed in ways that demand new thinking, which, as a result, demand new approaches to understand the nature of modern media in order to devise policies that can help to realise the societal benefits of digital technology and prevent society from the significant harm that this transformation can make possible. Chapter 4 by John Oliver presents two case studies of practice-led research where the media content not only helped to advance knowledge ‘about’ media practice but also ‘within’ practice. Based on his long-lasting experience with actionable research, Oliver concludes that if media management is to flourish in the years ahead, it should consider the benefits of theoretical development working in tandem with a consideration of knowledge that is actionable and produces high levels of implementable validity. Media management scholars need to concentrate on generating knowledge that is useful rather than generalisable.

Introduction 5

He advises that researchers need to focus on those questions that are important to business, disseminate results in non-academic outlets and engage with practi­ tioners at business conferences to widen personal networks. In Chapter 5, Sven-Ove Horst tells a personal story about developing and creating impact with industry stakeholders. Drawing from an auto-ethnographic experience, he reports about his work with industry practitioners that frequently consult media organisations. His extensive analysis demonstrates that impact is created naturally over time and progresses through six interlinked stages. The findings reveal that building a mutually synergistic relationship costs substantial time but is necessary to define joint goals and achieve success in a collaborative engagement with industry stakeholders. Horst contrasts this time-consuming process of producing meaningful research outcomes with pressures from funding agencies that push researchers to achieve short-term wins, rephrase existing knowledge and restrict critical reflection. In doing so, media management research may miss opportunities for preparatory, generative and reflective impact in the longer run. In the sixth chapter, Clare Cook shows the opportunities of action research not just for advancing academic knowledge about revenue models for newspaper organisations but also for improving daily practice. Cook presents research ateliers as an unorthodox yet highly instrumental method for media management researchers who seek to connect theory and practice. In contrast to expert inter­ views, action research allows marginalised groups to find ways to express them­ selves and work towards tangible solutions by using creative, hands-on techniques. Hence, action research is a compelling bottom-up methodology that goes beyond explaining phenomena and that explores future-oriented pathways for the industry. In this particular case, the method allowed for collective learning on the success criteria as well as lived experiences around revenue generation in a more productive way than more traditional qualitative methodologies would have allowed. Chapter 7 by Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted presents the results of a collaborative project with an ad-blocker company, which raises important issues for the digital advertising and publishing industries. The authors evaluate the collaboration as especially beneficial, because the industry partner offered a valuable and unique way of data collection. The biggest challenge was to provide a scientifically sound study while addressing the specific needs of the industry partner. Wolter and Chan-Olmsted nevertheless demonstrate that, while the project resulted in actionable insights, the results were published in a leading advertising journal. They claim that academic independence and frequent com­ munication between the partners must be key to make the collaboration a success. Finally, the authors identify a difficult tension between speeds and accuracy and, again, propose a mutual understanding of expectations, efforts, goals and output. In Chapter 8, Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers discuss the outcome of a research project about location-based services for regional media. The objective was to identify the opportunities and risks of such services, and to detect models of

6 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

success for the digital transformation of the media partners. The authors list multiple softer and mostly administrative challenges related to developing research collaborations with industry stakeholders. One is the substantial time between writing and submission of the proposal and the eventual approval of the proposal, which not only poses a core challenge to the academic and practical goals of a project, especially when dealing with new technology. The lengthy period also has an impact on the structure of staffing, with temporary personnel already having left university once the project is funded. Staff turnover within the industry stakeholder also poses a great challenge, especially since personal relations are often key to developing collaborative actions. Therefore, setting shared goals is crucial to making the collaboration a success. The ninth chapter is written by Tim Raats, who elaborates on two policy preparatory research projects commissioned by the regional government. Fol­ lowing his substantial experience with policy-supporting research, Raats identifies five important challenges. First, the researchers must keep autonomy and inde­ pendence to define the research question at hand and choose the appropriate methods to tackle the research question. Second, Raats raises the problem of cherry-picking the results by policymakers, who do not necessarily only seek to shape future policies but also try to legitimise existing or planned decisions. Third, the researcher has limited control of the (ab)use of the results by several stake­ holders, who consider these instrumental in pursuing their own interests. Fourth, researchers must deal with strict deadlines and often limited budgets. Finally, effective communication with policy stakeholders demands a specific narrative and tone of voice. Chapter 10 aims to illustrate the societal impact of two research projects, one for an industry body and one for a regulatory agency. The chapter is written by Mikko Grönlund, Katja Lehtisaari, Carl-Gustav Lindén and Mikko Villi, and offers a good case of a project that resulted in a series of academic publications in respected peer-reviewed journals, publicly available project deliverables and sev­ eral public talks. The researchers evaluate both projects and express that they had higher expectations of the collaboration than transpired. Time constraints, shorter project lifecycles and excessive reporting are named as possible explanations. In general, they felt more freedom while working with industry than with policy­ makers, who often display insufficient expertise to really add value to a colla­ borative project. As the authors point out, assessing the practical impact of the studies is difficult. In addition to counting academic publications, it could be a responsibility of universities or research councils to develop other indicators so as to monitor the societal impact of research. In Chapter 11, Erik Hitters reports about a collaborative project in which entrepreneurship and innovation in co-located creative industries were examined. Not only did the research intend to feed the academic debate on the effectiveness of media clusters and co-locations, knowledge dissemination and utilisation were central to the research design. Through the organisation of conferences and expert

Introduction 7

meetings and the sharing of online presentations, working papers and reports, applicable knowledge for the sector was created. Despite the generally smooth collaboration with industry partners, Hitters stresses that demand-driven research and two-way interactions is not self-evident and may produce varying results and impacts. In general, the author found that, at best, such research is tailored to the needs of the stakeholders, but often fails to deliver generalisable results. Chapter 12 by Andreas Will, Britta Gossel and Julian Windscheid centres on the role of emerging technology in the business models of new media ventures. It aims to put media entrepreneurship and the role of technology firmly on the agenda of different stakeholders. Based on a qualitative research design, the study explored the extent to which entrepreneurs rely on new technology as part of their value proposition. The empirical results are said to assist industry stake­ holders to better consider technology issues in their decision-making and their drawing of strategic plans. Furthermore, the authors identify media management educators and students as important stakeholders. They rightly claim that entre­ preneurial issues often remain below the surface in higher education and call for raising awareness. It is not enough, both for students and educators, to master business planning. In this context more attention to advances in technology should be central in media management curricula. This plea fits very well with the many voices that call for more STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) education. In Chapter 13, Päivi Maijanen reports on a longitudinal research project about change management and digital transformation in an incumbent media organisa­ tion. The researcher’s background as a journalist and manager in the company helped to make the project possible, which once again shows the importance of personal relationships and networking. She recalls the challenge of providing both short-term practical impact and long-term theoretical knowledge, and concludes that practical impact is difficult to reconcile with academic practices and demands. Maijanen draws a few practical guidelines for doing collaborative research with a company and to create a win–win situation. In brief, planning, networking, meeting, sharing and communicating are identified as critical conditions for a mutually beneficial cooperation. Chapter 14, written by Mercedes Medina, presents an overview of a multimethod research to explore and map audiovisual viewing patterns. The main conclusion is that academic research published in peer-reviewed journals in most instances does not reflect industry interests. Meanwhile, industry stakeholders often do not look for standard quantitative research, as the slower lifecycle of academic research can hardly team up with rapid industry developments, but demand for more reflexive and provocative research. On the one hand, uni­ versities could better and more quickly adapt to the pace and needs of the industry. On the other hand, this provides an opportunity for media management scholars to engage in more critical in-depth studies to extend academic knowl­ edge and even improve existing approaches.

8 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

In the final chapter, Conor O’Kane presents empirical evidence on the use of privacy seals and their effect on personal information disclosure. He argues that the findings are of significant relevance to a range of stakeholders, including policymakers, regulators, media firms and the public. The context of this study is the newly introduced European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which sets out to improve information transparency and give individuals greater control over their personal data. A novel privacy seal accreditation scheme is proposed in the GDPR. In addition to presenting the results, O’Kane also reflects on his engagement with the national press in relation to the GDPR. He was invited to contribute to a few newspaper articles to explain the context and key elements of the new regulation. Once again, this shows that media management scholars can participate in the public debate. We hope that stakeholders will appreciate this book for its presentation of relevant suggestions from research results. And we hope that media management scholars will appreciate this book for its inspiration in terms of making media management scholarship more relevant. We, the editors and the authors, all share the strong belief that media management matters. Enjoy the book!

Acknowledgement Ulrike Rohn thanks the Estonian Research Council for supporting her work on this book (grant number PUT1647).

1 MEDIA MANAGEMENT AS AN ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens TALLINN UNIVERSITY AND GHENT UNIVERSITY/IMEC

Introduction The media industry is undergoing profound change. Recently developed tech­ nologies and types of infrastructure make new business opportunities possible, and many emerging players are new to the field of media. While many digital-based organisations struggle with finding their position and role in the media industry, it is especially the more established and traditional legacy media firms that suffer from the simultaneous decline of mass media demand from audiences and advertisers. In fact, the competition for audience and advertiser revenues has never been fiercer due to media abundance and audience fragmentation. The volatile environment of the media industry calls for a better understanding of the transformation processes among private and public stakeholders. It also makes for copious research oppor­ tunities for media management researchers who aim to understand how media managers perceive the changes in the industry, how they manage their firms, what influences their managerial and strategic decision-making, and how their conduct, in return, impacts media markets and industries. It is, therefore, no surprise that we can see a continuing growth in scholarly interest in media management research, especially in the last two decades. This text serves as an introductory chapter to the edited volume Media Manage­ ment Matters: Challenges and Opportunities for Bridging Theory and Practice by the authors. The book discusses media management as an engaged scholarship. Laying the foundation for the book, this chapter first sketches the contours of media management scholarship, stressing its focus on the specifics of the media business and its wider impact on culture and society. Moreover, we propose some new directions to advance the scholarship. We identify challenges in developing analy­ tical lenses and methodological approaches, as well as the challenge to create more

10 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

impact outside academia. Second, we position media management scholarship on the presumed continuum of administrative and critical research, and argue that scholarship can be undertaken while both advancing theoretical knowledge and addressing real-world problems. Third, we identify decision-makers in industry and policy as the main stakeholders of media management research and discuss their need for practice-relevant research. Fourth, we elaborate on media manage­ ment as an engaged scholarship. What is more, we identify obstacles outside and within academia and make suggestions for creating a greater impact outside aca­ demia. Finally, we address academic independence as a conditio sine qua non for a vivid media management scholarship.

What is Media Management Research? At its core, media management research aims to understand media firms and their strategies and practices. The necessity for media management research is widely acknowledged, as the management of media firms differs from the management of other firms (Lowe, 2016). In other words, there is no business like the media business. This has its roots in the special economics of the media business (Doyle, 2013; Küng, 2017; Picard, 2005), but also in the close connection of media with culture and society.

Economics of the Media With regard to the special economics of media firms, media industries allow for great economies of scale due to the predominantly immaterial nature of the media products. Selling more copies of an already-produced media product does lead to relatively low (or marginal) re-production costs. Furthermore, the char­ acteristics of media production and distribution often allow for great economies of scope that lead to significant cost savings and synergies. Furthermore, media organisations are highly dependent on network externalities where those plat­ forms, channels and content that usually reach most of the audience and users are the ones that are most attractive to additional new audience members. Due to these high economies of scale and scope as well as network externalities, large players operate more efficiently in the media. In digital markets, especially, where marginal and distribution costs are close to zero, network externalities may lead to winner-take-all markets. Media firms are also distinctive in that they may connect multiple markets, which include audiences and advertisers but also content sup­ pliers, ad developers, data brokers and so on. Success in these markets is inter­ dependent, though the customers in the various markets may sometimes ask for different and conflicting behaviour. Besides these special economics of media firms, the management of and within media firms is different from that in other areas due to their organisational structure. Most media firms have creative and production departments as well as administrative departments. Tensions between

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 11

the personnel and their respective objectives in these departments may pose very special challenges to leadership in the media. Managerial decision-making at the heart of media management research takes place on various levels within media firms (see also Rohn, 2019). New business developments as well as mergers and acquisitions are usually decided on the cor­ porate level, whereas the strategic level is concerned with formulating strategies to meet the corporate target and to create a competitive advantage. The strategies then are translated into specific product and service tactics on the tactic level, and the operational level makes day-to-day decisions regarding the activities of creating and providing media content and services. In all of these levels, media management researchers find relevant questions. Furthermore, research may concern decisionmaking with respect to the internal firm environment, such as regarding organisa­ tional structures, leadership, skills and knowledge development, as well as with respect to the external environment, such as pricing and competitive strategies. Media management research is closely connected to media economics research, in whose shade it developed (see also Rohn, 2019). In contrast to media manage­ ment research, media economics research is more concerned with the character­ istics and dynamics of the industries and markets. The contribution of media management research in this context lies in providing a closer look at processes within media firms that lead to certain behaviours by these media firms that, in turn, influence market and industry dynamics. While media management research provides insights into the product, market and organisational decision-making of media firms as well as the knowledge about media firms’ perception of the chal­ lenges and opportunities in changing conditions, it itself very much relies on media economic research to provide knowledge on the wider context that media firms operate in. It is, therefore, no surprise that the academic communities of media management as well as media economics researchers are very closely intertwined.

Cultural and Societal Concerns With regard to the close connection of media with culture and society, the actions of media firms tend to have a high impact on people’s lives and contribute to the formation of a shared identity and social cohesion. However, media orga­ nisations are under close scrutiny from policymakers and regulatory agencies. Democracies rely on the availability of a fair, reliable, diverse and pluralistic media offer, which contributes to the public debate and controls the different ‘powers that be’. Increasingly, these social externalities of the media product are put under pressure by the rise of commercialism and the impact of media concentration, the emergence of fake news and the wider problem of disinformation, which is in general related to the ever more difficult economic context in which news media have to operate. Digital media organisations, and platforms in general, collect vast amounts of data with possible risks such as privacy breach or data theft. These data are instrumental in providing a personalised experience, which may, in turn,

12 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

lead to algorithmic biases. As such, the importance of media management research lies in its ability to understand managerial and strategic decision-making by media firms and to discuss misconduct and help identify internal and external environmental prerequisites for media firms to fulfil their important societal roles. Due to the special conditions of media production, distribution and consump­ tion and the important role of media firms for culture and society, media man­ agement research can never just mean the strict application of general management to media industries. Instead, it is interdisciplinary as it combines the general man­ agement studies with media and communication studies. The latter informs media management researchers about the specifics of media content, distribution and consumption that may influence management of and within media as well as the societal consequences of media firm behaviour. The management of media firms does, however, not occur in a social vacuum, but it is highly influenced by multiple societal, cultural and political forces. In this context, media management is well related to the more critical tradition of political economy, which looks among others at political debates about media and communication, and how public poli­ cies shape media systems and industries, and also links up with the fields of cultural studies and creative industries. The specifics of media and its role in society are, therefore, an essential part of media management scholarship.

New Directions in Media Management Media management research issues started to be of interest to scholars about 80 years ago (Albarran, 2013), and it was not until the late 1990s and early 2000s that media management scholars founded their own journals and academic associations. What we see today is a growing scholarship whose publications can be roughly divided into four types. First, most journal articles present the result of one particular research project in the field. The main journals are the Journal of Media Business Studies, which is the flagship journal of the European Media Management Association (emma) and the International Journal on Media Management and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Journal of Media Economics. Second, we see edited volumes or handbooks that present exhaustively topics relevant to the field, including the heuristics and typologies that frame the scholarships (e.g. Albarran et al., 2018; Lowe & Brown, 2016). Third, we see monographs and edited volumes that present and discuss one particular sub-field of media management (e.g. Altmeppen et al., 2017; Chan-Olmsted, 2006; Küng, 2017; Siegert et al., 2015). And last, but not least, we see an increasing output of journal articles, book chapters as well as book publications that deal with self-reflec­ tions and discussions on self-identity of the field (e.g. Achtenhagen, 2016; Küng, 2007; Lowe, 2016; Mierzejewska & Shaver, 2014; Ots et al., 2015; Picard & Lowe, 2016; Rohn, 2018, 2019; Wirtz et al., 2013). The need for self-reflection is not so surprising considering the interdisciplinary character of media management research that calls for a continuing need for recon­ firmation about the field of research among scholars. What is more, due to the

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 13

tremendous transformations of the media industries, media management research needs to constantly adapt its research questions to changing realities. When media management scholarship first started out, the media industries and markets were characterised by a degree of stability and certainty unheard of today. Due to con­ vergence in the industry, no less than the object of study needs to be adapted. Tradi­ tionally, media management scholars understood media firms as firms that are ‘involved in the production and distribution of content intended for a mass audience’ (Mierzejewska & Shaver, 2014, p. 48). However, this so-called publishing-broad­ casting approach seems outdated in the light of, for instance, Facebook, YouTube or Google. Although they are strong players in how and what content is being offered, they are, in most instances, not producers of that content. Hence, the broadcasting approach has been replaced by the so-called platform approach that also considers firms that only aggregate, manage and distribute content, including user-created content. With this understanding, media firms become organisers of public, mediabased communication (Hess, 2014), and the above-mentioned firms become as much part of media management research as are traditional mass media firms, i.e. legacy media (see also Rohn, 2018). Since these platforms handle different compe­ titive strategies and operate with disruptive business models (Cusumano et al., 2019; Evens & Donders, 2018), this requires that media management scholars look into and advance new theoretical perspectives to gain a better articulation of media and communication platforms in the digital economy. Transformations in media and communication industries suggest new theoretical perspectives and analytical lenses and call for appropriate methodological approa­ ches to address these transformations. In order to respond to the interchanging relationship between media organisations, distribution infrastructure, platform companies and software/hardware industries, media management research may need to broaden its scope. Geopolitical developments and tilting power balances marked by the rise of the Chinese ‘powerhouse’ and the subsequent business expansion of Tencent, Alibaba and Huawei, may also call for a broadening of the geographic reach of the field, with the goal to address work on geographical regions such as Latin America, Africa and Asia. Moreover, historical and archival research is welcome to go beyond the increased focus on the ‘now’ – an ontolo­ gical bias better known as ‘presentism’ – and put ongoing developments in an evolutionary perspective and ground it, historically. In a similar vein, corporate documents form an opportunity to dig into the corporate context and provide a chance for a far richer level of analysis. In doing so, media management may be able to link up with the expanding development of research into global media industries, which calls for a common dialogue between different scholarships on the economic and cultural specifics of media organisations to bring together inter­ disciplinary inquiry on media and creative industries (see Deuze & Prenger, 2019). Much of the self-reflecting writing on media management research is concerned as to whether the scholarship is well-enough equipped for the future and is able to respond to future developments in academia. This regards, in terms of addressing

14 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

challenging research questions, experimenting with innovative methods and fur­ ther developing the scholarship. In addition to these three future directions, we see that another challenge for a strong media management scholarship lies in its rele­ vance to stakeholders outside academia. The edited volume Media Management Matters: Challenges and Opportunities for Bridging Theory and Practice by the authors works out and reflects on the practical value that media management research can deliver to its stakeholders. As we consider the bridging between theory and prac­ tice as a core task of media management research (Küng, 2010, 2017), this book will discuss the challenges but also opportunities of this process.

Media Management between Critical and Administrative Research In terms of Lazarsfeld’s (1944) seminal distinction between critical and adminis­ trative scholarship, media management research may stand at the crossroads of which direction it should take to prepare itself for the future. Whereas Lazarsfeld criticised administrative research for addressing only ‘little problems, generally, of a business character’, critical research was censured for focusing on dramatic high-level ideas and ‘showing up things, rather than fact-finding or constructive suggestions’. However, we believe this should not automatically be a binary opposition since academic research, even when funded by industry or govern­ ments, can both serve practical ends and theoretical purposes. Media management enquiries that provide an understanding of media firms and their strategies and practices can, therefore, contribute to both critical and administrative scholarship. It should be driven by academic knowledge production but should also connect to context-driven, more problem-focused and interdisciplinary forms of knowl­ edge production. Where media management improves our understanding of how the media business operates and what contextual factors drive transformation in the industry, it may contribute to a critical understanding of the general role of media firms in society as well as the societal and cultural consequences of media firms’ strategies and operations. Media management research that identifies and discusses the motives and conditions that lie behind certain behaviour in the media industry can very well contribute to critical research. The question, however, has been whether and to what extent media management scholarship itself is a critical scholarship. Some of the self-reflecting writing on media management (Brown, 2016; Rohn, 2018), indeed, points out that much of the output of the scholarship is too descriptive and shies away from critical reflections on questionable practices and structures in the media industries that may work against the public interest and the plurality of the media. Yet, there is growing awareness that media man­ agement scholarship needs to reach out so as to connect with more critical approaches in media and creative industries. Media management scholarship has to contribute to examining, questioning and elaborating on the nature of trans­ formation in the media industry and its impact on the wider society and develop

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 15

new approaches to address the need for a better theorisation and measurement of this transformation. Besides being a critical scholarship, media management has the potential of providing clear guidance to its main stakeholders, the media industry and pol­ icymakers, on how to cope best with transformation. A main keyword here is actionable knowledge, which refers to knowledge (understandings, insights and explanations) that can be used to implement and take action (Argyris, 2003). Media management delivers actionable knowledge when it provides knowledge that can be picked up by or provided for its stakeholders for them to make informed decisions. Hence, where media management research helps decisionmaking in terms of firm growth and sustainability as well as setting or evaluating the rules and framework for a diverse and sustainable media landscape, it provides administrative value. Given that media management research aims at under­ standing how the media business works, its research, by nature, is well-suited for creating practice-relevant knowledge. As mentioned before, critical and administrative research must not exclude each other. In fact, the real potential of media management scholarship comes alive where critical research and administrative research go hand in hand. In par­ ticular, critical media management research can identify questionable decisions, behaviour, structures and power constellations and reflect on their societal effects. In doing this, critical media management can inform decision-making by pointing to these shortcomings, identifying best practices or guiding future strategies. Also, practical-relevant research does not mean uncritical research. Critical and admin­ istrative scholarship are not, ideally, something to be chosen between, but, in our opinion, are highly complementary.

Practice-relevant Knowledge, but for Whom? The success of media management research as an administrative scholarship very much depends on its ability to produce actionable knowledge that is relevant to decision-makers in policy and/or industry. Each of the chapters in this book illustrates how decision-makers, either working in the media indus­ try or in policymaking, share a great interest in and are willing to collaborate in practice-relevant research projects. After all, they have a need for a better understanding of the media landscape and the forces that influence behaviour and structure. For media managers, the main challenge lies in how best to manage and use their resources in an uncertain and ever-changing environment. In fact, due to the speed in which the media industries are changing, far better management is needed nowadays than it was during the time of mass media and previous media con­ vergence and digitisation. Media managers need increasingly to master the com­ plexity of cross-media production management, and build the technological awareness and capabilities that are keys in all stages of the value creation and capture

16 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

process. The competences, knowledge and skills that are required for managing a firm are increasingly diverse and reach from digital storytelling and multiplatform­ distribution, via data analytics and relationship-building through digital platforms, to creating recurring revenue streams and designing sustainable business models (Evens, 2018; Küng, 2017). Furthermore, technical experts play an increasingly crucial role in organisational culture and the composition of employers and project teams in media firms. As a result, leadership might be more challenging as it does not need only to consider and balance the needs and demands from people from the creative as well as the business side but increasingly from the technology side. Rohn (2018) lists topics of great relevance for future media management research that informs the media industries. Besides leadership issues in the media (Deslandes, 2016; Küng, 2006), research topics of particular interest to media managers include, among others, understanding entrepreneurial ventures (Achtenhagen, 2008), transmedia manage­ ment (Rohn & Ibrus, 2018), the usage of big data and analytics (Napoli & Roep­ nack, 2018), corporate social responsibility (Altmeppen et al., 2017), development of dynamic capabilities for transformation processes (Oliver, 2014) and business models (Evens et al., 2018). Though they are in the midst of the transformational changes in the media and communication industries, media managers very often do not find the time to reflect upon matters and to more thoroughly understand the development of the underlying forces. While they are caught in day-to-day business, they often make ad hoc decisions without having the time to reflect on the bigger picture and prepare for ‘the day after tomorrow’. Media management research that not only describes but also explains the underlying dynamics and disruption processes, therefore, can contribute to a better understanding of transformation processes thereby supporting media firms in sustaining and striving under these changing conditions in an informed and reflective matter. For media management researchers, on the other hand, media managers are an important source of information for developing their research questions, collecting first-hand data and testing the relevance of their research, but also for a better understanding of the meaning and consequences of research results. Decision-makers in media policy are, unlike those in the media industry, not in the midst of the business and its changes themselves. Similar to media manage­ ment researchers, they take an outside perspective. Yet, different from researchers, policymakers often lack the understanding of how the media business works and what factors influence conduct and structures in the media industry. It is the media management researcher who can provide expert views on the con­ sequences of suggested new policies and regulations, or evaluate existing ones. Media policies set the framework within which media firms operate and they, therefore, have a strong impact on the strategic options that media firms have. Since media policies and regulations greatly influence whether media firms can be sustained, and how they operate, media management needs to point to policies and regulations that, given the logics of the media business, may threaten plur­ ality, diversity and sustainability in the media industries. It is for future media

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 17

management research that policymakers do not overlook the special characteristics and economics of the media industries and the firms operating in them. The need for media management research that consults policymaking is very high, con­ sidering the fast speed in which the conditions and dynamics in the industries are changing. This complex interplay between multiple antecedents of transformation calls for a constant update on knowledge and understanding. In fact, the problem with media policies and regulations is that they quickly become outdated by digital convergence and changing business opportunities and practices, and the risk is that policies and regulations aim at solving yesterday’s problem (Lund, 2016). Media management research topics of relevance for policymakers include, but are not limited to, policies regarding global platforms, intellectual copyright, privacy and artificial intelligence (Rohn, 2018).

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship There have been multiple self-reflective accounts on the practical relevance of social sciences and on the ‘impact’ of research on public and private stakeholders (see Bastow et al., 2014; Landry, 1999). In order to make an impact, mere research to be communicated to academic peers is not enough. As Van de Ven (2007) points out, conducting high-quality research is not enough for any scholarship. What it takes for a scholarship to flourish is engagement. This is highly relevant for the media management scholarship, since engaged research was originally intro­ duced in management science to bridge gaps between theory and practice and selected as a way to generate both theoretical and practical knowledge (Shawcross & Ridgman, 2019). Van de Ven (2007, p. 9) sees engaged scholarship as a ‘participative form of research for obtaining the different perspectives of key stakeholders … in studying complex problems’. Boyer (1990, p. 16) describes engagement as ‘stepping back from one’s investigation, looking for connections, building bridges between theory and practice and communicating one’s knowledge effectively’. As O’Connor (2019) points out, effective engagement is an interactive process and not just a unilateral dissemination of results. By involving others, engaged scholarship can produce knowledge that is not only more insightful but also more relevant and actionable than when scholars work on the problems on their own (Van de Ven, 2007). At the core of engaged scholarship, therefore, lie both critical enquiry as well as dialogue directed simultaneously at the development of the scholarship as well as an engagement with and an impact on others. Moreover, Van de Ven (2007) discusses engaged scholarship as being central for addressing the gap between theory and practice. The division between aca­ demic knowledge and its relevance for practice is not unique to media manage­ ment research but of concern across many scholarships. Also general management research has been criticised for a gap between theory and practice (Tranfield et al., 2004). Management scholars are criticised for not putting their abstract

18 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

knowledge into practice, and managers are criticised for not being aware of relevant research and adopting the research findings (Rousseau, 2006). In another field related to media management, communication studies, Puppis (2018) points out that policy research has failed to inform media policy and calls for more engagement by scholars. And for media management, Küng (2010) reports on how surprised she was at just how large the gap between theory and practice was when she joined a supervisory board in the media. Van de Ven (2007) points out that academics very often have a limited understanding of their role of scholarship. They tend to respond to the criticism that their research does not provide actionable, practice-relevant knowledge by claiming that the purpose of their research was to make advances in scientific knowledge and not to make immediate contributions to practice. Referring to a citation analysis conducted by Starbuck (2005) that found that papers in management journals were cited on average only 0.82 times per article per year, Van de Ven (2007: p. 2) concludes that management research contributes neither to science nor practice. This may well be a premature conclusion since an academic’s presence in popular media was not taken into account. Other studies do show that social science research has achieved public policy impact, contributed to economic prosperity, and informed public understanding of policy issues and social changes (Bastow et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the sentiment that media management scholarship, in general, has not done enough to produce and promote actionable and practice-relevant research that informs decision-makers in practice remains. In the remaining sections of this chapter, we explore obstacles to engaged scholarship and make suggestions on how to improve media management’s external impact.

Obstacles to be Relevant outside Academia One of the main reasons for a gap between theory and practice is that researchers and practitioners occupy different worlds that define what is important for them in their careers and how to achieve this. A few obstacles lie in the nature of academic publishing. The need for scholars to follow academic writing conventions in order to be published makes it difficult for people outside academia to read their texts. Most obviously, researchers and practitioners use a different language. Practitioners may feel alienated by the terminology used and the references made to concepts and theories. Most academic writing is just too abstract and too vague to be useful in practice (Küng, 2010). Researchers need to ‘sell’ their research results by changing the tone of voice, avoid academic jargon and apply a clear, concise communication style so as to achieve impact. Also, the underlying purpose of academic research and publications often does not conform to practitioners’ needs. While researchers tend to aim at testing hypotheses and building long-term knowledge and theories, practitioners are often looking for specific advice on best practice and how to make short-term changes (Tranfield et al., 2004). Having their own time constraints, practitioners need to see an immediate applicability of the knowledge provided in the text, or

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 19

else it is not interesting to them. The answer to the question ‘So what?’ needs to be very obvious to them (Küng, 2010). Moreover, there is a tendency to produce advice that is either too simplistic or generic and, as a consequence, has limited value to practitioners (Oliver & Cairney, 2019). What is more, many academic journals do not select manuscripts based on their rele­ vance to stakeholders. What is important to editors is that the presented research expands theoretical boundaries, is methodologically rigorous or attracts citations. Pre­ ferred manuscripts are those that are driven by a gap in theory and not by an empirical phenomenon, as the latter often remain descriptive due to the lack of previous academic knowledge. Furthermore, while most media firms operate locally, academic journals are not interested so much in locally specific problems and solutions that may be most relevant to the respective practitioners: they are more interested in international trends and comparative studies. Also, due to the often very lengthy publication processes with several rounds of reviewing, the research results may lose their value for stakeholders. Practitioners are also unlikely to search and find research results in any of the academic journals, which often charge for access. So unless scholars directly and actively dis­ seminate their results to practitioners, the research does not reach them. Another set of obstacles lies in the nature of the academic incentive system. The career prospects and status of academics is largely evaluated by how much they publish and by how much their work gets cited by fellow academics. While university incentive systems consider a scholar’s academic impact, measured by h-index and number of citations, they usually do not consider whether scholars provide prac­ tice-relevant knowledge to their stakeholders outside academia. What is more, research only concerns one part of the workload of academics, whose working time usually also consists of teaching and supervision as well as other administrative roles and responsibilities. The job market for academics in most countries is very tough, and it is not uncommon that researchers have to endure many years or even decades of strings of different temporary contracts and an accompanying uncer­ tainty about their future opportunities. Academia is generally also known for having a long-hours work culture where scholars find themselves operating in subsequent crunch times trying to meet a seemingly endless row of deadlines. In this situation, scholars often do not find the time to step back and reflect on how their research is or can be relevant to their stakeholders. Instead, they need to carefully select what is mostly important to the positions they pursue and what is not. Due to limited time resources, most academics choose to please or boost their career within academia rather than focusing on creating practice-relevant knowl­ edge that is no part of the incentive system at most universities. Limited time resources represent, in fact, crucial obstacles for producing practicerelevant and actionable knowledge that rarely can be done through desk research only. Instead, scholars need to get into dialogue with stakeholders in order to identify what research questions are relevant for them and what the results may mean to them. Particularly, getting access to media firms may be not only timeconsuming but also very difficult. It may take a lot of patience and time until

20 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

media managers feel comfortable enough to share information or data with aca­ demics. Very often a research project is also based on the failure and uncertainty that practitioners may experience, and opening up to someone about it may not come naturally and easily to them. As a result, scholars need to invest a lot of time into not only identifying the right people but also into gaining their trust. Building and maintaining strong relationships with practitioners, although timeconsuming, may not always lead to concrete research projects, and researchers need to be ready to invest time in many meetings, long discussions and negotia­ tions without the security that this will lead into anything that could or would be useful to their academic careers. Research funding often comes from government agencies as well as private foundations. Writing a grant application is usually very time-consuming and scholars face limited time between the publication of the call and the deadline for application submission. Although the description of how the research will be delivered to stakeholders is a key criterion for being considered a successful can­ didate in the competition for funding, there is often no time for long dialogues and deliberations with stakeholders to identify the most practice-relevant research questions. At the same time, funding applications usually need to include a very detailed description of the research questions, the research plan and sometimes even the expected outcome. As a result, many scholars write what they think may be important to stakeholders, instead of investing time in learning what would be relevant to stakeholders. Another challenge for cooperating with stakeholders may lie in human resource management. Cooperative projects may call for more researchers. While it may be possible to employ additional researchers for a short-term project, universities and employees are usually interested in long-term working contracts that extend the period of the projects. So while a cooperative project with a stakeholder may open up new job opportunities for researchers, the universities may face funding challenges for these positions once the project ends. Most academics tend to have specific research interests and expertise. This is often a thematic specialisation that they are known for among their colleagues and, in the best case, they have been able to build some brand reputation in this area. There is always a risk that it becomes obvious through the dialogue with stakeholders that they have a need for research outside the expertise, interest or comfort zone of the scholar. Scholars, however, may be reluctant to branch out to new research areas due to the extra time needed to invest in building knowledge. Furthermore, an institute may find that the profile of its researchers just does not fit with a stakeholder’s criteria for investigation. From the researchers’ perspective, imposing research interests and questions upon stakeholders may seem like the easiest and most time-efficient way to conduct research instead of listening carefully to stakeholders’ needs and then, sub­ sequently, translating these into relevant research areas and questions. Most media management scholars have connections to researchers and scholarly associations outside media management scholarship. This has its roots in the fact

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 21

that media management itself is, by nature, interdisciplinary. As a result, many scholars publish also in academic journals in general media and communication journals and/or in management and business journals. The same goes for con­ ference presentations, where many media management scholars are regular parti­ cipants at large media and communication conferences, such as the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), International Communication Association (ICA) or European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA), as well as the management conference of the Strategic Management Society (SMS), European Academy of Management (EURAM), Academy of Management (AOM), European Group for Organisa­ tional Studies (EGOS), just to name a few. It is extremely important for media management scholars to attend conferences outside the more narrowly defined media management conference of the European Media Management Association (emma), the World Media Economics and Management Conference (WMEMC) or the International Media Management Academic Association (IMMAA), because the importance of the media management scholarship depends on how much scholars in related fields are aware of media management research as a scholarly field and community. And while this interdisciplinary outlook is what makes media management scholarship so rich and relevant for so many different research areas and questions, individual scholars may find it challenging to engage with different research communities, and will have little time or energy resources left to also connect with and present themselves to stakeholders outside academia. A final obstacle for cooperating with stakeholders while carrying out practicerelevant and solution-oriented research may lie in the attitude of scholars themselves. Offering what is often referred to as ‘free or cheap consultancy work’ is something that many may regard as being beneath their academic dignity. Not only do private consultancy agencies charge more money for their research, their approach and pre­ sentation can also be more customer-oriented compared with the approach by aca­ demic scholars. Private media consultants are not concerned with the contribution of a particular research project to existing knowledge and theories. Academics, when working on solution-oriented research with stakeholders, on the other hand, may fear for their freedom as to their choice of research questions as well as open-minded and critical interpretation of their research results. We, however, see great potential in collaborative projects that advance both practice as well as scientific knowledge.

Suggestions to Create Greater Impact outside Academia Much of media management research is, in fact, relevant to its stakeholders. But the relevance of the research results is not always clearly formulated in academic papers. Academics often fail to address the question: What do the results mean for decision-makers in media practice? Furthermore, any recommendations to stake­ holders within research results may be hidden in academic journals that are rarely or never read by stakeholders outside academia.

22 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

If we want our research results to reach decision-makers in industry and policy, it is not enough to publish in academic journals. We also need to translate our research results into a language that will be more easily understood by stakeholders and to publish them in as executive summaries or policy briefs that present ideas in a clear, logical, comprehensible and actionable form. Furthermore, our research will become more visible to stakeholders if we present not only at academic con­ ferences but also at conferences and meetings attended by practitioners. We therefore suggest that researchers should be available for stakeholders and the media when needed. Universities should also acknowledge this form of public service and not just see academic publications as a prerequisite for promotion or tenure. For making it comprehensible, scholars need to be able to answer the ‘so what?’ question in a few sentences so that any person outside academia can understand the relevance of the results and what they suggest for future decisionmaking in the industry or in policy. Media managers, especially, prefer to see a clear route to improvement and new market opportunities rather than have to work it out for themselves. For researchers, this also means spending more effort reflecting on the relevance and implications of their research results and explain­ ing the relevance of the study. When presenting research results we need to be ready to pack them differently for different audiences by adopting their language and perspective. In addition, academic journals have a role to play in media management and should put more emphasis on the implications for practitioners when considering whether to accept and publish academic papers. What is also important is that research results are always reported back to stakeholders. It is not uncommon that scholars interview or survey representatives from media companies or from policymaking and then, later, do not inform them about the results of the research. They might not make the time to do so, or they may simply forget. Not only does this represent a missed change for the transfer of knowledge and possibly improved decision-making, but it may also upset stakeholders and reduce their readiness to take part in future research projects. Any chance to reconnect with stakeholders should be seen as an opportunity to build a network, which can eventually pay off in access to data or collaborative research. Key to conducting practice-relevant research is that the relevance to stake­ holders is thought of as starting from day one of the research project. At best, research areas and topics are chosen based on a dialogue with stakeholders. The above-mentioned conferences or meetings targeted at practitioners present mul­ tiple network opportunities that may lead to meaningful dialogue and improved research relevance. Furthermore, the topics presented and discussed at such gath­ erings, inform researchers about what really matters to their stakeholders and reveal their experiences, fears and uncertainties. As Küng (2016) points out, there is a need to be in contact with representatives from the media industry for a constant upgrade on industry insights and for cooperating in the formulation of relevant research questions. The industry is usually much more in touch with the latest developments than academia is, and is therefore a crucial source of research

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 23

questions. A feedback round with the industry should ensure the relevance and reliability of the research findings. A similar close connection with policymakers is important to review the effects of past, current or intended policies (Rohn, 2018). The dialogue between media management scholars and industry as well as pol­ icymakers is extremely important considering the fast changing environment. Not all personal connections with representatives from the industry and policy­ making will lead into meaningful research projects. Due to the above-mentioned time constrains that most scholars experience, it is, therefore, very important for them to identify practitioners who are willing to connect and work with people in academia. Very often, it is former academics that will be happy to assist research projects and who understand the rules and jargon of academia and who want to satisfy their need for knowledge without having the time themselves to dig into a research project. But also other, curious, entrepreneurial and out-of-the box thin­ kers among practitioners are keepers in terms of maintaining relationships. Though networking may not lead into immediate projects, building up and nurturing strong relationships with practitioners may be useful later in time. Most academic conferences consist of a large number of paper presentations that follow one after another with little room for discussion, and regularly have a very limited number of practitioners among the conference participants. As an alternative, small seminars and workshops may present useful formats for additional gatherings that offer more space not only for academics to discuss the relevance of their results but also for including practitioners in the discussions. At best, through such seminars and workshops, new research areas and questions are formulated. Seminars and workshops are also ideal for getting scholars and practitioners together with representatives from funding institutions. The last will learn about the importance of certain research areas and questions in order to improve their grant application calls. Membership of (independent) think tanks or expert net­ works may also serve as potential entries for consultation. Seminars and workshops are also very useful for formulating and integrating the stakeholder’s perspective as part of integrative research methods, such as collaborative action research and design thinking. In fact, common research methods, such as expert interviews or surveys, need to be much better framed within a larger research approach. Action research, through which researchers formulate research questions in collaboration with stakeholders and stay connected with them throughout the whole research project for confirmation, validation and adaptation of next steps, represents one way for a more targeted research approach. Tranfield et al. (2004) introduce the concept of systematic review that helps the co-produc­ tion of knowledge and knowledge transfer between scholars and stakeholders. The idea behind a systematic review is that, usually, literature reviews as part of research projects are often biased and may lead to incorrect or misleading conclusions as to existing research evidence that should underlie informed decision-making. Fur­ thermore, the sheer amount of research that exists and the sometimes contradictory findings make it difficult for policymakers as well as media managers to make sense

24 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

of the existing science base. In a systematic review, academics and stakeholders work together to make sense of the existing research. The review process follows a rigorous procedure for conducting, reporting and disseminating the review. By doing this, it not only minimises bias throughout the process but in dialogue with the stakeholders it can also identify where knowledge is lacking. A systematic review, therefore, works towards improving the evidence underpinning decisionmaking and action by minimising the risk of incorrect or misleading conclusions from review and identifying further needs for research. It is always easier for scholars to get in touch with stakeholders outside academia if they have institutional support at their universities. Some universities have estab­ lished research centres that form clear units and that serve as easy gateways to contacts outside academia as they connect public and private organisations with university researchers. In such centres, networking contacts and collaboration experience with outside stakeholders can be collected over years and individual researchers can build up that stock of knowledge. Such centres may provide ser­ vices to businesses and offer research and development partnerships. Where research is ‘commercialised’, the conditions under which research is disclosed need to be thoroughly reviewed and agreed with all the relevant scientists, as good sci­ entific collaborations can be ruined by misunderstood commercialisation strategies. A main prerequisite for conducting practice-relevant research that leads to actionable knowledge is that scholars sincerely want to become involved and engaged in stakeholder collaboration. For this, the institutional environment needs to encourage collaborations that bridge theory and practice, and find instruments to honour and value them as an integral part of a scholar’s performance. For a continuing commitment it is also important that scholars work on research topics and questions that they are sincerely interested in. Researching only what stake­ holders ask for may result in compromised scientific conduct and excellence, as well as little commitment to the project. This may also pose a threat to one’s independence, which, and this has to be stressed, needs to be preserved. As always, the right balance between solution-oriented research and purely academi­ cally motivated research needs to be found. Scholars as well as their institutions need to have a long-term plan and an awareness of how much they want to get engaged and how much of their research results, and under what conditions, they are ready to give away. The level of engagement defines the time commitment and possibly financial reward that comes from the commercialisation. One needs to consider this carefully at the outset of any project: ideally, it is seen in the context of the long-term career goals by scholars so that they are rewarded for these collaborative efforts.

Discussion: Academic Independence is Crucial In the light of the tremendous changes in the media industries worldwide that bring about new business opportunities but that also threaten the pluralist offer of highquality and locally-produced media, media management research can make a great

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 25

contribution to informed decision-making necessary for supporting the sustainability of the media landscape, both in economic and sociocultural terms. The demand for informed and evidence-based decision-making by media managers as well as pol­ icymakers is continuously increasing with new technological developments that influence media production and distribution as well as their consumption. Colla­ borating with stakeholders in industry and policymaking ensures that researchers update their knowledge about ongoing changes and that their research areas as well as questions are relevant for managing media firms as well as organising the reg­ ulatory framework under which they operate. Following this rationale, we have made a call for more problem-focused and interdisciplinary forms of knowledge production in media management scholarship. We firmly believe media management scholars should engage better with public and private stakeholders and build mutual relationships in order to exchange knowledge and inspire decision-making at several levels. Engaged research does, however, not exclude the need for curiosity-driven academic research that builds on and extends the existing knowledge base. As we have argued above, media management scho­ larship needs to contribute to a profound understanding of the ongoing transforma­ tions in the media and communication industries and reflect on its wider role in society. Helping stakeholders to solve real-world challenges does not necessarily entail uncritical research. On the contrary, engaged scholarship through dialogue with practitioners might enhance academic knowledge by highlighting promising research questions, building beneficiary relationships and reflecting on societal issues. It is of utmost importance that any research, even when conducted in colla­ boration with public and private stakeholders, is performed according to the highest ethical standards and scientific independence. This means, although closely cooperating with stakeholders outside academia, scholars need to be independent in what they choose to research and how they conduct such research. They need to be free to review and criticise the conduct of stakeholders without the fear of losing cooperating partners. Scholars need also to be free to draw and publish their own conclusions of the research results. Indeed, intellectual freedom is the cor­ nerstone of any scholarly endeavour that differentiates it from commercial agencies. Some even see external funding from private stakeholders as one of the biggest threats to academic freedom – Napoli’s (2015) critical assessment shows that gov­ ernment-funded research is also not immune to this tendency – and are reluctant to be involved in practice-led research because they fear loss of autonomy. It is evident that any inappropriate interference from project partners erodes public trust in academic research and violates the integrity of scholarship. It there­ fore should be avoided that any funding party involved in a project defines the research question and its methodological approach. Researchers, from any aca­ demic field, should not accept that any collaborating party can dictate the outcome of the research or insist that a researcher should formulate strategy or policy recommendations preferred by that party. If media management research aims to be a critical scholarship, it needs to reject any attempt at interference in the research

26 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

process. Besides a stricter application of ethical procedures already in place in most research institutions, we suggest these institutions show more transparency regard­ ing funding sources, the involvement of public and private partners, the formulated research goals, and data collection and storage procedures. If we expect media organisations to take up their corporate social responsibility, we should expect a similar standard from knowledge institutions and individual scholars.

References Achtenhagen, L. (2008). Understanding entrepreneurship in traditional media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 5(1), 123–142. Achtenhagen, L. (2016). Developing media management scholarship: A commentary to Picard and Lowe’s essay. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(2), 117–123. Albarran, A. B. (2013). Media management and economics research: The first 75 years. In A. B. Albarran (Ed.), Media management and economics research in a transmedia environment (pp. 5–17). New York and London: Routledge. Albarran, A. B., Mierzejewska, B. & Jung, J. (Eds.) (2018). Handbook of media management and economics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Altmeppen, K.-D., Hollifield, A. C. & van Loon, J. (Eds.) (2017). Value-oriented media management: Decision making between profit and responsibility. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organizational Studies, 24(7), 1178–1192. Bastow, S., Dunleavey, P. & Tinkler, J. (2014). The impact of social sciences: How academics and their research make a difference. London: Sage. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brown, C. (2016). Media management: A critical discipline? In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media management? (pp. 83–100). Cham: Springer. Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (2006). Competitive strategy for media firms: Strategic and brand manage­ ment in changing media markets. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A. & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. New York: Harper Collins. Deslandes, G. (2016). Leadership in media organisations: Past trends and challenges ahead. In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries (pp. 311–327). Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer. Deuze, M. & Prenger, M. (2019). Making media: Production, practices, and professions. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Doyle, G. (2013). Understanding media economics. London: Sage. Evens, T. (2018). Media economics and transformation in a digital Europe. In L. d’Hae­ nens, H. Sousa, & J. Trappel (Eds.), Comparative Media Policy, Regulation and Governance in Europe: Unpacking the Policy Cycle (pp. 41–54). Bristol: Intellect. Evens, T. & Donders, K. (2018). Platform power and policy in transforming television markets. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Evens, T., Raats, T. & von Rimscha, B. (2018). Business model innovation in news media organisations – 2018 special issue of the European Media Management Association (emma). Journal of Media Business Studies, 14(3), 167–172.

Media Management as an Engaged Scholarship 27

Hess, T. (2014). What is a media company? A reconceptualization for the online world. The International Journal on Media Management, 16(1), 3–8. Küng, L. (2007). Does media management matter? Establishing the scope, rationale and future research agenda for the discipline. Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(1), 21–39. Küng, L. (2010). Why media managers are not interested in media management – And what we could do about it. The International Journal on Media Management, 12(1), 55–57. Küng, L. (2016). Why is media management research so difficult – And what can scholars do to overcome the field’s intrinsic challenges? Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(4), 276–282. Küng, L. (2017). Strategic management in the media: Theory and practice. London: Sage. Küng, L. (Ed.). (2006). Leadership in the media. Jönköping: Media Management and Transformation Centre. Landry, R., Amara, N. & Lamari, M. (1999). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30(2), 333–349. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1944). Extract, remarks on critical and administrative research. Studies in Philosophy and Science, 9, 3–16. Lowe, G. F. (2016). Introduction: What is so special about media management? In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What is so special about media management? (pp. 1–20). Cham: Springer. Lowe, G. F. & Brown, C. (Eds.). (2016). Managing media firms and industries: What is so special about media management?Cham: Springer. Lund, A. B. (2016). A stakeholder approach to media governance. In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media management (pp. 103–119). Cham: Springer. Mierzejewska, B. & Shaver, D. (2014). Key changes impacting media management research. The International Journal on Media Management, 16(2), 47–54. Napoli, P. M. (2015). Media ownership and the political economy of research in US media policymaking. In S. Barnett & Townend, J. (Eds.). Media power and plurality: From hyperlocal to high-level policy (pp. 101–115). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Napoli, P. M. & Roepnack, A. (2018). Big data and media management. In A. B. Albar­ ran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 410–421). London: Routledge. O’Connor, L. (2019). The nature of scholarship, a career legacy map and advanced practice: An important triad. Heidelberg: Springer. Oliver, J. (2014). Dynamic capabilities and superior firm performance in the UK media industry. Journal of Media Business Studies, 11(2), 55–77. Oliver, K. & Cairney, P. (2019). The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: A systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications, 5 (21). doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y. Ots, M., Nyilasy, G., Rohn, U. & Wikström, P. (2015). Media business studies as we see it: Why does it matter, for whom, and how do we get published? Journal of Media Business Studies, 12(2), 103–106. Picard, R. G. (2005). Unique characteristics and business dynamics of media products. Journal of Media Business Studies, 2(2), 61–69. Picard, R. G. & Lowe, G. F. (2016). Questioning media management scholarship: Four parables about how to better develop the field. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(2), 61–72. Puppis, M. (2018). Libertarians’ quest to put the media at risk. Paper presented at the colloquium on Libertarians’ quest to put the media at risk: The Swiss referendum on the abolishment of public service broadcasting and the future of media policy hosted by The

28 Ulrike Rohn and Tom Evens

Center for Media at Risk, Annenberg School of Communication, University of Penn­ sylvania. Retrieved from: https://www.ascmediarisk.org/2018/08/manuel-puppis-li bertarians-quest-to-put-the-media-at-risk/. Rohn, U. (2018). Media management research in the 21st century. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 425–441). New York: Routledge. Rohn, U. (2019). Industry organization, media management and media economics. In A. B. Albarran (Ed.), Research agenda for media economics (pp. 144–158). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rohn, U. & Ibrus, I. (2018). A management approach to transmedia enterprises. In M. Free­ man & R. R. Gambarato (Eds.), The Routledge companion to transmedia studies (pp. 410–418). London: Routledge. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as ‘evidence-based management’? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269. Shawcross, J. K. & Ridgman, T. W. (2019). Linking practice and theory using engaged scholarship. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(1–2), 35–48. Siegert, G., Förster, K., Chan-Olmsted, S. & Ots, M. (2015). Handbook of media branding. Berlin: Springer. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Marcos, J. & Burr, M. (2004). Co-producing management knowledge. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 375–386. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organisational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A. & Mory, L. (2013). Current stage and development perspectives of media economics/media management research. Journal of Media Business Studies, 10(2), 63–91.

2 UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY COLLABORATION IN THE MEDIA MANAGEMENT FIELD Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY IN QATAR AND REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM

Introduction University–industry collaboration (UIC) involves ‘the interaction between any parts of the higher educational system and industry, aiming mainly to encourage knowl­ edge and technology exchange’ (Ankrah & Al-Tabba, 2015, p. 387). UIC became a focus of university administrators in the mid-2000s in response to growing demands for more external funding to facilitate research and higher degrees of ‘social impact’ (Cunningham & Link, 2015; Muscio & Pozzali, 2013). UIC research confirms earlier research on inter-organisational relationships (IOR) (e.g. Barringer & Harrison, 2000; Oliver, 1990), with a specific focus on collaboration between universities and companies rather than only between companies. Although universities have been more satisfied than industry partners, failure rates are above 50%. The chief challenge is achieving successful mutual benefits (Protogerou et al., 2013). UIC is especially important for media management scholarship because (1) the underlying focus is on improving managerial practice, (2) funding often depends on media companies and industry foundations, (3) data collection often relies on partici­ pation of media managers and (4) public funding for scientific research now typically prioritises social impact and economic development. Pressure to do UIC research is growing because of economic and structural uncertainties in media industries and growing pressures for innovation to improve financial performance and market growth (see Lowe & Brown, 2016). Despite its obvious importance, our review of the literature found no studies on the frequency and volume of UIC in any media field. To begin addressing that gap, this chapter reports initial findings from an empirical study of UIC among media management scholars worldwide (N=132) – to our knowledge the first of its kind. The study is exploratory because knowledge and theory in this area of inquiry is still too limited to facilitate more rigorous testing.

30 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

Given the topical and practical importance for the field, we hope the study con­ tributes to development of more rigorous investigation.

Changing Policy and Structure in Higher Education Published research on UIC is Eurocentric because of European and domestic pressures to achieve higher social impact and for universities to support economic development. Although more familiar in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and medicine) than HASS disciplines (humanities and social sciences), even for STEM the two criteria were not common until mid-2000s (Bruneel et al., 2010). This is especially challenging for HASS disciplines in European scholarship due to an historic antagonism against capital interests and commercial enterprise (Howells & McKinlay, 1999; Mowery & Nelson, 1999), especially common in media research (e.g. critical studies, political economy and cultural studies). Facilitating economic development was not part of the historic mission for Eur­ opean universities generally, and requires significant reorientation to become an ‘entrepreneurial-enterprise’ (Harryson et al., 2007). This shift has been criticised as the ‘marketisation’ of universities. Growing dependence on external funding raises con­ cerns about the potential for diluting academic independence that would endanger the critical orientation which facilitates knowledge development. Moreover, economically unprofitable disciplines are being marginalised. Increasing dependence on grant fund­ ing, and fiercer competition as a consequence of public spending cuts, can be parti­ cularly challenging for universities in smaller countries where the number of sources and scale of resources are lower. Further, achieving significant international impact is more difficult because country contexts are so diverse and comparatively unique, undermining generalisability. The majority of European countries are small and securing large grants typically requires joining international projects in consortia often dominated by prestigious universities in (historically) the Big Four EU countries – France, Germany, Italy and the UK (Protogerou et al., 2013). The aforementioned reorientation requires institutional change in university cultures, described by Gibbons et al. (1994) as a transition from Mode 1 to Mode 2 knowledge production. In Mode 1 research, scientific advances happen within narrow, specialised fields (i.e. not cross-disciplinary) and publication in field-spe­ cific journals is the gold standard. Mode 1 is operationalised via university struc­ tures featuring autonomous departments that focus on basic research for theory development, generally taking a pejorative view of applied research. Mode 2 is rather the opposite: cross-disciplinary, organised into large university structures, and prioritising applied results for social impact but without neglecting scientific publication in peer-reviewed journals (often, and somewhat questionably, con­ sidered as the proof of social impact). Transitioning university systems to Mode 2 is evident in two common strategies. The first is restructuring faculties to encourage multi-disciplinary collaboration. Although partly about cost-savings as administrative staff can be reduced, the

University–Industry Collaboration 31

intellectual rationale supposes innovation is more regularly achieved by bridging spe­ cialisations and incorporating industry. Mode 2 research is more complex and com­ plicated, and therefore harder to manage, but the potential benefits can be higher than Mode 1 outcomes which tend to be narrow, fragmented and largely theoretical. The second common strategy is evident in new criteria for grant applications. In the past, national science academies did not emphasise cross-disciplinary research and social impact was not a key criterion. HASS faculty find these requirements especially challenging because economic value is harder to prove than in STEM sciences, few have been trained in UIC, and practical experience is limited (Lam, 2007). Many HASS disciplines are being de-funded, as in Japan where HASS was severely downgraded in 2015 (Jenkins, 2015), although the government softened its stance in response to public outcry (Kakuchi, 2016). The role of government has become a focus of UIC. The Triple Helix model (universities + industry + government) is especially important in Europe because public agencies formulate national science policies and universities are increasingly required to demonstrate ‘public value’ (see Benington & Moore, 2011) by decreasing reliance on public money and increasing innovation for private and public gain (Nielsen et al., 2013). The scope of change in Europe was documented in a comprehensive study of UIC rates in EU member states plus Turkey (Cunningham & Link, 2015). Although rates vary from highs in the UK (nearly 80%), Finland (about 75%), and Germany (about 70%), to lows in Italy (about 60%), Poland (just under 50%), and Turkey about (55%), UIC is a characteristic requirement throughout Europe today. This has been driven by EU framework programmes (FP) that began in 1984 and provide larger-scale research grants that have strengthened collaboration across national borders and between disciplines. They are specifically intended to stimulate innovation with the long-term goal of growing European competitiveness in the global economy. The EU promotes UIC due to (1) low proportions of R&D investment in member states, (2) traditional constraints on exploiting university research results, and (3) frag­ mented research activities and resources (Protogerou et al., 2013). The seventh FP, Horizon 2020, launched in 2007 with about €80 billion euros to invest. In H2020 the nexus of UIC leadership is an especially important change. Whereas earlier FPs prioritised university leadership, H2020 puts industry in the driver’s seat due to per­ sistent criticisms about uncertain contributions to improved competitiveness. Grant criteria emphasise scaling up already successful domestic innovations, with universities in a supporting partnership role for small to mid-size commercial enterprises. The reason for this change was documented by Protogerou et al. (2013) in a com­ prehensive analysis of UIC projects using the CORDIS database (operated by the European Commission). Results indicate that while industry agrees FP funding has contributed to scientific and technological development, most think economic devel­ opment has been uneven and unclear. These findings were confirmed in the large-scale study by Cunningham and Link (2015), which surveyed all registered universities in 33 EU countries plus Turkey (see www.ub-cooperation.eu/index/presentations).

32 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

Muscio and Pozzali (2013) conducted a web survey among EU researchers and found that UIC is pursued more by academics (83%) than practitioners (48%). Protogerou et al. (2013) found the majority of business partners in FP projects are first-timers (64%) and it is rare for a company to participate in more than one (only 5%). University benefits have been more certain as the primary recipients of funding and follow-on publications. Even so, a combined total of only 156 companies and universities account for the lion’s share of funding allocation over the past 30 years. More than half (53%) were awarded to prestigious universities with large faculties and robust administrative support to effectively compete for grants. Another 27% has gone to university research centres. Only 20% has gone to companies. Of the 80% that has gone to universities, fully 80% of that has been awarded to the same universities in serial fashion. The national receipt of FP funding favours the EU Big Four, especially the UK. Brexit will complicate research financing there. Universities in Central Europe, Malta and Cyprus have received the least. Less than 3% of funded projects involved universities outside Europe. The UIC failure rate is high – at least 50% and as high as 70% when collaboration involves significant international participation. An important focus of UIC research is therefore to diagnose characteristic motives and barriers for engaging, and causes for failure, which we discuss next. Most studies have investigated institutional and structural factors, although recent interest has begun to examine factors at the individual level.

Motives, Barriers and Conflicted Logics Researchers in Sweden reviewed 100 articles on UIC published in the early 2000s to identify the main drivers and barriers (Harryson et al. 2007). Their findings were recently corroborated (Ankrah & Al-Tabbi, 2015). Figure 2.1 summarises the results of these meta-analyses. Potential benefits for engaging UIC are economic, institutional and social – in that order. For firms, the primary motivation is to spread R&D risk and costs (Ankrah & Al-Tabbi, 2015; Al-Ashaab et al., 2011). For universities, the primary motivation is to secure research funding. The drivers for UIC are consistent with earlier findings in IOR research (Barringer & Harrison, 2000; Oliver, 1990). Bruneel et al. (2010) conducted a large-scale statistical analysis of UIC in the UK and found no significant differences when comparing large and small enterprises. Muscio and Pozella (2013) found that university department or faculty size in Italy were not differentiating factors either. Most characteristic problems are caused by lack of management competence to handle complex interdependencies between partners with incongruent institu­ tional logics, premised on value orientations that determine professional priorities (Nielsen et al., 2013). Every organisation has a prevailing institutional logic (or dominant logic) that grounds shared meanings, shapes collective identity, and establishes general priorities (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). There is higher potential for

University–Industry Collaboration 33

• Technology development • Policy pressure on universities • Growing costs for scientific research as • Increasing competition in markets • Shortening product lifecycles

• Access to relevant cutting edge knowledge • Forum for networking with skilled researchers • Access to government funding • Access to university facilities • Developing answers to complex problems • Enhanced R&D productivity • Appropriating and commercialising results

FIGURE 2.1

• Corporate focus on short-term profits • Difficulty ensuring the practical value of • Lack of adequate resources on one/both sides • Differences in organisational cultures, values • Contention over information confidentiality • Incompatible incentives and rewards • Mismatch between annual calendars

• Improved funding and access for research • Marketing and protection of IP rights • Harvesting royalties and fees • Deep knowledge of practical realities • Improved alignment with industry needs • Wider opportunities for students and faculty • Building goodwill and growing prestige

Summary of Characteristic Drivers and Barriers in University–Industry

Collaboration, and Typical Anticipated Benefits (authors’ own)

innovation when organisations with different logics interact, but also heightened tensions. When funding agencies are added, interaction is further complicated by a third layer of institutional logic. The most essential balance to manage is between the quality of scientific research for universities and fitness to purpose for companies. This underscores a fundamental contradiction in UIC that hinges on the value of knowledge. Uni­ versity culture is rooted in an ‘open science’ ethos that values public knowledge (Merton, 1973), while companies value proprietary information and con­ fidentiality. Career success for academics requires publication, while in the private sector success depends on protecting competitive advantage through con­ fidentiality. Of course, there are other important differences such as the speed and criteria for decision making, scale of organisational assets, and organisational priorities and the nature of anticipated benefits. While a degree of cognitive difference between organisations is conducive to achieving innovation, too much hinders collaboration. That happens when managers find academic research too advanced for their needs or too esoteric to be useful, and when academics find company interests too narrow or self-serving to be worthwhile for science (Muscio & Pozzali, 2013). Lind et al. (2013) inves­ tigated the problem and proposed a model with four degrees of interdependence, two of which are especially pertinent:

34 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

� �

Translational collaboration is characteristic when different dominant logics function in parallel, which in our view is more akin to co-operation than collaboration because the logics co-exist rather than converge; Developed collaboration happens when institutional logics are integrated at every stage of UIC practice, from formulating the research agenda, to con­ ducting the research, to determining how results are used.

The likelihood of developed collaboration (their normative priority) is highest when there is ‘domain consensus’ between academic and industry partners, meaning enough overlap to ensure shared interests and fluent com­ munications. But even when this is the case, the institutional logics of aca­ demics and practitioners must be continually navigated, and their respective interests negotiated. Success is most often realised when the collaboration is led by an individual with personal expertise on the basis of experience with both logics (Lind et al., 2013). Effective collaboration requires trust, which can be difficult for organisations with different logics. Relationships with high degrees of trust share more infor­ mation and develop results faster, with lower risk of failure (Bruneel et al., 2010). The relationships that matter most are between individuals who represent insti­ tutions, rather than between institutions per se, because UIC requires trial and error, giving and receiving criticism, and accommodating changing requirements. How that goes depends mainly on the individuals involved (Nielsen et al., 2013). Our research is premised on the reviewed literature. We are interested to see whether similar pressures, issues and patterns of collaboration occur in media management scholarship. We report initial findings from an international survey of media management scholars. Based on the literature review and our own experiences with academic traditions, we expected to find the following: � � � � � �

Junior scholars will be more dependent on external funding than senior scholars. Senior scholars will be more routinely involved with industry and govern­ ment in UIC projects. Faculty in business schools and departments will be more likely than their counterparts in media and communications schools and departments to engage in collaboration with industry. Faculty with permanent positions in universities will be less likely to engage in collaboration than those with temporary contract positions. Collaboration with industry will be a lower priority than traditional scholarly activities due to criteria for tenure and promotion decisions. Non-monetary motivations for collaboration will be perceived as most important overall because media management scholars need industry for data collection and student success.

University–Industry Collaboration 35

Methods A survey instrument of 51 questions was used to collect selected demographic and professional data from media management scholars. We focused on collaborative activities with industry and government, and perceptions of that. We also investi­ gated university priorities for UIC in decisions on tenure and promotion. The survey instrument was placed on the Qualtrics survey platform and invitations were sent electronically to individuals in four international organisations for scholars in this field (in alphabetical order): 1. 2. 3. 4.

AEJMC: Media Management, Economics & Entrepreneurship Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication emma: European Media Management Association IMMAA: International Media Management Academic Association WMEMC: World Media Economics and Management Conference

The survey was available for response from 4 October to 31 October 2017 and produced 132 usable responses. The universe of mailing lists was 702, representing the upper limit of active scholars in this field. The actual number is certainly lower because most are active in multiple organisations. It was not possible to scrub the lists for duplicates due to data privacy policies. A reasonable conservative estimate for our sample is not less than 19.5% of active scholars in this field, although we expect the true proportion is higher.

Results We begin with the population profile (N=132) and then discuss findings about UIC involvement with industry and government, and general orientation towards conducting collaborative research with industry partners. We finish with an over­ view of the relative prioritisation of UIC for decisions on tenure and promotion.

Population Profile A slim majority of our sample were senior scholars (45%), which is not surprising given the relative newness of the field and an abundance of early career researchers (ECRs) who participate in the conferences organised by emma, IMMAA and WMEMC (which largely comprised the sampling frame). One-fifth of respondents were junior faculty (21%), which includes doctoral students. The remaining 30% were at some mid-point in their careers. The three categories are not precise, but give the general sense of a large group of ECRs working with a large minority of established scholars – a fair number of whom could be construed as founders, given the field’s relative newness. The proportions were different in research centres, which had twice as many junior scholars and fewer mid-career scholars.

36 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

A large majority of media management researchers (70%) are situated in media schools, departments or programmes. A much smaller population is situated in business schools, departments or programmes (18%). About 10% are situated in a joint media/business school, department or programme. Media firms are con­ cerned about developing managerial competence and would understandably look to media faculties for research and education, mainly, because business and man­ agement schools are more generalist in orientation (i.e. not typically specialised in media). Our results indicate encouraging growth in institutional stability. The early development of media management scholarship was characterised by mostly temporary university contracts for professorships largely funded by media com­ panies and industry foundations (Lowe, 2016). Nearly two-thirds of our 2017 sample have permanent contracts (64%), and 82% are entirely salaried by the university. Clearly, universities have been investing in media management (and economics). The number of respondents with permanent positions rises with seniority. Whereas 68% of junior scholars were employed on a temporary contract basis, that figure dropped to 45% for mid-career scholars and to 14% for senior scholars. Thus, most of the roughly one-third of scholars working on temporary contracts are junior faculty. Those associated with business/management programmes were almost twice as likely to be in this category (54% vs. 31% employed in media/ communication programmes). Two-thirds of those employed in research centres were working on a contract basis. Neither finding is surprising. Many business and management programmes expect faculty to leverage the prestige of their location and contacts to secure external funding for their positions, and employment by a research centre is nearly always a temporary situation because few centres are per­ manently funded. The higher overall stability of the field is also reflected in the source of employment funding. Fully 72% of temporary contract scholars are funded entirely by their universities, while only 15% are funded entirely by external grants. About 13% have mixed funding. Investment today is more often from universities than external sources, although external funding continues to have considerable importance. Not surprisingly, results indicate that faculty become less dependent on external and mixed funding as seniority is reached. For senior scholars, about 11% receive mixed funding and only 6% are entirely funded by external sources. These findings suggest media management scholarship is becoming well established as a disciplinary specialisation that universities are employing, mainly in media-related schools, departments and programmes. There was no difference between media/com­ munications and business/management programmes in reliance on external funding. Not surprisingly, only 33% of those working in research centres had full university funding and 33% relied entirely on external funding. It is worrisome, however, to find female colleagues are far more likely to have temporary contracts (43% compared with 31% of males). The issue of gender imbalance is thematic, as will be demonstrated.

University–Industry Collaboration 37

External Involvement and Interaction External involvement and interaction are the beating heart of UIC. We examined this in several categories, beginning with consulting for industry and government entities. We also looked at conducting seminars and workshops, and frequency of invitations to serve as a keynote speaker at industry events. We conclude this part of our analysis with results about the propensity to engage in collaborative research with industry, and engaging industry lecturers and securing student internships. A large minority (41%) of our sample rarely or never work as consultants for media companies, and nearly three-quarters (70%) rarely or never consult for gov­ ernment entities. In this aspect, UIC is not yet common although there is a sizeable minority (20%) that consults with industry on a frequent basis and a larger group that does so occasionally (38%). The large disparity for consulting with government entities is persistent and likely explained by lack of opportunity because that sort of work is characteristically by invitation only, whereas consulting for media companies can be initiated by the researcher. About one-quarter of the sample have consulted government entities on an occasional basis. Individuals employed by research centres were twice as likely to frequently engage in consulting compared with those in media/communications programmes (33% vs. 15%), and those associated with business/management programmes were more likely than those in media/communications programme to engage in con­ sulting (26% vs. 15%). These are important differences. The former finding likely reflects a common view that centres are prime locations for experts with particular specialisations. The latter is not surprising because many business schools expect faculty to generate significant funding from external sources, as earlier noted. Digging deeper, analysis indicates that consulting activity is correlated with career stage. The number who never consult was 33% among junior scholars, but declined to 9% among senior scholars. Those who often or frequently consult rose from 38% among junior scholars to 54% among mid-career scholars to 64% among senior scho­ lars. The figures for governmental consulting showed a similar pattern. Thus, consulting activity is related to the development of knowledge, expertise and reputation over the course of a career. Nonetheless, fewer media management scholars in all stages of their careers were engaged in governmental consulting compared with industry consulting. The findings reveal a gender bias in consulting activity. Whereas 66% of males indicated occasionally or frequently consulting for media firms, only 42% of females did so. Interestingly, however, the imbalance disappeared for consulting government entities (43% for males; 42% for females). The difference likely reflects higher gender sensitivity and policy requirements for public agencies deciding consultant contracts. An even larger total percentage of the sample rarely or never provides seminars or workshops for media companies – 60%, compared with 41% who rarely or never work as consultants. About one-third of respondents occasionally provide seminars or workshops (31%), but only 9% do so on a frequent basis. The majority of media management scholars are more oriented towards achieving security in universities

38 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

than garnering industry support. We return to why in discussion about tenure and promotion. While 52% of junior scholars had never provided seminars or workshops for media firms, only 33% of mid-career scholars and 14% of senior scholars reported never doing so. The gender divide in conducting seminars and workshops was smaller than for consulting; 46% of men and 42% of women indicated occasionally or frequently providing seminars or workshops. It appears that industry managers are more open to female teaching than female consulting. When asked whether they would conduct seminars and workshops if invited, the vast majority of respondents said they would (75%) with most of the rest (24%) indi­ cating ‘maybe’. More junior scholars said they would if asked (85%) than mid-career and senior scholars (72% and 74% respectively). This may indicate that conditions are more important to them, or that they do this often enough not to need more oppor­ tunities. Female scholars indicated being less interested in participating in such activities, with 21% saying they would not do so if invited compared with only 1% of men. The reason is unclear, but women are less often invited which is a confounding factor. Those associated with media/communications programmes were three times more likely than business/management colleagues to be invited occasionally or fre­ quently to serve as keynote speakers for industry events. This is probably connected with the earlier finding that media management faculty are typically employed by media and communications schools rather than business and management schools. Nearly one-third of the sample (29%) is never invited to provide a keynote speech for an industry conference or event, and about one-fifth (21%) are rarely asked. A small group (12%) are frequently invited and a large minority (38%) are occasionally invited. The vast majority of respondents would do so if invited (75%), but a rather large minority (24%) said ‘maybe’, which again suggests that it depends on conditions or the focus. The same proportionate response was found for invitations to conduct seminars or workshops. Providing keynote speeches is correlated with seniority, with 65% of senior faculty being asked occasionally or frequently compared with only 10% of junior faculty – although 16% of senior scholars reported never being asked. Gender also plays a role in invitations to give keynote speeches, with 53% of male respondents occasionally or frequently giving speeches compared with 45% of female respon­ dents. Women expressed slightly more willingness to give keynote speeches than men, with 23% answering maybe and 77% saying yes if invited, compared to 27% and 73% respectively for men. When the results for this item are compared with percentages and frequency of consulting, it seems media management scholars are more often invited to consult with managers than to teach or mentor them. This is worth exploring in future research to determine the hierarchical level of consulting for managers, and why teaching and mentoring is not as commonly invited. It might be that managers look to UIC to solve immediate problems rather than for help with longer-term development. We asked two questions about collaborative research with media companies and were surprised to find that a large minority rarely did this (42%), and nearly one­

University–Industry Collaboration 39

quarter never (24%). Although a large minority (41%) conducts collaborative research with industry occasionally, only 16% do so frequently. Scholars in media/ communication programmes were three times more likely to occasionally or fre­ quently engage in collaborative research than those in business/management programmes. Thus, the picture is quite mixed with about half the population engaging with industry in collaborative research and about half rarely or never doing so. Although about three-quarters do this on some basis, UIC among media manage­ ment scholars was lower than we expected given its importance for the field. Of course, we are left with the question of what ‘collaborative research’ means, which was not tested. We assumed it means conducting research with media professionals or managers as a cooperative project, but this needs investigation. For those engaged with industry in collaborative research, about 14% have done ten or more projects in the past academic year. Another 16% has been involved in at least six projects of this kind. About one-fifth (20%) say they have never done this kind of project. This indicates some discrepancy when compared with the earlier item where nearly one-quarter (24%) said they had never done so, again suggesting uncertainty about what ‘collaborative research’ means. Nonetheless, our findings concur with general research on UIC because a comparative minority are serially involved in collaborative research with industry while a large number do so rarely or never. We should have also asked how many were one-off projects compared with serial projects, but only realised the error too late. This also needs further research. There is an interesting difference in collaboration patterns based on seniority, with 33% of mid-career scholars not engaging in collaboration compared with 19% for both junior and senior scholars. Why mid-career scholars more frequently engage in colla­ boration with industry is not clear from the study, but may be keyed to criteria for promotion to senior faculty status and perceptions of the value of collaboration in that process, a factor we discuss later. Patterns of collaboration based on gender mirror earlier findings. About 29% of female respondents do not engage in collaborations compared to 21% of male respondents. Although not as extreme, that is a large enough difference to support our supposition of gender bias among media industry managers. The most common reason that media management scholars do not engage in collaborative research with industry is lack of time (33%), which rises with seniority (45% for junior scholars; 58% for mid-career scholars, 66% for senior scholars). Time constraints were twice as important for women (55% vs. 23% for men). Only nine respondents expressed lack of interest. About 15% indicated never having been asked, with women at a higher percentage than men (33% vs. 22%). Again, gender bias is observed. About 10% indicate lack of industry contacts, lack of support or appreciation from the university, or low prioritisation for decisions on tenure and promotion. We return to this soon. The vast majority would be interested to participate in research collaborations if given the opportunity (only 8% indicated no interest). Demands for doing collaborative research were not considered too high (by only 8%) and very few considered collaborative research inappropriate for scholars (only 3.4%). Even less

40 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

of those who have engaged in at least one such project reported having a bad experience (1.7%), although men reported more bad experiences than women as a reason not to collaborate. It should be remembered that female colleagues have less opportunity. Finally, we asked respondents about inviting media managers to give guest lectures and the importance of industry relations for student internships and work programmes. Guest lecturers are very common with nearly two-thirds (64%) inviting at least one and up to five industry managers in the past year. About 15% invited six or more, although few invited ten or more (5%). Opportunity for student internships was even more important with more than two-thirds (67%) viewing this as extremely important, and another 17% said it is moderately important. Only 4% said that has no importance. This suggests the priority for educating students, especially when compared with the much lower amount of teaching and collaboration with industry.

Priorities for Tenure and Promotion University criteria for decisions on tenure and promotion indicate a traditional prioritisation. There were no major differences in perceptions based on career stage or gender. Among junior scholars, 9% reported low university support for UIC and one-fifth (18%) indicated this as a low priority in decisions on tenure and promotion. Similarly, 11% of mid-career scholars reported low university support and 21% cited low priority as reasons for not collaborating. A higher percentage of senior scholars (25%) reported low university support and (22%) low priority in promotion deci­ sions. The results overall indicate that despite pressures from universities and funding agencies to engage in UIC, actual engagement does not count as much in decisions that are crucial to career success for an academic. There is structural incongruity between what is expected by universities and what they reward. The most highly and widely valued accomplishment is publishing scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals, which was very highly prioritised by 73% of respondents. When combined with highly prioritised, the figure jumps to 91%. Mid-career scholars rated this slightly higher than respondents in the other career stages. The next closest priority was securing a grant for research from a scientific academy, with 58% saying this is very highly prioritised. When combined with highly prioritised, that figure rises to 92%, on par with journal publication. Males put slightly more emphasis on grants than females, and juniors put slightly more importance on funding than seniors. Peer-reviewed book chapters are a runner-up. Although less than one-fifth say this is very highly prioritised (19%), it is highly prioritised by about 50% and the combined total is better than two-thirds of the sample (69%). Mid-career scholars gave slightly more importance to peer-reviewed chapters than scholars in the other career stages. ECRs need journal articles and senior scholars need mono­ graph books. Publishing a monograph was ranked the third most prioritised type

University–Industry Collaboration 41

of publication, although a distant third. A bit more than one-quarter of the sample (26%) say it is very highly prioritised, but when combined with highly prioritised the total is only about one-third (34%). Serving as a journal or book editor is not generally prioritised. About half indi­ cate it has low or no priority in decisions on tenure and promotion (45% and 56% respectively). Serving as a journal editor is slightly ‘better’ than serving as a book editor, but both are more often at the low end of priorities. Female respondents gave these activities slightly more importance than men, and junior scholars per­ ceived journal editorships as slightly more important than seniors. In most cases, authoring industry reports, articles for trade magazines, and expert commentary in newspapers were ranked as low or no priority by about 75% of the sample, and 25% said none of these are any priority – although authoring an industry report was slightly more important than writing an article for a magazine or newspaper. Authoring reports for a government entity has more importance, but this was still ranked rather low by nearly half the respondents (47% compared with a low ranking of 57% for industry reports). Nonetheless, this was highly important for one-third of the sample (33%), compared with about one-fifth for an industry report (22%). Males indicated such reports were slightly more important than females, and seniors perceived these as slightly more important that scholars in earlier career stages. The lowest priority was publishing a popular book. Although 21% say this is highly prioritised for tenure and promotion decisions, fully 77% indicate it has low or no priority – with 27% saying none. As regards grants, any source (and presumably any amount) has value for deci­ sions on tenure and promotion. Grants from scientific academies are the most prioritised (91%), but grants from governments and NGOs were also rated highly or very highly (83%). Grants from industry finish lower, although highly or very highly prioritised by nearly two-thirds (62%). It seems public money counts for more than private funding, but all funding matters. Mid-career scholars rated grants from industry and government slightly higher than colleagues at other career stages. The distinction for mid-career scholars here and for collaborative research earlier likely indicates the higher overall importance of UIC for advancement to full professor, while ECR scholars are in the ‘publish or perish’ career stage. Seniors are more engaged due to established reputations and expertise, rather than careerrelated needs, and seemingly more reserved because this is no longer as important for advancement. Consulting is generally a low or no priority for decisions on tenure and pro­ motion, which explains the low figures. Consulting for government is more prioritised (31%) than for industry (19%), reflecting a preference for public versus private sector support. But this is still of low or no priority for about half the respondents. Consulting for industry and government was ranked slightly lower by females than males, and senior scholars ranked government consulting slightly higher than those at earlier career stages. The least value was accorded to main­ taining a blog in the field, which had low or no value for 90% of respondents.

42 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

Conclusions Our expectation that junior scholars would be more dependent on external funding for their positions was not confirmed. Findings indicate media management scholarship is sufficiently established as an academic discipline to enjoy reasonable stability in many universities. External funding still matters, but not primarily to finance employment. We also found that media management scholarship is mainly situated in mediarelated schools rather than in business and management schools. But our expectation that colleagues located in business schools would be more likely to engage in colla­ boration with industry was not borne out. Scholars in media/communication were far more likely to conduct seminars, be keynote speakers and engage in collaborative research. But a much higher proportion are situated in media schools, which is an important factor. Our expectation that those with permanent positions would be less likely to engage in collaboration than those with temporary contract positions was not confirmed either. In fact, the results show the opposite. Senior scholars are the most likely to be involved as consultants, to provide seminars and workshops, and to be invited keynote speakers. They are somewhat more selective in what they accept, but established reputation and expertise are the determining factors. This was not discussed in the UIC literature we reviewed. When it comes to participation in collaborative research projects with industry, this is not nearly as common as we expected although it is more likely among seniors than juniors. The latter expectation is confirmed. We also found that UIC research projects have highest importance among colleagues in the mid-career stage, presumably because they are pursuing promotion to full professor. This was not discussed in the UIC literature and is an interesting result because it indicates rising and falling degrees of participation keyed to one’s location in career stages. Our expectation that UIC activities have a lower overall prioritisation than traditional scholarly activities in deciding tenure and promotion is strongly con­ firmed. The field of media management scholarship shows no practical differences from other academic fields in the relative priorities for these decisions. What matters most are publications in peer-reviewed journals and securing research grants from scientific academies and foundations. Thus, calls to achieve higher social impact are more important in principle than practice. This undoubtedly has a bearing on the general dissatisfaction of industry managers about lack of benefits in applied results. Finally, our expectation that non-monetary motivations for collaboration with industry would be perceived as more important than monetary motivations was also confirmed. By far, the highest overall importance of UIC activity is inviting managers to lecture classes and facilitating student internships. For those who engage in consulting, provide workshops and seminars, and serve as keynote speakers, the primary reason is to grow one’s personal reputation and build rela­ tionships with industry managers.

University–Industry Collaboration 43

Discussion Although a good deal of collaboration happens in the media management field, it is not very widespread. Higher importance was expected because media and busi­ ness-related disciplines have stronger professional foci than many other disciplines. Although a fairly large number of scholars in this field are regularly active in UIC activities, at least as many are not. Nonetheless, we think the findings indicate this field is better prepared than many to meet educational policy demands for enga­ ging more with society and businesses, and securing more external funding, although not yet at optimal levels. The findings indicate two significant challenges for university–industry collabora­ tion in this field. Many scholars do not engage with industry due to lack of time, a major challenge for all academics today that tends to increase with seniority. We suspect two primary causes that are general rather than specific to this field. The first is a growing volume of work for which faculty are responsible, compounded by the second cause – which is low priority for UIC in decisions on tenure and promotion. Arguably the most significant finding is the importance of gender imbalances. This factor is complex. Although women are well represented in media management scholarship and outnumber men in the junior ranks, our findings reflect a general problem in academic cultures that becomes glaring in industry cultures. The data indicate female colleagues have fewer opportunities to collaborate than men, although they express willingness to do so. Gaps in women serving as keynote speakers at industry meetings and acting as consultants to media firms are stark, although they are in a better position for government consulting. We are not sure whether our findings indicate the problem is more pertinent to industry than uni­ versities, but suppose that although females comprise a large group of ECR scholars in media management today their promotion to senior faculty positions and nomination to leadership positions in the future is uncertain. This needs deeper examination. Our findings are especially interesting considering published literature on uni­ versity–industry collaboration. Although much is made in grant applications about the importance of ‘real world’ applied research and contributing to economic development, few universities prioritise either. Traditional priorities for decisions on tenure and promotion reign supreme internationally. Few universities have aligned criteria for decisions on tenure and promotion with what they now encourage and often say they require. The field of media management is an important case because it should be different in this respect given the importance of UIC for general practice and future development in this field. The fact that it differs little from the wider academic orientation suggests the essential problem is structural rather than specific. This presents an opportunity for media management scholarship to take a leading role for development in the years ahead. That will not be easy because the under­ lying problem is structural, but media management scholars need to grow colla­ boration with industry and push universities to actually practice what they are preaching.

44 Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Robert G. Picard

References Al-Ashaab, A., Myrna, F., Doultsinou A. & Magyar, A. (2011). A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry-university collaboration. Production Planning & Control, 22(5–6), 554–570. Ankrah, S. & Al-Tabba, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408. Barringer, B. R. & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403. Benington, J. & Moore, M. H. (Eds.) (2011). Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the bar­ riers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. Cunningham, J. A. & Link, A. N. (2015). Fostering university-industry R&D collaboration in European Union countries. International Entrepreneur Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860. Gibbons, M., Linoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scot, P. & Trow, M. (Eds.) (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage. Harryson, S., Kliknaité, S. & Dudkowski, R. (2007). Making innovative use of academic knowledge to enhance corporate technology innovation impact. International Journal of Technology Management, 39(1/2), 131–157. Howells, J. & McKinlay, C. (Eds.) (1999). Commercialization of university research in Europe. Report to the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Ontario, Canada. Jenkins, N. (2015). Alarm over huge cuts to humanities and social sciences at Japanese universities. Time, 16 September. Retrieved from: http://time.com/4035819/japan-uni versity-liberal-arts-humanities-social-sciences-cuts/. Kakuchi, S. (2016). Government softens stance on humanities after uproar. University world News, 22 January. Retrieved from: www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story= 20160122155338974. Küng, L. (2007). Does media management matter? Establishing the scope, rationale and future research agenda for the discipline. Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(1), 21–39. Lam, A. (2007). Knowledge networks and careers: Academic scientists in industry-uni­ versity links. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 993–1016. Lind, F., Styhre, A. & Aaboe, L. (2013). Exploring university-industry collaboration in research centres. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 70–91. Lowe, G. F. (2016). What’s so special about media management? In Lowe, G. F. & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media manage­ ment? (pp. 1–20). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Lowe, G. F. & Brown, C. (Eds.) (2016). Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media management?Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Mowery D. & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). Sources of industrial leadership: Studies of seven industries. New York: Cambridge University Press. Muscio, A. & Pozzali, A. (2013). The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: Some evidence from Italian universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (4), 486–508. Nielsen, C., Chrautwald, J. & Bentsen, M. J. (2013). Levers of management in universityindustry collaborations: How project management affects value creation at different lifecycle states of a collaboration. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(3), 246–266.

University–Industry Collaboration 45

Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265. Picard, R. G. & Lowe, G. F. (2017). Questioning media management scholarship: Four parables about how to better develop the field. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(2), 61–72. Prahalad, C. K. & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501. Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y. & Siokas, E. (2013). Twenty-five years of science-industry collaboration: The emergence and evolution of policy-driven research networks across Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 873–895.

3 WHY POLICYMAKERS NEED TO COLLABORATE WITH ACADEMICS ON MEDIA POLICY AND WHY THAT NEED WILL GROW Steve Wildman MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER

Introduction Every step in the long advance from universal hunter-gatherer subsistence living to the life of comparative plenty that so many of us enjoy today has been marked by increases in the store of knowledge upon which humans can draw to maintain and fashion an existence in a world with finite resources. It is not surprising, therefore, that, beginning with the emergence of large-scale, centrally organised societies, governing authorities have directed some portion of their societies’ resources to efforts to add to the stock of knowledge that they believed might contribute to the attainment of major societal goals. A consequence, perhaps, of the rise of the modern research university, today a substantial fraction of those resources is directed toward universities and we have grown accustomed to looking to researchers affiliated with universities for advice and insights on how to respond to challenges faced by actors in both the private and public spheres. Media policy has been prominent among those challenges since the invention of the printing press made mass distribution of media content eco­ nomically feasible and, as anyone familiar with the development of media policy during the twentieth century and thus far in the twenty-first century can attest, research by and consultations with academic experts have become increasingly important to media policy development. There are good reasons for policymakers to turn to academics for advice and insight and for research that might produce knowledge that is needed but currently lacking. In most economically advanced nations, media are themselves substantial industries whose products are greatly valued by consumers and also impact the functioning of other sectors of the economy. Perhaps more important, media are intertwined with the cultures and the politics of the countries in which they are

Policymakers Collaborate with Academics 47

consumed. Industries that are both economically consequential and play vital roles in domestic politics cannot escape the attention of government. On the other hand, because media industries are complex and have features not present in most other industries, they present their own unique analytical challenges and, in spite of the considerable progress made to date, we still have a ways to go to fully address them. Today, the vast majority of people working to build a better and, crucially, a more intellectually rigorous, understanding of the economics of media are employed by universities. It is only natural then that governments, and media companies as well, should turn to university experts for help in addressing the challenges that media pose to both of them. In this chapter, I will make the argument that as the seemingly ever accelerating pace of technological change continues to expand the menu of media types and their permutations, the challenges confronting both policymakers and direct parti­ cipants in media markets will likewise multiply and become more complex. As a result, we can expect reliance on academic expertise to, if anything, increase. And this is as it should be. The argument proceeds in three steps. The next section lists and examines five broad but critical aspects of media that have made media significant policy foci in the past. The policy concerns raised by each of these aspects are long-standing and would continue to command the attention of policymakers even if the media landscape were not being transformed by new technologies. The third section looks at the ways technology-driven change in the nature of media services and the conditions under which they are offered impacts each of these policy foci. This exercise makes quite apparent that the concerns underlying policymakers’ focus on media in the past have been amplified by changes already underway and likely will be amplified further by changes yet to come. Furthermore, media are being trans­ formed in ways that demand new thinking and, by implication, new research to develop the better understanding of the nature of modern media that is needed to devise policies that can help us more fully realise the potential for greater societal benefits implicit in the ways the Internet, and digital technologies and services more generally, are transforming media, and to avoid to the extent possible the very significant harms to societal well-being that are also made possible by this same transformation. The chapter concludes with a fourth section that discusses what the previous analysis means for collaboration between policymakers and academics going forward.

Why Policymakers Care about Media That media have been a major focus of policy concern in just about all modern countries is beyond dispute. Nevertheless, it is still a worthwhile exercise to briefly discuss some of the most important reasons media receive so much atten­ tion from policymakers. Here I list and briefly discuss five.

48 Steve Wildman

Media and Media Services Are Economically Significant Industries At any given time, a society’s consumption options, broadly defined, are deter­ mined by the efficiency with which it utilises the resources at its disposal and its economic dynamism determines the rate at which its consumption options grow over time. For this reason, promotion of economic efficiency and dynamism are seen as important policy goals. While some policies, intellectual property laws for example, designed to promote efficiency and growth are broadly targeted, others are specific to individual industries or groups of related industries. Because gov­ ernments must do their work with finite budgets and limited personnel, they must be selective in deciding which among the innumerable subjects that might benefit from more focused policy attention will actually receive that attention. While it ignores other important considerations, an industry’s financial size relative to the national economy is a commonly employed measure of its contribution to the economic well-being of a country’s citizens and thus the degree to which it merits special attention from policymakers. By this measure, media and the associated information industries loom quite large. According to Statista (Watson, 2019), in 2016 the entertainment and media sector accounted for 2.54% of global GDP. Because expenditures on non-necessities tend to increase as a percentage of perso­ nal income as income grows, we would expect media and entertainment to account for a larger fraction of GDP for wealthier countries than poorer ones. Although strictly comparable figures are hard to find, it appears that the percentage of GDP accounted for by media and entertainment tends to be substantially larger than the global average for more economically advanced countries. For example, this figure was 6.9% for the United States in 2015 (U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration). However, because many of the most popular media services are multisided plat­ forms that sell access to audiences attracted by content or services made available for free or at other low, cross-subsidised prices, revenue measures typically understate the consumer surplus component of media industries’ contributions to economic value, possibly by a considerable amount. For example, in recent research Brynjolfsson et al. (2019) employed online choice experiments to estimate for the United States the consumer surplus generated by popular online services available to consumers at zero cost. Estimates were based on the minimum amounts study participants said they would be willing to accept (their WTAs) to do without these services for a month or a year. Estimated WTAs varied with participants’ demographic characteristics and the type of online service they were being asked to give up, and different types of ser­ vices differed considerably in their median WTAs. At $17,530 and $3,648, year 2017 median year-without-service WTAs were quite high for the categories ‘all search engines’ and ‘all maps’, while the median WTA for ‘All social media’ was con­ siderably lower at $322; but in showing that in the aggregate consumers value free online services quite highly, the argument that GDP under counts the contributions of free services to economic value is strongly supported.

Policymakers Collaborate with Academics 49

Media Are Major Consumer Goods There can be no question that media are important consumer goods. This is evident from the sheer amount of time consumers spend with media products and services. While time spent with media is an indirect measure of the importance of media as consumption goods, it is also very revealing because, unlike other activities such eating, sleeping and many related to job performance, time spent with media is for the most part discretionary. Statistics from Zenith Media’s 2019 Media Consumption Forecasts are quite revealing in this regard. Based on their survey of media users in 57 countries, Zenith estimated that in 2019 people would spend an average of approximately eight hours (479 minutes) a day consuming media of various types. Any activity or collection of related activities that occupies nearly half of the average adult’s waking hours has a big impact on human well-being and cannot escape the attention of policymakers.

Media Significantly Impact the Functioning of Other Industries Media impact other industries in numerous ways. Perhaps most obvious is by sell­ ing advertisers access to audiences. Advertising can be informative and help con­ sumers make better choices, but it may also be purely persuasive or even misleading, and some might argue that advertising promotes an unhealthy con­ sumerism. While one can argue about whether the society-level consequences of advertising are positive or negative, it is clear that market outcomes and the ulti­ mate fates of firms and industries are shaped in part by advertising. The most obvious measure of this impact is the amounts advertisers willingly pay for access to media audiences. eMarketer reported that worldwide digital ad sales of $283.35 billion in 2018 were 45.9% of total global advertising for that year (Enberg, 2019), which the maths tells us amounted to approximately $617.32 billion. Citing World Bank estimates, World Population Review reports that 2018 global GDP was $84,683.79 billion, of which global ad sales were about 0.73%. Two other channels through which media influence other industries worth briefly mentioning are the role media play in consumers’ pre-purchase searches for information on the products and services offered by different sellers and industry trade press. Product reviews in specialty magazines (magazines focused on auto­ mobiles, personal computers, and video games are familiar examples) and other publications have helped consumers choose among alternative models, brands and sellers of the associated products for decades, and they still do. Today many people also turn to online sources for similar reviews or use search engines to ferret out product and seller information. It is doubtful that there is an industry of any size that is not served by one or more publications that report on new developments within the industry, including changes in laws and regulations, new technologies and services of interest to industry members, and noteworthy actions by industry members, such as capacity

50 Steve Wildman

expansions, mergers and new product introductions. While little studied, trade publications appear to play important roles in keeping industry members informed of developments that might impact their collective and individual fortunes and thereby contribute to the formation of better-informed plans and strategies.

Media Products and Services Are Cultural Goods Culture is a complex and multifaceted construct, but for our purposes it is sufficient to observe that most people see their countries as distinguishable from others by cultural values – beliefs, perspectives on the human condition, and ethical and behavioural norms – that differ in noticeable ways from those of other countries. Cultural products, which include media content as well as many craft goods and other works of artistic expression, are often looked on as embodiments of culture and, over the longer term, as promoters and shapers of a country’s culture. Even in countries that espouse tolerance and appreciation for other cultures, the protection and promotion of cherished aspects of national culture and efforts to prevent the entrenchment of values considered to be incompatible with key cultural tenets, whether foreign or domestic in origin, are viewed as appropriate activities of gov­ ernment. Media policies justified on grounds of promoting or protecting a national culture include restrictions on content thought to violate cultural norms, subsidies for domestic content producers, and restrictions on the amounts of foreign-produced content broadcast by domestic radio and television services. In the most extreme cases, only content that has been cleared by government censors is approved for domestic distribution.

Media Play Critical Roles in the Political Systems of All Countries Whether its governing system is democratic, authoritarian or a mix that falls some­ where in between, in the long run a national government’s legitimacy and staying power depends on the support of its citizens. Because citizens turn to media for information on the policies their governments are pursuing and the extent to which they benefit or are harmed by those policies, it is inevitable that governments be concerned with the types of political information their citizens receive through media and enact policies that reflect those concerns.

Media Should Attract More Attention from Policymakers in the Future If we look at the reasons media are important policy foci discussed above and project forward, we can see that the ways the Internet and digital technologies more generally are transforming the media sector are changing the ways it impacts society and most likely amplifying these impacts as well. In addition, this transfor­ mation is changing the scope and character of media services in ways that will

Policymakers Collaborate with Academics 51

require new knowledge and new thinking to devise effective media policies, and this too should be a matter of concern for policymakers.

Changing Economic Impact According to PQ Media estimates for global spending on media content and technology through 2017 (Global Consumer Spending, 2017; 2018), the growth rate for consumer spending on media content and technology exceeded 6% each year from 2011 through 2017. Comparing these figures with World Bank world GDP estimates for the same time span shows that growth in consumer spending on media content and technology considerably outpaced GDP growth. For countries that mirrored the global trend, this should have raised the profile of media policy issues. However, the dramatic changes occurring within the media sector should have given policymakers even greater reason to pay close attention to media. The scale of these changes is evident in the fact that by 2016 digital media had grown to account for an estimated 64% of total consumer spending on media con­ tent and technology (Global Consumer Spending, 2017), clear evidence that the Internet and digital technologies more generally had driven significant change in the media sector – change that was reflected in rapidly changing media consumption patterns. According to Zenith (2019), the 479 minutes per day that consumers in their 57 country sample were predicted to spend with media during 2019 represents a 14% increase from 2013’s 420 daily minutes. This trend was driven almost entirely by growing use of Internet services, itself spurred in substantial part by increasing use of mobile devices to access online services. Average time spent accessing the Internet with mobile devices increased from 80 minutes to 130 minutes per day during the 2015–2019 four-year span. After accounting for a reduction in daily desktop Internet use from 47 minutes to 40 minutes a day, total time spent with online services was projected to account for approximately 35.5% of time consumers spent with media in 2019, about the same amount of time spent with television. Average minutes per day spent with newspapers declined from 17 to 11 from 2014 to 2019 and time spent with magazines fell from 8 to 4 minutes. Advertising and marketing dollars have been rapidly shifting to digital services as well. According to a report by Enberg (2019), digital ad spending, at $283.35 bil­ lion, was 45.9% of global ad spending in 2018 and predicted to increase to 50.1% of the global total in 2019. Digital ad spending already accounted for more than half of all ad spending in 2018 for a number of countries, including China (65.3%), the United Kingdom (63.8%), Norway (61.7%), Ireland (58.8%), Denmark (57.8%), Sweden (56.3%), Australia (55.6%), New Zealand (51.8%) and Canada (50.2%). Russia, the Netherlands and the United States were predicted to cross this threshold in 2019. The increasing fractions of advertising and marketing budgets allocated to digital services reflects in part the natural inclination of advertisers to follow audiences as they migrate increasingly to online services, but also the fact

52 Steve Wildman

that online services can target and deliver ads tailored to the consumer attributes of individual audience members with a precision than cannot be matched by offline media. The fact that consumers and advertisers found it in their best interests to make such substantial shifts from offline media to online services is itself evidence that consumer benefits have increased and that advertisers believe they have received higher returns on their promotional expenditures since they shifted much of their advertising and marketing budgets to digital media. The appeal of digital media to both consumers and advertisers is also reflected in the fact that today virtually all offline media services, including trade press, make their content available online. More consequential from a consumer perspective is that the online environment supports a vast array of services that could exist only online and that offer their users highly valued features and capabilities that could never have been provided before Web 2.0 technologies transformed so much of the online environment.

Impacts on Culture and Political Systems Without question the media sector today impacts culture in more ways and more diverse ways than before. Other than books and magazines, for most consumers cinemas and the familiar broadcast and print vehicles were the only easily accessible media prior to the commercialisation of the Internet. Because the numbers of these outlets were limited by high costs and constraints on available broadcast spectrum, their outputs were relatively easily monitored and, for electronic media in parti­ cular, legal and regulatory restrictions were imposed to preclude or limit access to content deemed objectionable for any of a number of politically accepted reasons. Subsidies and reserved slots in broadcasting schedules were employed to encourage the supply of content considered merit worthy but likely to be undersupplied by market forces. Even though they are expressions of culture in their own right, lowcost content created by individuals and small groups and organisations had little to no chance of gaining access to the mainstream media required to reach a mass audience. The situation could hardly be more different today. Plentiful venture capital funding, low barriers to entry, flexible technology and a willingness to experiment with new business models have led to the creation of a multitude of diverse online outlets for media content. Some of these services, like the online editions of the New York Times and other offline newspapers, exist primarily to make content that appears in their affiliated offline services available online. Others, like the major subscription video and audio services that stream content to their users, such as Netflix, supply types of content that might also be available through offline TV services, but in massively greater quantities. But there are others for which there are no close offline counterparts. These include online multiplayer games and a multitude of online services created to host, aggregate and make searchable user-created content, including audience members’ comments, posts and reposts of content originating from both online and traditional media sources.

Policymakers Collaborate with Academics 53

Access to audiences has indeed been democratised, a goal long advocated by critics of traditional media. Unfortunately, this democratisation has made immensely more difficult the accomplishment of other policy goals, including the promotion and showcasing of types of content policymakers think citizens should see more of and restricting or denying access to content believed to have harmful consequences if circulated too broadly, such as violent or sexually explicit content, or even at all, as with child pornography, hate speech and slander. Because their numbers and carry­ ing capacities were limited, offline media outlets were bottlenecks through which most of the long tail of potentially distributable content was not allowed to pass. Traditional media served as highly restrictive gatekeepers because their long-term viability depended on the skill with which they selected the limited amounts of content they could carry, and, because they knew that their content choices were monitored by government agencies with the power to impose penalties if legal or regulatory standards were violated. This all changed when Web 2.0 technologies were employed to create the inter­ active, computationally driven services that dominate Internet media space today. Cheap server capacity combined with widespread consumer adoption of broadband and smart phones with relatively high-speed mobile access to the Internet made it feasible, and in many cases profitable, to distribute online much of the long tail of content rejected by popular offline media plus an avalanche of content created to take advantage of opportunities to distribute it online. Included in the latter are the literally billions of units of user-generated-content that are the foundations of con­ tent sharing services such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Tumblr and Medium and social media services like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat. The sheer volume of Internet content that is distributed across the huge and still proliferating set of hosting services constitutes an enormous challenge to policy­ makers concerned with the character of online content and the roles online media play in domestic (and international) politics. What type of regulatory requirements, for example, might be employed to ensure that a country’s domestic audience for YouTube is exposed to a reasonable amount of domestically produced content when users have billions of videos from a worldwide collection of creators to choose from? When the number of channels was limited, there was a reasonable guarantee that the domestic content regulators required be included in broadcast schedules would find an audience simply because audience members’ options were limited. That is decidedly not the case online. Identifying the countries of origin for videos watched would be an enormous challenge, but even if this were not the case, as long as viewers have millions to billions of options to choose from, it is not possible to ensure that domestically created content will be included in their content selections. Regulators would be faced with this challenge for any type of content whose online consumption they want to promote and there are corresponding challenges for types of content whose consumption they want to restrict or eliminate entirely. To date the policy response to these problems has consisted largely of require­ ments or less formal expectations that online media services police themselves. But

54 Steve Wildman

the limitations of this approach have been vividly demonstrated when content banned by one online service quickly reappears elsewhere. Consider, for example, the livestreaming of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch massacre of Muslim wor­ shipers on Facebook. Facebook policies prohibit the posting of violent and hateful content, but in this case its reliance on algorithmic screening and user reports of policy violations was clearly insufficient. Facebook did not receive its first report of the video until 12 minutes after the shooting ended. While the video was quickly removed, by then it had made it on to the broader Internet. Facebook alone removed an additional 1.5 million copies of the video during the first 24 hours after it was streamed (Associated Press, 2019). To what extent can new or revised gov­ ernment policies improve on this performance? And how would such policies affect the character of the online services that so many find so valuable? The same problems arise when trying to come up with effective responses to the use of online media to deliberatively disseminate false narratives and untruths to damage political opponents and to undermine the cohesion of democratic societies. In addition to the issues traditionally associated with the roles of media in political systems, we now have to worry about ideological echo chambers, fake news, covert foreign influence in elections, and incitement to engage in extremist actions.

The Need for New Thinking and New Ideas It is difficult, if not impossible, to create effective policy responses to the challenges posed by digital media when the economics of the entities that would be subject to those policies is still poorly understood. This is the case even for those online services that most resemble their offline predecessors and the difficulty only increases when we consider services that have little to nothing in common with offline media. For example, the online subscription streaming video services that feature movies and television programmes might be viewed as online counterparts to the offline pay television services delivered by broadcasters and especially by cable companies and satellite TV providers. However, if we look at Internet native services like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and, even some of the streaming video services like Hulu whose owners also own major television networks with whom they share content, we see some rather stark differences between their business models and those of offline television services. Offline television services deliver their programmes via spectrum-using channels or their digital facsimiles. For customers of these services, the number of unique programmes available for viewing at any given time is capped by the number of channels the services provide, possibly with some augmentation for customers who actively use digital video recorders to record programmes airing at one time so they can be viewed later. Because channel capacity is costly at the margin and customer willingness-to-pay for additional channels declines as channels are added, the number of unique channels offered by traditional multichannel subscription video services is typically a few hundred at most. For an offline video service, the online

Policymakers Collaborate with Academics 55

connection linking it to its customer is the only channel that matters, and the cus­ tomer covers this cost when subscribing to a broadband service provider and/or a wireless service with sufficient bandwidth for watching videos. The cost of the server capacity required to store online videos is the cost of capacity constraint that matters most to an online video service and, because the marginal cost of server capacity is very low, an online video service finds it profitable to expand the number of programmes and movies available to its customers at any given time to many times what an offline subscription video service might offer. According to Statista (Watson, 2019), nearly 6,000 TV programmes and movies were available to Netflix’ US subscribers in April of 2019, followed closely by the United King­ dom, Canada and Greece. All of the top ten countries by this measure had at least 5,000 titles available. (While different sources report different numbers of videos available to Netflix subscribers, the Statista figures are in the broad middle of this range and can be considered sufficiently representative for the comparison of online and offline subscription video services presented here.) For a legacy television service, a network serves two primary functions. It selects and acquires the programmes that are carried by a single spectrum-using channel and fixes the times when those programmes will be shown. But when a viewer can select any of the thousands of titles offered by an online video subscription service at the time of her choosing, networks cease to serve any economically meaningful purpose and simply disappear, along with multichannel subscription services and conceptions, such as prime time and appointment viewing, that were critical to understanding the economics of traditional television services. As the offline to online migration of video services proceeds, there likely will come a point where once thriving lines of scholarly inquiry begin to be seen more as historical curiosities than foundations for future research. An obvious candidate for future obsolescence is the long and venerable line of literature based on formal models of how competition (or its absence) shapes broadcasters’ and networks’ programming strategies. Starting with Peter Steiner’s (1952) simple model that assumed a small and fixed number of ad-supported broadcasters and a limited number of fixed programme types, this line of inquiry flourished and over time incorporated new modelling techniques as they emerged within economics. Most notable were formal models of monopolistically competi­ tive markets starting with Spence and Owen’s (1977) modification and application to television of Spence’s (1976) more general model of a monopolistically competitive equilibrium and multistage game models of two-sided markets following seminal work by Anderson and Coate (2005). Wilbur’s (2008) study of US television net­ works provided convincing empirical support for predictions arising from this line of research. But underlying all of this research is the assumption that television programmes are delivered to viewers by linear networks that have no role to play in an Internet-based video services market. How much of the hard-earned knowledge of offline media can be applied to the new types of media services that have emerged and likely will continue to

56 Steve Wildman

emerge in the online environment is an open question. The multisided platform perspective on media products and services will certainly retain its relevance because all media businesses that derive revenue from advertising have at a mini­ mum an advertiser and an audience side to their platforms. This remains a vibrant line of research both for development and elaboration of theory – see Anderson & Peitz (2019) for new modelling and an overview of much of the earlier work – and empirical tests of theory as illustrated by Wilbur’s (2008) work on broadcast television and by much earlier empirical studies of newspaper markets whose authors recognised the implications of the interdependence of advertiser and subscriber demands well before more modern theorists began to formalise the theory and started referring to two-sided markets and two-sided platforms (see, e. g. Rosse, 1970; Dertouzos & Trautman, 1990; Blair & Romano, 1993). On the other hand, the people developing formal models of multisided plat­ forms have for the most part restricted themselves to platforms with only two sides, while most of the popular free online services have at least one extra side in addi­ tion to the advertiser and audience sides of the formal models, because the business models of these services include as a third side content supplied by independent third parties. For search engines, the third-party-supplied content is the websites that appear in their native search listings, for content sharing services it is the con­ tent uploaded by users and other entities trying to reach the audiences these ser­ vices attract, and for social media it is user comments and content postings (which are also shared content). Adding a third side dramatically complicates the mathe­ matics of a platform model, and we simply do not know how much the predictions from models of two-sided platforms will be changed when the number of sides is expanded to three or more. The tendency exhibited by many online platform services to keep adding sides by increasing the number of user-valued functions their platforms can support is another subject that merits serious investigation. We are also still far from understanding the economic significance of the many other ways that various online and offline media services differ. For example, offline media typically pay for or directly incur the cost of producing content after careful and often costly deliberation because they believe the odds are good that it will attract an audi­ ence large enough to generate a profit. Contrast this approach with the strategy employed by ad-supported video sharing services like YouTube and TikTok that fea­ ture short, low-cost, user-supplied videos. These sharing services accept virtually all content submitted that is not flagged for violating some general content guidelines and then rely on viral processes to identify videos with the potential to attract a substantial audience. Under what conditions can the latter approach be profitable and what does this tell us about the nature of the underlying viral processes and the ways these are facilitated and shaped by the sharing services? Until we have answers to questions like these, we cannot say we understand the economics of content sharing services. These examples are presented to emphasise the more general point that if we look closely, we will find unanswered questions like these for most, if not all, online media services, including search and social media. Similar investigations would likely reveal

Policymakers Collaborate with Academics 57

that most of what we would like to know regarding the evolving relationships between online and offline media, including the probable futures of long-established offline media like newspapers and over-the-air broadcasters, remains to be discovered.

The Need for Increased Collaboration between Academics and policymakers The design of media policy benefited considerably from policymakers’ collaboration with academic experts in the past and the need for such collaboration is greater now than it was then. While there is still much to be learned about traditional media, scholarly research has already advanced considerably our understanding of the eco­ nomics of those industries and this knowledge has been reflected in the design of media policies. Unfortunately, the often immense differences between media services that took shape before the Internet was commercialised and the new media services that have emerged online requires that in many ways we must retool intellectually to begin constructing analytical frameworks that better account for the character of online media services than the frameworks that up to this point have served us well. By and large the research required to develop the new analytical frameworks we need is being conducted in universities and, as in the past, this is where policymakers will generally find the experts best qualified to assist with policy design in the future. University-policymaker collaboration in the past has taken two forms. One is consultation on policy design choices that have to be made in the present or the very near future, even if this requires working with a very incomplete understanding of the affected industries and media services. The other is support for research that can contribute to the knowledge base required to make better policy choices in the future – a knowledge base that should have positive spill-over benefits when it is applied by firms and other players in the media sector. For both types of collabora­ tion, it is important that our still very incomplete understanding of the transforming media landscape be acknowledged. For consultations on current and very near-term policy decisions, this means accepting the possibility, or even the likelihood, that better solutions will be discovered as our knowledge of the transformed media sector advances. Therefore, to the extent possible, policies implemented should preserve the flexibility needed to make changes in the future at relatively little cost. For funded research focused on a longer horizon, it is important to remember that part of the payoff will be in contributing to a knowledge base that can serve as a platform for future research that can advance our understanding of the media sector still further.

References Anderson, S. P. & Coate, S. (2005). Market provision of broadcasting: A welfare analysis. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 947–972. Anderson, S. P. & Peitz, M. (2019). Media see-saws: Winners and losers in platform mar­ kets. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP12214.

58 Steve Wildman

Associated Press (2019, 20 March). New Zealand shooting: More than 200 users watch live stream video of Christchurch mosque attacks, but nobody reported it, says Facebook. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from: www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/ article/3002436/new-zealand-shooting-more-200-users-watched-live-stream-video. Blair, R. & Romano, R. (1993). Pricing decisions of a newspaper monopolist. Southern Economics Journal, 59(4), 721–732. Brynjolfsson, E., Collis, A. & Eggers, F. (2019). Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-Being. PNAS, 116(15), 7250–7255. Dertouzos, J. N. & Trautman, W. B. (1990). Economic effects of media concentration: Estimates from a model of the newspaper firm. Journal of Industrial Economics, 39(1), 1–14. Enberg, J. (2019). Digital ad spending 2019: Global. eMarketer. Retrieved from: www.ema rketer.com/content/global-digital-ad-spending-2019. Global Consumer Spending. (2017). Global consumer spending on media content & technology forecast 2017–2021: Executive summary. PQ Media. Retrieved from: www. pqmedia.com/product/global-media-technology-forecast-series-2017-21/. Global Consumer Spending. (2019). Global consumer spending on media content & technology up. 7% to $1.7T in 2017 on surging demand for digital audio & video subscription services. PQ Media. Retrieved from: www.pqmedia.com/wp-content/up loads/2018/05/Global-Spend-17-15107510.pdf. Rosse, J. N. (1970). Estimating cost function parameters without using cost data: Illustrated methodology. Econometrica, 38(2), 256–275. Spence, A. M. (1976). Product selection, fixed costs and monopolistic competition. Review of Economic Studies, 43(2), 217–235. Spence, A. M. & Owen, B. M. (1977). Television programming, monopolistic competi­ tion and welfare. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(1), 103–126. Steiner, P. O. (1952). Program patterns and preferences, and the workability of competi­ tion in radio broadcasting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66(2), 194–223. Watson, A. (2019). Countries with most content available on netflix worldwide as of April 2019. Statista. Retrieved from: www.statista.com/statistics/1013571/netflix-library-size­ worldwide/. Wilbur, K. C. (2008). A Two-sided, empirical model of television advertising and viewing markets. Marketing Science, 27(3), 356–378. Zenith. (2019). Consumers will spend 800 hours using mobile Internet devices this year. News Release, 10 June 2019. Retrieved from: www.zenithmedia.com/consumers­ will-spend-800-hours-using-mobile-Internet-devices-this-year/.

4 MANAGING MEDIA FIRMS Case Studies of Practice-led Research, Actionable Knowledge and Instrumental Impact John J. Oliver BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY

Introduction When Professor Chris Argyris, the distinguished Harvard University scholar and cofounder of the field of organisation learning and development, reflected on a lifetime of academic endeavour he concluded that ‘learning occurs when understanding, insight and explanations are connected with action’ (2003, p. 1179). Furthermore, he argued that academic communities should concentrate on generating knowledge that was useful to solving the problems that practitioners faced in their everyday working lives. Indeed, he presented a strong case for the implementable validity of management research and concluded that researchers should not be content with understanding and explaining organisational phenomena in a way that has internal and external validity, but should also seek to create ‘actionable knowledge’ to assess theory in use. In the UK, the Government’s Industrial Strategy ‘Building a Britain Fit for the Future’ (2017) places an increased emphasis on the academic community to pro­ duce research that has impact in the form of societal and economic contribution. This impact can be achieved in many ways, but principally through creating and sharing new knowledge that results in the type of innovation that leads to market growth, improved corporate performance, jobs, new products and services. This chapter will convey through two case studies the role of Instrumental Impact in influencing media firm strategy and business practice. Instrumental Impact is con­ sidered by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to be where research has informed policy debate and decisions and where companies have benefited from knowledge that has improved business performance, changed management practices and created jobs. UKRI work in partnership with universities, research organisations, businesses, charities, and government to provide funding and a support environment that encourages research and innovation.

60 John Oliver

This chapter presents two questions about how media firms are managed. These questions were investigated using a practice-led research approach where the media practice context not only helped to advance knowledge ‘about’ practice, but ‘within’ practice. The answers to these questions are illustrated with two theory-driven and practically oriented case studies that demonstrate the relationship between theory and practice and how the findings from the research led to actionable knowledge, imple­ mentable validity, and ultimately, instrumental impact with a range of stakeholders. The questions were: 1. 2.

How have media firms managed the digital transition? How can long-term media strategy be developed in an uncertain business environment?

Underlying Research Philosophy: Pragmatism A consideration of philosophy in any context provides a breeding ground for much discussion, as it deals with the complex nature of basic beliefs that underpin the social and scientific world. Guba and Lincoln (1989, p. 83) point out the problems of considering different philosophical paradigms, going on to state that ‘there is no way to answer these questions in an unambiguous and certain way or in a way that is capable of proof’. Consideration of this statement provides obvious grounds for contention for the case studies presented in this chapter, particularly as they aimed to produce actionable knowledge, implementable validity and instrumental impact. Guba and Lincoln (1989) also argued that the basis of any philosophical debate should consider the basic assumptions that underpin the relationship between ontol­ ogy, epistemology and methodology; all of which will be discussed during the course of this chapter. Historically, the debate about the best philosophical approach to adopt in media management research contrasts the conventionalist, positivistic approach with the constructionist, naturalistic approach. When considering the stance taken in these research studies, the relative merits of both perspectives were considered and have been used to develop an appropriate research design for the phenomena being investigated, whilst at the same time, being mindful of the very real tensions between producing methodological perfectionism and the realities of producing actionable knowledge. As such, a ‘pragmatic’ philosophical stance was adopted. Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) provide support for this approach, arguing that the search for valid data should not be considered solely on methodological grounds but also on ontolo­ gical grounds, believing that ‘there may be a trade-off between methodological sophistication and “truth” in the sense of timely evidence capable of giving partici­ pants critical purchase on a real situation’ (p. 591). Greenwood and Levin (1998), Revans (1998) and Silverman (2001) also support this pragmatic philosophy, main­ taining that the pure empiricist will be more concerned with the appropriateness of the method to access data to produce a purposeful outcome, rather than dwelling on the theoretical base of research design.

Managing Media Firms 61

Greenwood and Levin (1998, p. 73) cite John Dewey, the American education­ alist and philosopher from the 1880s as the modern architect of the pragmatic phi­ losophy. They point out that ‘Dewey’s approach is his steadfast refusal to separate thought from action … and that he believed the only real sources of knowledge are to be found in action, not in armchair speculation’. Unfortunately for Dewey, the modernist research agenda to social science dominated at the time and the separation of science and practice meant that his pragmatic philosophy remained a marginal and illogical method to investigate phenomena in social science. However, it has gained a resurgence with Revans (1998) and Greenwood and Levin (1998) suggesting that pragmatism directly connects to action in terms of solving specific organisational problems. Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) developed this line of inquiry by arguing that ‘the loss of methodological sophistication is a price worth paying in most prac­ tical contexts of transformative social action’ (p. 592). The pragmatic research philosophy adopted for these studies, therefore, embraced both positivist and naturalist paradigms, the reason being that the researcher believed that the ontological questions of truth and reality in relation to understanding the management of media firms in a disruptive digital environment should be answered by utilising the relative strengths of both paradigms. Adopting a pragmatic research, phi­ losophy has enabled the researcher to mix and match inductive and deductive philo­ sophies as a pragmatic way of obtaining insight into the questions outlined above. If media management is to flourish in the years ahead, it should consider the benefits of theoretical development working in tandem with a consideration of knowledge that is actionable and produces high levels of implementable validity. Mierzejewska (2018, p. 19) observed that ‘theories’ have their limitations in the sense that they are often focused on specific variables that are based on a narrow set of underlying assumptions. As such, the investigation of a phenomenon usually concludes with deterministic explanations and a ‘self-perpetuating’ view of a phe­ nomenon. As mentioned previously, Argyris (2003, p. 1179) argued that our understanding and learning about organisational phenomena is best achieved when understanding, insight and explanations are connected with action. He noted that whilst many scholars pursue internal validity in the sense that they connect their ideas to existing theories, much more is to be gained by connecting and validating their ideas with practitioners. In essence, what follows in these case studies is a commitment by the researcher to develop actionable knowledge, implementable validity and the creation of instrumental impact with media practitioners.

Case 1: How Have Media Firms Managed the Digital Transition? Dynamic Capabilities Theory has gained traction with media management researchers in recent years as they seek to explain how the dynamic and increas­ ingly digital environment impacts on media firm performance. Several papers by Oliver (2014; 2017; 2018) examine dynamic capabilities at industry level and

62 John Oliver

individual firm level. These papers presented longitudinal findings on how the UK Creative Industries had reconfigured human resources with differing performance outcomes, whilst two firms in particular, Sky Plc and Pearson Publishing Plc, were explored in order to assess how their strategies, resources and capabilities were adapted to meet the challenges presented by the digital environment. Their per­ formance was also benchmarked against the UK Creative Industries as a whole. These papers added to the limited knowledge base on industry-level dynamic capabilities and extends our knowledge on inter-industry comparisons in economic performance following the reconfiguration of industry resources. They also advance our theoretical understanding of media firm transformation by using a multi-disciplinary approach that draws on knowledge from organisational strategy, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. This integrated approach provides a more holistic view of strategic business transformation by understanding the stra­ tegic arguments that compel firms to reconfigure their resources and capabilities in a dynamic business environment.

Theoretical Frame The emergence of widespread digitalisation in 1997 and new media technologies around 2003 have acted as catalysts for technological innovation and disruption in many media markets. These drivers of change have persisted, and when viewed over the long term, provide an ideal context through which to examine the strategic adaptation of the media industry and media firms alike. Whilst dynamic capabilities provides the focal theory for this research, the literature has been examined from an industry level and individual firm level. The literature on dynamic capabilities continues to evolve, but it is largely frag­ mented with little in the way of shared consensus of its precise characteristics, nor indeed the development of theoretical frameworks that have been rigorously tested through empirical study. However, the review of literature describes a phenomenon that has several fundamental components that have consistently featured in studies published in the field. These common themes refer to adaptation, where the focus is on reconfiguring resources, capabilities and competencies; this strategic adaptation of resources aims to produce positive effects on performance; this adaptive process occurs in a compressed timescale due to the fast-changing nature of market conditions.

Dynamic Capabilities at Industry Level The idea that an industry can exhibit dynamic capabilities has been investigated by a relatively small number of researchers. For example, Zott (2003) developed a theoretical model that explained intra-firm differences in performance within the same industry, whilst Lampel and Shamsie (2003) examined the evolution of capabilities in the Hollywood movie industry. The latter authors found that a

Managing Media Firms 63

highly turbulent competitive environment created ‘new patterns of competition’ within the industry and ‘new managerial mind-sets’ which tended to dominate what was considered to be new industry-level capabilities. In particular, they argued that new capabilities emerged in the form of ‘mobilising capabilities’ which commits resources in such a way as to transform capabilities. This evolutionary view of industry-level capabilities is supported by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) and De Wit and Meyer (2010) who argued that the emergence of new industry capabilities was determined by two factors. Firstly, that a series of incremental innovations in products and services led to widespread imitation within the competitive set. Teece et al. (1997, p. 526) supported this view arguing that challenger firms simply reproduced the ‘strategic position’ of market leading firms who had achieved a competitive advantage. Deans et al. (2002) and Pettigrew et al. (2007) noted that the converging nature of industry-level capabilities essen­ tially produced new capabilities that could be considered as the ‘minimum thresh­ old’ that was required to satisfy market requirements. Secondly, these new industry-level capabilities could be developed by firms competing independently of each other, but that they ultimately converged due to the limiting factors of technological capability and regulation within the industry. Madhok and Osego­ witsch (2000, p. 328) provided a different perspective on the emergence of indus­ try-level capabilities. They argued that it was collaborative activity in the form of strategic alliances between competitive rivals who possessed ‘complementary skills’ and sought to reduce the risks inherent in the innovation process that led to a convergence of industry-level capabilities.

Dynamic Capabilities at Firm Level The idea that organisations have dynamic capabilities arose from theorists ques­ tioning how firms sustained competitive advantage and superior performance in high-velocity conditions where ‘the increasing dynamism of the environment’ (Pettigrew et al., 2007) made it increasingly difficult to remain competitive. Many scholars have built on Teece et al.’s (1997) seminal paper on dynamic capabilities which argued that it was a firm’s ability to learn, adapt and change its resource base to produce new capabilities which delivered a series of temporary competitive advantages over time. In essence, the idea that a firm’s capabilities need to be ‘dynamic’ is a consideration of the competitive environment, its future direction, and how a firm adapts and reconfigures resources, assets, operating routines and competencies to improve their effectiveness and competitiveness in the pursuit of superior performance (Zollo & Winter, 2002; Malhotra & Hinings, 2015). A central criticism of dynamic capabilities theory is that researchers have largely ignored the notion of how to move dynamic capabilities from theory into actionable knowledge. This criticism is to an extent justified, particularly as Dixon et al. (2014, p. 186) referred to dynamic capabilities as a ‘black box’ with unknown contents. Teece et al. (2016) also called for a more ‘integrated and multi-disciplinary’ approach to our

64 John Oliver

understanding of the role that dynamic capabilities plays in the strategic transformation of firms. In response to these calls, the work of Oliver (2014; 2017; 2018) presented a conceptual framework which focused on the management of intangible resources, skills and capabilities (Knowledge-based View) including having an aspirational strat­ egy, persistent communication of the strategy, managerial cognition and sensing skills, with tangible resources, skills and capabilities (Resourced-based View) including investment in new organisational processes and routines, product innovation and development, forming strategic alliances, corporate acquisitions and divestments. As such, these papers provided illustrative case studies on industry and firm level dynamic capabilities, transformation and performance that as we will see later, produced significant levels of actionable knowledge and implementable validity.

Method Dynamic Capabilities at Industry Level The existence of industry level dynamic capabilities and superior performance in the UK Creative Industries was investigated using the quantitative method of ‘time-series analysis’. This approach provided the most appropriate way to iden­ tify industry-level dynamic capabilities and superior performance over time since it could identify patterns in historical data. The methodological approach used ‘Year’ (1997–2014) as independent variable, and the ‘Number of Employees’ (NE) and ‘Gross Added Value’ (GVA) as dependent variables. The data was obtained from the Department of Culture Media & Sport website (www.gov.uk) which hosts a number of publications relating to the creative industries.

Dynamic Capabilities at Firm Level Our theoretical understanding of dynamic capabilities at media firm level was extended by providing an ‘integrated and multi-disciplinary’ approach that exam­ ined the links between organisational strategy, dynamic capabilities and media firm performance. The premise of this research was to enable media management researchers to understand how dynamic changes in the media environment drive media firms to adapt and transform their businesses over time. This study presented data from 1995 to 2017 and used a mixed methodological approach. Qualitative content analysis was used to gain insight into the strategies, intangible and tangible resources, skills and capabilities that enabled media organi­ sations to adapt and transform their business to the digital environment, whilst quantitative data was used to ascertain corporate financial performance against his­ toric firm, inter-firm, industry and market performance indicators over the long term. The intention here was to gain insight into the strategic transformation and performance outcomes of media firms by exploring the issue from different per­ spectives by using multiple methods and data sources.

Managing Media Firms 65

Desk research had identified Pearson Plc (Publishing) and Sky (TV) as two compa­ nies from these industries that had undergone a ‘strategic transformation’ over the course of two business cycles, which importantly covered the disruptive forces of digi­ talisation and new media. A qualitative ‘thematic’ content analysis of company annual reports was used to understand and assess how these organisations had adapted their strategies, resources and capabilities to changing competitive dynamics over time. The units of analysis for this study were derived from literature and included: � �

Knowledge-based View (intangible resources, skills and capabilities): an aspira­ tional strategy, persistent communication of the strategy, managerial cogni­ tion and sensing skills. Resource-based View (tangible resources, skills and capabilities): investment in new organisational processes and routines, product innovation and develop­ ment, strategic alliances, corporate acquisitions and divestments.

An analysis of each firm’s financial performance was benchmarked against historic firm, inter-firm, industry and market performance indicators. A number of different financial measures were used to triangulate corporate performance in terms of the ‘value’ created from the firm’s corporate strategy and resource management. These were Market Value (£), Revenue (£), and Return on Invested Capital (%). This data was obtained from Thomson Reuters DataStream and provided historic finan­ cial statistics for both Sky and Pearson and the FTSE 100 index which is composed of the 100 largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. The analysis of Market Value and Return of Capital Invested for Sky and Pearson against the FTSE 100, over the time period 1995–2017, ensured that only those firms (57) who had consistently appeared in the index for each of those years was used for data analysis.

Results Dynamic Capabilities at Industry Level Examining dynamic capabilities at industry level demonstrated how human resour­ ces had been reconfigured in the UK Creative Industries level to produce different performance effects over time. This strategic adaptation and renewal of human resources was most visibly demonstrated in the structural changes of the workforce in the UK Publishing Industry. The industry had been exposed to extraordinary changes in the macro-environment (e.g. the collapse of the dot.com economy in 2000, the disruption caused by new media technologies and the effects of the global financial crisis) which had resulted in net number of job losses at 83,500 (a 27% reduction) between 1997 and 2014. However, in terms of dynamic capabilities theory, the strategic adaption of human resources has delivered superior performance in terms of productivity. For example, there have been consistent increases in GVA per employee, which has risen from £20,554 in 1997 to £45,244 in 2014 (+120%).

66 John Oliver

Whilst the human cost of these job losses is incalculable, from an economic point of view, the long-term reduction in the workforce has delivered vastly improved results in terms of productivity within the industry.

Dynamic Capabilities at Firm Level Examining dynamic capabilities at media firm level introduced an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach that linked organisational strategy, dynamic capabilities and media firm performance. This process of ‘intellectual bridging’ (Pettigrew et al., 2007) between largely discrete fields of strategic management literature pro­ vided a more holistic view of strategic business transformation, and to enable media management researchers to better understand how dynamic changes in the media environment drive media firms to adapt and transform their businesses over time. The results from this study demonstrated how an ambitious strategy which invested in and adapted firm resources to produce new and dynamic capabilities has every chance of producing superior firm performance in the long term. The findings revealed that both Sky Plc and Pearson Plc adopted a teleological approach to the setting of sequential corporate goals, objectives and strategies which had adapted and transformed each firm to the opportunities provided by an increasingly digital environment. Both firms had undergone a series of strategic transformations, however, the route to these transformations differed, with Sky transforming themselves from being a singleproduct media firm, into a multi-product media firm with impressive results. In con­ trast, Pearson had engaged in five strategic transformations, moving it from being a holding company, to an Entrepreneurial M-form business, into their current form as a global, single-product learning company. The number of strategic transformations that Pearson had undertaken is mostly likely to be the result of their consistent corporate objective of seeking out potential high-growth market opportunities. With each new market opportunity there appears to have been major restructuring of their resource base, with numerous investments, acquisitions and divestments. As a consequence of their unyielding pursuit of market opportunities, the costs of reconfiguring and restructuring their resource had hindered their corporate performance. The findings have also revealed the importance of strategic acquisitions and divestment to the reconfiguration and transformation of the firm’s resources and capabilities. Whilst there is a common understanding in the literature about the role that acquisitions play in accessing new resources and capabilities, there is not the same level of understanding on how the divestment of strategic assets helps to deliver resource renewal, strategic transformation and superior corporate performance.

Actionable Research and Conclusions The conceptual links between dynamic capabilities and firm performance have been established in literature; however, the integration of knowledge from strat­ egy literature conceptualises dynamic capabilities in a more holistic way by

Managing Media Firms 67

understanding the strategic arguments that compel firms to reconfigure their resources and capabilities in a dynamic business environment. Certainly the data presented in these papers illustrate how both firms engaged in high-growth stra­ tegies that were executed through a consistent approach to the investment in the resources that delivered new digital capabilities and competitive advantage. The research on how the UK Creative Industries and firms had managed the digital transition was disseminated by the researcher at a business engagement event in the boardroom of world-class business transformation consultancy, The Hackett Group. The event entitled Digital Strategy and Business Transformation was attended by senior executives from the likes of Ofcom, the Financial Times, Astrazeneca and Bell Pottinger. This initial feedback was exceptional, with delegates commenting that it was an ‘excellent event that provided different perspectives on digital transformation and new ideas on how to manage business transformation within their firms’. Two years on from the event and the levels of actionable knowledge, imple­ mentable validity and instrumental impact of the research has been significant. The research has made a demonstrable impact on UK communications policy and regulatory decisions relating to Sky Plc, and influenced the public policy debate on future Internet regulation. One senior executive commented that: the research enabled us to think differently about Sky’s ‘growth strategy’. Previously we had been concerned that Sky Plc were moving toward a monopoly position in the pay-tv market, but Dr Oliver’s longitudinal research presented them in a different light. Their growth strategy and diversification into new markets such as broadband, fixed and mobile telephony had in fact contributed to increased levels of competition in those sectors. As a consequence, we made a policy decision not to implement more demanding regulatory measures on Sky Plc. … the research also provided Ofcom with an opportunity to consider our remit as a communications regulator and the potential areas where we could use our expertise in the future, most notably in terms of the potential future regulation of the internet. (Director, Ofcom, UK Communications Regulator) Furthermore, the research has also created financial benefits for several world-class management consultancies which have resulted in direct economic impacts in terms of new jobs and multi-million pound investments made by several FTSE100 firms. A senior management consultant commented that the research: influenced our strategic approach to the development of a new Digital Strategy and Analytics service for our clients. This new consultancy service has now been successfully launched and several of our FTSE100 clients (amongst others Tesco, John Lewis and Unilever) have gained insight from this. Some of these clients have already decided to invest several million pounds into resources creating many new jobs in Digital services and Analytics departments in their firms and we expect many more firms to follow. (Senior director, The Hackett Group, London)

68 John Oliver

Case 2: How Do Media Firms Create a Long-Term Strategy in an Uncertain Digital Environment? Whilst the digital environment has disrupted many markets, it has also placed existing and successful media management strategies and practices under scrutiny and eroded many firm’s sources of competitive advantage and profitability. This case study pre­ sents a unique insight into ‘strategy as practice’ and reflects on a scenario-planning project with UK media industry practitioners who sought to develop a long-term corporate level strategy for the Google-owned media firm YouTube. It concludes that the knowledge produced by the project was actionable, and produced high levels of implementable validity and instrumental impact in terms of the develop­ ment of a long-term strategy for YouTube (Oliver & Parrett, 2018).

Theoretical frame An increasing number of media firms operate in a highly turbulent business envir­ onment where rapid changes in digital technologies have undermined the value propositions, strategies and business models of incumbent firms. This type of competitive environment places increased scrutiny on the strategic planning tools that are used to undertake a rational and comprehensive analysis of the competitive dynamics and inform strategy formulation. A management tool that enables media executives to develop strategy in uncertain business environments is scenario planning. While this strategic management tool has formed part of the strategist’s toolbox for a long time, the increasing level of dyna­ mism and uncertainty in many business environments has meant that scenario plan­ ning has seen a resurgence in usage. There is a substantial amount of literature that examines the benefits of this method for strategic planners and executives. For example, Van der Heijden (2005), Walton (2008), and Selsky and McCann (2008) argued that scenario planning combined both systematic and imaginative thinking in a way that could provide a unique insight into the future that leads to the develop­ ment of organisational strategy and action. Hamel (1996) also noted that the process of scenario thinking allowed practitioners to step back from the ritual of strategic planning and take a broader look at their environment, while Grant (2003) and Bowman et al. (2007) concluded that it was a useful tool for the purposes of strategy creation and long-term planning, given its strength in providing qualitative infor­ mation and strategic conversations on multiple scenarios of the future.

Method Whilst there are a number of methodical approaches to operationalising a scenarioplanning project, this study used the approach proposed by Garvin and Levesque (2005) due to its prescriptive and systematic way of representing future business environments and its ability to help create a long-term strategic direction for a firm.

Managing Media Firms 69

The process started with executives considering a ‘key focal issue’ and a timeframe of ten years to consider plausible and multiple future scenarios. As such, the key focal issue for this project was: What will be the role of YouTube in the UK media industry in 2025? This issue was of strategic importance to the media planning agency as the fast-changing business environment had created a high level of uncertainty for the firm and its client, and the strategic flexibility of YouTube’s corporate level strategy going forward was of paramount importance. This research was based on a non-probability, purposive sample of individuals who worked in senior operational and planning positions for one of the UK’s top media planning agencies. The participants were drawn from a variety of departments within the company and selected on the basis of having experience and expert knowledge of the UK media industry and YouTube’s operations and competitive strategy. Keough and Shanahan (2008) and Marcus (2009) noted that scenario planning can be too subjective and was often based on an extrapolation of team member experiences and knowledge, particularly among the organisational elite who arrived at an expedient consensus of what the future will look like from a fixed point in time. In order to overcome this inherent problem, this research used an independent auditor (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to validate the proceedings. This person was a senior communica­ tions specialist who regularly runs scenario-planning exercises for a leading public relations consultancy in the UK. His role was to validate the proceedings, ensure that all participants’ views were fully explored, and that the scenarios were both realistic and plausible given the vested interest in the success of the media planning agency.

Results The research identified 49 driving forces that had the potential to shape the UK media industry in the next 10 years, from which, four ‘Driving Forces’ were considered and two of these forces were regarded as creating ‘Critical Uncer­ tainty’ in relation to the key focal issue. These were: �

�

Monetisation of video content: when considering the extent to which video content could be monetised, the group were clear that should YouTube, or video content more generally, no longer be a popular platform for adver­ tisers, then YouTube’s source of revenue would be at risk and new revenue models would need to be developed. Regulation of video content: an increase in the regulation of video content con­ sidered issues ranging from the quality control of online video content, to a tigh­ tening on the regulation of intellectual property laws. Should there be an increase in regulation of video content, then YouTube would have to completely change the way it operates, challenging the fundamentals of the organisation.

In the next stage of the process, four plausible scenarios that explored the role that YouTube will play in the UK media industry in 2025 were developed.

70 John Oliver

These scenarios presented plausible, alternative hypotheses about how the world might unfold and highlighted the strategic implications, risks and opportunities facing YouTube. In each scenario, a range of Offensive and Defensive Strategic options were presented and discussed.

Actionable Research and Conclusions The actionable outcomes of using scenario planning as a tool for developing a long­ term strategy in unpredictable and future media markets were positive and supports the findings of Rigby and Bilodeau (2007) and Oliver (2013) who found it to be a power tool – high usage and high satisfaction – among media executives who used it to manage business uncertainty. This affirmative view is supported by positive feed­ back from other media planners within the agency, and particularly those working on the YouTube business account. This project also resulted in bringing a range of people inside the organisation together to socially interact and discuss the scenarioplanning tool’s role in the process of strategic analysis and strategic options develop­ ment for other clients. An executive director commented that the research: OMD are now better able to make sense of often conflicting macro-envir­ onmental trends and find more advanced strategic solutions for our clients … Additional positive outcomes were evidenced by increased levels of staff and client understanding of the methodology and increased usage of this approach due to its ability to obtain strategic solutions in a rapidly changing business environment. (Executive director, OMD, UK) Additionally, a similar scenario-planning project and CPD training involved Bell Pottinger, a leading public relations company. The company confirmed that the research findings had been used by a diverse range of non-media clients to: help them see how their communications functions may need to adapt to future strategic challenges. These (clients) have included several government organisations in South Africa, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, a political party in Pakistan and an agribusiness in Liberia amongst others … These programmes generated significant fee income, but most importantly enabled the above clients to build more resilient communication functions, better able to deal with the pressures of reactive and proactive communications in developing and frontier markets. (Partner and director, Bell Pottinger, UK)

Conclusions If media management is to flourish in the years ahead, it should consider the benefits of theoretical development working in tandem with a consideration of

Managing Media Firms 71

knowledge that is actionable and produces high levels of implementable validity and instrumental impact. The case studies presented in this chapter demonstrate an innovative research agenda that examined the strategy, practice and performance effects of media firms in a dynamic media environment. The research has made a demonstrable impact on UK communications policy and regulation decisions relating to Sky Plc and influenced the public policy debate on future Internet regulation. The research findings have also created financial benefits for several world-class man­ agement consultancies, which has resulted in direct economic impacts in terms of new jobs and multi-million pound investments made by leading FTSE 100 firms. The significance of this research has also extended outside the UK with a number of Middle East government agencies changing their strategy practices, operational structures and capacity building capabilities in strategic communications. Mierzejewska (2018, p. 29) argued that media management researchers needed to engage media practitioners with their research and ‘help them solve problems’ which in turn would increase the relevance of media management as an academic field. Furthermore, she argued that a single minded focus on theoretical develop­ ment results in a ‘self-perpetuating’ view of a phenomenon. If we act on the argument of Argyris (2003) and learn about organisational phenomena and aim to ‘action’ our research, then we as media management researchers will be better positioned to understand and explain issues that practitioners face every day in their working lives. It follows then, that the media management academy needs to concentrate on generating knowledge that is useful rather than generalisable. As we have seen in the discussion above, much of the research was actionable and pro­ duced high levels of instrumental impact. Yet none of the findings were gen­ eralisable! The research has, however, resulted in high levels of implementable validity, where theory has been used to create actionable knowledge. These case studies present ‘success stories’ of actionable knowledge and more examples could have been included in the chapter. Equally, other research studies have been partially successful or indeed a complete failure in terms of producing knowledge that has led to actionable knowledge and impact. Internal politics, budget restrictions and having practitioners with the necessary skills to implement the research findings often act as barriers to implementation. Indeed, previous work by Oliver (2008) presents reflections on a failed consultancy intervention due to his presence inside the organisation being considered as a threat, and a resistance to engage in the proposed methodological approach. Having said that, creating actionable knowledge, implementable validity and instrumental impact is most likely to occur if a number of fundamental principles are followed. Firstly, media management researchers need to focus on research that is important to business, and can provide an opportunity to create some form of organisational change and economic impact. So having a practice-led orientation to research is essential, and if media management researchers can co-create research studies and methodological approaches with their practice counter-parts, then the possibility of achieving

72 John Oliver

actionable knowledge improves significantly. Secondly, as Oliver (2017) noted, academics need to emphasise the relevance and currency of their work in both aca­ demic and professional practice networks and ensure that they have something to ‘sell’. That something is new knowledge that has the potential to create instrumental impact by influencing organisational practice or industry bodies and policymakers. These stakeholders are more likely to engage with your research if it is presented in non-peer-reviewed practitioner journals. Therefore, it is essential that research findings are presented and targeted at the stakeholders that you want to influence. For example, publishing your work in conference and peer-reviewed journals will aim to establish the robustness of research findings and conclusions to an academic audience. Publishing in practitioner journals and producing podcasts for busy practitioners will provide a platform for your research to become relevant and actionable. Thirdly, engage with practitioners at business conferences and events because this will not only widen your networks, it is far more likely that you will produce more innovative research as a result. Finally, researchers need to be patient. It is rare that actionable research occurs overnight and in the ways that have been planned. You will need to regularly engage with your networks and check with practitioners if and how your research is (or is not) being used.

References Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organizational Studies, 24(7), 1178–1192. Bowman, E. H., Singh, H. & Thomas, H. (2007). The domain of strategic management: History and evolution. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 31–51). London: Sage. Deans, G. K., Kroeger, F. & Zeisel, S. (2002). The consolidation curve. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 20–21. De Wit, B. & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create com­ petitive advantage: Text and readings. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA. Dixon, S., Meyer, K. & Day, M. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities of adaptation and innovation: A study of micro-foundations in a transition economy. Long Range Planning, 47(4), 186–205. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. Garvin, D. A. & Levesque, L. C. (2005). A note on scenario planning. Harvard Business Review, 306(3), 1–10. Grant, R. M. (2003). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: Evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 491–517. Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. (2017). Industrial strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future. Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/governm ent/publications/industrial-strategy-building-a-britain-fit-for-the-future. Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (1998). Action research, science, and the co-optation of social research. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 4(2), 237–261. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hamel, G. (1996). Strategy as revolution. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 69–82.

Managing Media Firms 73

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–605). London: Sage. Keough, S. M. & Shanahan, K. J. (2008). Scenario planning: toward a more complete model for practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 166–178. Kung, L. (2008). Strategic management in the media: From theory to practice. London: Sage. Lampel, J. & Shamsie, J. (2003). Capabilities in motion: New organizational forms and the reshaping of the Hollywood movie industry. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2189–2210. Madhok, A. & Osegowitsch, T. (2000). The international biotechnology industry: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 325–335. Malhotra, N. & Hinings, C. B. (2015). Unpacking continuity and change as a process of organizational transformation. Long Range Planning, 48(1), 1–22. Marcus, A. (2009). Strategic foresight: A new look at scenarios. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mierzejewska, B. (2018). Theoretical approaches in media management research revised. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 17–34). London: Routledge. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Oliver, J. J. (2008). Reflections on a failed action learning intervention. Action Learning, 5(1), 79–83. Oliver, J. J. (2013). Media management tools: UK broadcast media executives’ perspective. International Journal on Media Management, 15(4), 245–257. Oliver, J. J. (2014). Dynamic capabilities and superior firm performance in the UK media industry. Journal of Media Business Studies, 11(2), 57–78. Oliver, J. J. (2017). Exploring industry level capabilities in the UK creative industries. Creative Industries Journal, 10(1), 75–88. Oliver, J. J. (2018). Strategic transformations in a disruptive digital environment. Strategic Direction, 34(5), 5–8. Oliver, J. J. & Parrett, E. (2018). Managing future uncertainty: Reevaluating the role of scenario planning. Business Horizons, 61(2), 339–352. Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H. & Whittington, R. (Eds.) Handbook of strategy and management. London: Sage Revans, R. W. (1998). Sketches in action learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11(1), 23–27. Rigby, D. & Bilodeau, B. (2007). Bain’s global management tools and trends survey. Strategy & Leadership, 35(5), 9–16. Selsky, J. W. & McCann, J. E. (2008). Managing disruptive change and turbulence through continuous change thinking and scenarios. In R. Ramirez, J. W. Selsky & K. Van Der Heijden (Eds.), Business planning for turbulent times: New methods for applying scenarios (pp. 167–186). London: Routledge. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage­ ment. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Teece, D., Peteraf, M. A. & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agi­ lity: Risk, uncertainty and entrepreneurial management in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35. Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

74 John Oliver

Walton, J. S. (2008). Scanning beyond the horizon: Exploring the ontological and episte­ mological basis for scenario planning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 147–165. Zollo, M. & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 97–125.

5 CONDUCTING MEDIA MANAGEMENT ETHNOGRAPHY A Journey toward Impacting Industry Stakeholders Sven-Ove Horst ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM

Introduction This chapter recounts my first experiences as a media management and organisation studies scholar working with industry practitioners, principally to gather data and learn their trade. The focus is on my journey with a group of Hamburg-based change consultants who regularly work with media organisations and support them in a range of different projects, initiatives and developments at the individual, team and organisational level. My experiences of working with these consultants span from 2014 to today and have progressed through six interlinked and partially itera­ tive stages. In the following, I describe my experiences in (1) gaining access, (2) building trust and relationships, (3) gathering data, (4) producing knowledge, (5) identity-reflection, and (6) reflecting on my influence and relevance. Along these stages, my impact varied from informing and supporting to shaping and transforming ideas, values, and practices through ‘working together’. Before detailing these experiences of building and managing my ‘impact’, I present the scientific and social relevance and my theoretical framing of this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the framework, summarising my personal impact.

Scientific and Social Relevance of This Study Making research and knowledge in the field of media management more relevant to public and private stakeholders is an important and growing topic of discussion (Achtenhagen, 2016; Küng, 2007, 2010; Lowe, 2016; Murschetz & Friedrichsen, 2017; Ots & Picard, 2015; Picard & Lowe, 2016; Rohn, 2018). This is evident in current reflections, which challenge us to push our thinking, adapt our frameworks, integrate new scientific methods, and create relevant insights. These scholarly

76 Sven-Ove Horst

provocations ask, for example, ‘Does media management matter?’ (Küng, 2007), ‘What is so special about media management?’ (Lowe, 2016) or ‘Why are media managers not interested in media management?’ (Küng, 2010). Essentially, this reflective development shows that media management has significant questions to answer for it to be able to sustain its impact and relevance in today’s fast-changing and interconnected world, which is becoming saturated with digital media (cf. Chalkley et al., 2017; Deuze, 2012; Lindgren, 2017; Pink & Leder Mackley, 2013), and thereby becoming more ‘mediatized’ (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fredriksson & Pallas, 2017). Moreover, these questions present a chance to discuss the foundational aspects of the changing media phenomenon, such as ‘What is a media company?’ (Hess, 2014), and whether media management is or should be a ‘critical discipline’ (Brown, 2016) or an ‘applied one’ (Lowe, 2016). They also present an opportunity not only to appropriate concepts and frameworks from other disciplines (often gen­ eral management) toward the confines of the media industry (cf. Küng, 2017) but also to create new approaches, new concepts, and new knowledge around what it means to ‘manage media.’ Asking the question ‘What is media management today?’ could be a chance to broaden our understanding of media management and to go beyond its current boundaries to include managing media in other industries and contexts (Horst & Murschetz, 2019; Ots et al., 2015; Rohn, 2018; Horst, JärventieThesleff, & Perez-Latre, 2019). In fact, one might claim that it is important to address these and further questions to raise more awareness and to create more ‘impact’. This can be achieved not only through developing and reflecting on the scholarly dis­ course but also through influencing, supporting, transforming, informing and working with public and private stakeholders in the media industry and beyond. However, despite their importance, meaningful discussions around the relations between researchers and stakeholders are largely absent from the field, even though working with stakeholders and ensuring good corporate conduct is an important avenue of investigation (Adams-Bloom & Cleary, 2009; Apostol & Näsi, 2014; Habisch & Bachmann, 2017; Karmasin & Bichler, 2017; Poutanen et al., 2016). Such an engagement with stakeholders is important because of the changing reali­ ties, modes of communication, and interaction that digital media bring about (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Deuze, 2012; Kember & Zylinska, 2015). Fundamen­ tally, digital media are changing the foundations of managing and doing business – not only in the media industry, but in all industries. Digitalisation influences, for example, the development of stakeholder relations and our understanding of strategy (Plesner & Gulbrandsen, 2015), the conduct of marketing campaigns (Voyer et al., 2017), strategy and sustainability (Porter & Kramer, 2006), the prac­ tice and understanding of entrepreneurship (Giones & Brem, 2017; Nambisan, 2018), and the way in which participatory journalism enables stakeholders to cocreate the content and meaning of news (Anderson & Revers, 2018), as well as the importance of stakeholders for conducting research (Cassell et al., 2009). While we are clearly witnessing these ongoing changes across organisations and society, we have no explicit knowledge about the role of media management researchers, their

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 77

stakeholder relations, or their strategies for creating ‘impact’. Therefore, this research aimed to address the following research question: How can media man­ agement scholars build long-term, mutually synergistic relationships with con­ sultants in the media industry and ‘impact’ industry practice?

Relevance of the Technique of Ethnography To answer the research question, I employed ethnography as the research method. Van Maanen (2011b, p. 151) describes ethnography as a ‘technique of gathering research material by subjecting the self – body, belief, personality, emotions, cogni­ tions – to a set of contingencies that play on each other so that over time – usually a long time – one can more or less see, hear, feel, and come to understand the kinds of responses others display (and withhold) in particular social situations.’ Therefore, ethnographic inquiries are helpful for describing, analysing and reflecting on how to build long-term synergistic relationships with media practitioners, because researchers often introduce (new) concepts and ideas to organisations from which strategic deci­ sions can be made and new conversations and knowledge can be developed (cf. Fayard & Van Maanen, 2015, p. 5). Because I am drawing on my own journey as a ‘researcher-practitioner’, my ethnographic approach is classed as ‘auto-ethnographic’ (Doloriert & Sambrook, 2012; Ellis et al., 2011; Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Islam, 2015). This means I am both a fully versed inside participant in the local activities and a fully fledged member of the academic community (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 291). In accordance with ethnography, the following journey is brought to life in a narrative style with ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 2008), which allow readers to dive into this context to develop a sense of understanding and ‘transferability’ so that they can ‘vicariously experience these happenings and draw conclusions’ (Moisander & Val­ tonen, 2006, p. 29). Next, I talk about gaining access as my first step in the ethno­ graphic journey.

Scene 1: Gaining Access Gaining access is the basis for doing research. Hence, it was also the foundation for my research ‘in the field’ (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Moisander & Valtonen, 2006; Murthy, 2013; Vesa & Vaara, 2014). My intention was rather humble and practical, because I simply wanted ‘to have access’. So, how did it start? As a young researcher, I was fascinated by research on strategy as practice (SAP), a ‘fresh’ strategy discourse that addresses not only the content but more broadly the way in which strategy is conducted by people in their specific circumstances and contexts (see e.g. Horst, 2019; Horst & Järventie-Thesleff, 2016; Horst et al., 2019; Horst & Moisander, 2015; Järventie-Thesleff et al., 2014). Therefore, I was broadly interested in understanding how consulting organisations functioned, how they worked with clients, and how they did strategy (Golsorkhi et al., 2015). Now, with this framing, I proposed my orginial intention to work with the consultants. I

78 Sven-Ove Horst

remember meeting the founder of the consulting company I was ultimately to work with one evening before Christmas 2013 in the city of Hamburg for dinner, and we discussed my development at Aalto University in Helsinki. I explained what I was learning on my pedagogical development programme at the university, how I was preparing classes, and how I could now (better) see what it meant to be an academic (a post-doc at the time). I explained I still had much to learn about academia, and how Aalto University School of Business was providing this entrance for me. For example, I learned that ‘I needed to have my own data’ as part of my own resources to do high-quality research. I needed to be independent, yet forward-looking. I needed to be fresh and innovative, yet enduring in pursuing a topic. With this in mind, it all came together one evening. I had known the owner of the consulting company from the time when I was writing my dissertation, but we had not yet managed to work together. The consultant explained that he was establishing his own organisation with his own team. Before, he had been working as a co-founder and acting CEO of an institute that offered counselling and change consulting services to a variety of customers. Overall, his partners had a stronger focus on health and clinical therapy, and were more focused on psychology than on consulting organisations. But now, he wanted to be more independent and to only work with industry practitioners, teams and organisations. Therefore, he approached me and said that ‘now would be the time to work together’, and to do that, ‘I would need to spend time with them and participate in their leadership development programme’. Only by spending time with them, by learning how they worked, could I understand the meaning of being a ‘change consultant’. ‘Only through spending time with them,’ the founder reiterated, ‘could I con­ tribute to how they make decisions, work together, and aim to develop the firm.’ He wanted me to act as a researcher and as a consultant. The intention was that I should contribute with my knowledge to the organisation’s operative and strategic decisions and add a layer of reflexivity to the organisation through being (1) a surface of reflection and (2) an additional lens with distinct knowledge and cultural experiences. By accepting this invitation and immersing myself in their organisa­ tion, I realised I could ensure access to privileged knowledge not usually available to outsiders and thus could gain an intimate understanding of being, acting, and working in this context (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 290). At the time, I only wanted to have access, so I did not care much about the enormous amount of time I was going to spend with them. Instead, I felt it was an important opportunity to obtain access to unique empirical data. We discussed that I would spend as much time with them as I could, participating in all internal strategy and organisational development meetings, as well as taking part in their educational programme offered to clients, through which I could learn more about change management consulting. In turn, they would grant me access to their facilities and sit down with me for interviews so that I could document my experience. As smooth as this may sound, it actually took a long time to unfold. We had started talking in 2011, yet it was not until the end of 2013 that we finally

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 79

agreed on working together. This shows that building trust and relationships may also, at times, be an important stage preceding the stage of getting access.

Scene 2: Building Trust and Relationships While getting access took a long time, luckily, once the connection is established, things can then proceed rather quickly. People now support you and welcome you because they trust you. Tedlock (2003, p. 165) explains that ‘ethnography involves an ongoing attempt to place specific encounters, events, and under­ standings into a fuller, more meaningful context’. This requires that you genu­ inely care about what is going on. The people that you work with need to see and know that you do not just care about yourself and your own goals and ambitions, for example, for getting data, and that you are open to building shared goals and ambitions. These shared goals bring confidence to the relationship and enhance trust. In this sense, my recommendation is threefold. First, I made it clear from the beginning that I wanted to collect data, but that I was willing to put in a lot of energy and effort to work with them on their projects and to give them honest feedback about their work and ideas, so that they could see some immediate benefits for their organisation. This meant I needed to attend workshops and meetings, and started preparing client presentations with them, while also parti­ cipating in their development programme. I spent many weeks like that, simply spending time with them, and absorbing what it meant to be a consultant. Everybody knew I was there to work with them but also to conduct research. I was in a dual role. All the time. This shows it is good to manage the expectations of both parties very clearly. If your intention is to do research, say it clearly and do it early. Clearly stating one’s intentions is helpful for establishing trust. Second, my recommendation would be to set your own agenda aside – and to put theirs first. Because ethnography is about ‘gaining access to the conceptual world in which our subjects live so that we can … converse with them’ (Geertz, 1973, p. 24 in Yanow, 2012), you may not yet know what is important until you learn it through spending time in this context. Hence, be prepared to spend time finding out what is relevant and meaningful to your collaborators, and how you can connect that with your own research intentions. Similar to getting access to sensitive contexts (see for example Dundon & Ryan, 2010), the support I received from the consultants was only possible because I agreed to become one of them, to spend time with them, to support them, to listen to them and to participate. Through this, I obtained the ‘complete member-researcher status’ (Doloriert & Sambrook, 2012, p. 84). Third, you need to build a basis for working with people. In this sense, net­ working, being attentive, being open and actually listening to people are impor­ tant, because you never know what you might want to do your next research project on, or on what topic you may be asked to write a book chapter or article.

80 Sven-Ove Horst

This relates to the third scene in my ‘tale of the field’ (Van Maanen, 2011b) regarding gathering data.

Scene 3: Gathering Data Generally, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009, p. 85) describe how ethnography assumes having an open mind vis-á-vis the object of study: Naturally some theory or frame of reference must direct the work, but the purpose of this is to give some direction and system to the task, rather than to get in the way of crucial observation and analysis. Research success also presupposes ample access to comprehensive and abundant data of different kinds, and competence at handling these. Furthermore, personal involve­ ment, flexibility and the opportunity for close contact with the subject of interest are required. (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009, pp. 85–86) With this in mind, I knew that semi-structured qualitative interviews or even unstructured open-ended reflective interviews might be an important form of data gathering, because they would allow different forms of textual analysis. But I did not yet know what other kinds of data would become important in the future. After all, as the ways of doing research progress, we experience that data-sets grow richer and more diverse. Therefore, I wanted to preserve an openness and flex­ ibility to what I could do with my data and therefore I requested, and obtained, permission to video-tape workshops, audio-record meetings, take pictures of the setting, and to slip in short reflective interviews with my colleagues after an event. I took notes, wrote emails and made comments on documents. Overall, I retained this openness toward data as long as possible and basically tried to document everything. Thinking back to this time, I was in a luxurious position, because I did not have any teaching responsibilities, and had very little thesis supervision, and hence, I could focus on spending more time in the field, collecting data, and making con­ nections and experiences. Not knowing how much time I could spend with them, my dual mode as a researcher-practitioner was ‘always on.’ In this sense, I got lucky with my consultants because they let me become one of them and in turn, they opened their hearts and minds to my dual role as a researcher-practitioner or practitioner-researcher, depending on what we were working on. Furthermore, the more they grew accustomed to me taking pictures or recording our sessions, the easier and less obtrusive it became. I experienced that I was spending time writing notes because it felt important. I usually sat down to record reflections with the founder after a session with clients, because these seemed meaningful and this process served as a way to enhance my reflexivity of the practice, as well as pro­ viding solid material for analysis. I took pictures because I thought they might help highlighting the way in which the consultants work, from which we could develop

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 81

better descriptions for their clients and possibly a better branding of their services on their homepage, and not just because I needed visual data for my multimodal qualitative research (cf. Jarzabkowski et al., 2015). This stage is important because you are (partially) seizing the opportunity to think as a researcher, at least pre­ dominantly, and instead start focusing on being and thinking as a practitioner. Auto-ethnography allows one to immersively understand how strategy work is experienced by different organisational members, not only top managers, and offers means for such analysis. (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 291; emphasis added) My ‘impact’ on their work during this period was subtle, but important. It was based on how we could use the data I was gathering and the way in which I was gathering it for a reflective development of their organisation. They spent as much time listening to my reflections as I contributed to their ideas and chal­ lenges. Through my participation and collection of data, they increased their own reflections of their everyday and strategic issues, which in turn enabled them to describe their products from new angles, to focus more on what clients may want, to make more reflective decisions, and to ‘strategise’ in a more reflective manner.

Scene 4: Analysing and Interpreting Data and Producing Knowledge Together The process of data analysis and interpretation in ethnographic research is an intersubjective construction of the world the researcher means to describe, rather than just a mirror reflecting that world in a one-to-one correspondence (Yanow, 2012, p. 34). This means, through the ‘experience of taking close to the same “shit” others take day-in and day-out (or, if not taking it directly, hanging out with others who do)’, the fieldworker is able to describe and interpret what is going on in a similar manner as a native (Van Maanen, 2011a, p. 220). The researcher effectively builds up a reservoir of internalised knowledge from and around that practice, and this creates the basis for their knowledge construction. Only now that I am sitting down to write these ideas for this chapter, have I consciously thought about how to frame, interpret and theoretically understand what I experienced. While I was in the field, I simply enjoyed working as a consultant, working with external clients, developing the consultants’ brand, strategising how to best present their/our offerings, and participating in their leadership development programme, which helped enrich my personal horizon and my ways of acting, being and feeling. Through the process of being in the field, I also grew as a person. When I finally sat down to analyse my data, it was about constructing a story, reflecting on how I felt, and what I had learned. It was about revisiting my field notes, looking at the pictures and video clips, connecting my impressions with

82 Sven-Ove Horst

different theoretical lenses, and creating a reflexive interpretation of the work from different angles. In this sense, ‘theory is thus both a resource for guiding fieldwork and an outcome of the thinking process which is stimulated by the interplay in the researcher’s mind of theory and field experience’ (Watson, 2012, p. 19). But this is only possible, if we can draw from a ‘deep collaboration with the organisation being studied’, because only that ‘allows for substantial latitude in both how we interact with practitioners and how we report on our findings’ (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 291). This deep collaboration creates the basis for shared interpretation and the co-construction of knowledge. It was clear that the synergistic relationship we created together also had a gen­ erative impact on the consultants’ own interpretation of their work practices, the ways in which they could more clearly express the nature of their work, and how they could develop their firm. We used the different forms of my documentation (audio files, notes, pictures, etc.) as a surface for self-reflection and constructive work enhancement. Through recalling elements of our last meetings, by looking at the pictures together, and by going over the notes we took, we developed descriptions, understandings, and new conceptions of our/their work, and tried answering a number of practical questions, such as how we could make learning outcomes more tangible for clients and how we could use pictures to better market the services. This shared construction of knowledge and visibility enabled strategic action to be taken on an aggregate level. Organisationally, I acted as a source of reflection, which increased their reflexivity on what could be done to develop and position the firm more strategically. It created a mirror through which short­ comings in current practices could be revealed, which, in turn, helped finding solutions for making the pitches to clients more tangible, how to facilitate better knowledge management in the organisation through the use of cloud-services, and an updating of the structure and content on the company website. This exemplifies that through constructing meaning and knowledge, we were able to make a gen­ erative impact together.

Scene 5: Reflective Identity Work Active and conscious self-development is the basis for building long-term syner­ gistic relations with public and private stakeholders. As Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009, p. 86) sustain, ethnography gives more scope to the researcher as a person and allows for flexible (self-)development. Similarly, Tedlock (2003, p. 165) explains that ‘the ongoing nature of the fieldwork connects important personal experiences with an area of knowledge; as a result, it is located between the inter­ iority of autobiography and the exteriority of cultural analysis’. This highlights that a crucial part of my own development was implicated as an outcome in the process of doing research in this setting. During the course of my research, I realised I was actively working on my identity as I was becoming a consultant. In other words, I was conducting ‘identity work’

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 83

(Alvesson, 2001; Brown, 2015; Oliver, 2015). This is defined by Watson (2008, p. 129) as involving ‘the mutually constitutive processes whereby people strive to shape a relatively coherent and distinctive notion of personal self-identity and struggle to come to terms with and, within limits, to influence the various social-identities which pertain to them in the various milieu in which they live their lives’. Now, looking back, I realise how actively I was actually working toward becoming a consultant. I was adopting their talk. I was using their language, their concepts, their ways of dressing, their ways of presenting and conducting myself, while among them and working with them, and even when working with clients. I was actively claim­ ing, accepting, negotiating, affirming, stabilising, maintaining, reproducing, and challenging my sense of self (cf. Schultz, Maguire, Langley & Tsoukas, 2012, p. 3). The concept of identity work shifts the focus toward seeing identity as an ongoing accomplishment. It shifts attention to the ongoing processes of enacting ‘how we are becoming’ certain types of people, consultants or public stakeholders, rather than defining ‘what we are’ (Schultz et al., 2012, p. 4). In this way, I felt the meaning and essence of becoming a consultant. I had to stop being only a researcher and had to become a researcher-consultant or a consultant-researcher ‘hybrid’, creating for myself a sense of self-identity that included being both a researcher and practitioner, in various layers and formats (cf. Blomberg, 2005). This dual nature is not always unproblematic. The potential fluidity of my identity and identification with ‘being a consultant’, as well as the contextual and negotiated aspects of my multiple identities – or my multifaceted identity – as well as the potential conflict(s) with each other are core aspects of the processes of identity construction and identification (Cornelissen et al., 2007, p. 4). This high­ lights that I had to become more conscious of the processes of categorisation, interpretation and the enactment of myself and from the other consultants. At the same time, I did not experience uncertainty or a fear of losing myself through becoming or learning to be a practitioner, because I liked doing/being both: working as researcher and working as practitioner. Because my intentions of being a researcher and acting as a consultant were aligned, I never felt that I had to choose between them. I was in the position to combine both. My research project allowed me to be flexible and to focus on gathering data and spending time in the field, while my consultant role supported me in the process of gathering data and allowed me a chance to reflect more intimately on their products, and to jointly work with the other consultants toward better strategising in their organisation. What I can conclude from my experience is the importance of being as attentive as possible to what is going on and how you want to develop your self-identity. Only through conscious actions can one learn and make use of being different. Therefore, it is important to take time to reflect upon what is going on, because in this uncertainty of development lies the potential for doing good and for doing it well. As Bauman (2009, p. 63) explains, ‘uncertainty is the home ground of the moral person and the only soil in which morality can sprout and flourish’.

84 Sven-Ove Horst

Together, uncertainty in outcome and attentiveness to the process are parts of the nature and grounds for having a reflective impact on industry practitioners.

Scene 6: Ethics and Relevance for Local Stakeholders Making organisational ethnographies for creating new knowledge and for actively having an ‘impact’ on industry stakeholders makes it necessary to work reflec­ tively with the ethical concerns that this influence and responsibility entail. This means, being/becoming conscious of what was agreed upon at the beginning, what you have lived through together, and what you experienced and learned from one another are key reference points for doing research and managing its impact. Becoming more conscious about the ‘social contract’ of doing research and being an organisational member are important. When doing an auto-ethnography it is important to become aware of how one may move from a ‘more observa­ tional, less explicitly interventionist role to a more actively interventionist one’ (Yanow, 2012, p. 37). This includes the need for reflecting upon the ethical issues regarding one’s own responsibility while ‘having an impact’ on local stakeholders. However, this is not unproblematic when one shifts from one role (e.g. a passive researcher) toward another (e.g. an active, participatory member). For Yanow (2012, p. 37), this is problematic because a researcher may not know enough before the full research–analysis cycle is finished to warrant making presentations and giving feedback to stakeholders. This is because, as she admits, in many cases, the researcher may not have had any training or ‘licence’ to perform such a role, which brings to attention ethical, professional, and moral concerns (Yanow, 2012). Yanow (2012, p. 37) sees problems here in that organisational members might not be ready to hear, or may not even want to hear, the researcher’s feedback and thus she calls for critical ethical self-questioning: How will this role impact the organization? Established research relation­ ships? One’s research role? The ongoing research? To whom should such feedback be given: all members, mid-level managers, the CEO, members of the board? What is the best timing, for the research project or the organiza­ tion, to give it? (Yanow, 2012, p. 37) This highlights the importance of being aware of one’s influence and ethical responsibility. Hence, we as researchers should come to better understand our role and influence: What I say matters. What I say may have an impact that I may or may not intend. How I work with my stakeholders matters. This is particularly true for an auto-ethnography: Ideally, an auto-ethnographer is both a fully versed inside participant in strategy-making and a fully-fledged member of the academic community.

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 85

Hence, auto-ethnography is a tall order in today’s academic world and requires a clear awareness of its pragmatic and ethical ramifications on the part of the researcher. It is indeed difficult to be both a successful academic and an active strategist in an organisation. (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 291) At the same time, I would like to point toward a different interpretation regarding this matter. While these reservations are important, especially because they ensure good scientific conduct and prevent unnecessary mistakes, they are also written from the angle of the ‘pure’ academic, who is primarily concerned with doing high-quality research, not the researcher who is worried about losing industry connections that took a long time to build, or about not having access to the organisation anymore. This means, these considerations, as important as they are, are rather one-sided. Seeing them from viewpoint of a practitioner, I have learned that they/we want feedback. They/we want to know and learn and to get better in the services we provide. This is the core of reflective impact. The better the relationship, the more trust you have with one another, the more sensitive the topics can be to which feedback may be given. When the other practitioners trust your judgement and value your knowledge, they also expect you to tell them honestly what you perceive and think. This needs to be framed con­ sciously as one particular interpretation, but it can be just as valid and important as their own interpretations. Your ideas, interpretations and influence are just as good and necessary, because you have become part of their organisation. Therefore, it becomes important to ask questions concerning your ethical responsibility, such as: � � � � � � � � �

Should I actually withhold information, even if it is important for the others to know, just because it may influence my research objectives? Should I refrain from sharing my interpretations, because others may not like them, even though I find them valid and morally relevant? What ethical position would I construe for myself if I withhold relevant information from the other practitioners? Can I factually position myself as a researcher, without seeing myself also as a practitioner that has an important role to play in this context? Can I or should I see myself as a practitioner, without taking note that I am also a researcher with a full-time job at the university? What influence would I like to have in practice? And what influence am I actually having? How is my influence co-constructed with the other practitioners in this context? What is our relationship toward one another, and how is this changing through working together? What are we learning from one another? What is the transformational potential of this?

86 Sven-Ove Horst

My experiences with the consultants indicated that it is important to become an active ethical subject. It is key to have concerns about the dual role of the researcher-practitioner to ensure one can live up to one’s ethical considerations in practice. Moreover, it is important to negotiate these reflexive questions not only internally but openly with and in relation to the other practitioners in the orga­ nisation that you have become a part of. Negotiating this ethical responsibility is the foundation for the ultimate impact one may have on industry stakeholders at this stage. This is because knowledge about the research phenomenon is co-constructed with the other practitioners. Furthermore, one’s contribution as a practitioner in the context of the practice is co-constructed with the others. This means, as a researcher, one needs to make sure not to shy away from one’s moral and ethical responsibility as an acting practitioner, and must live up to this responsibility through conscious and reflective practice. This may produce more tangible and more relevant knowledge for the public and private stakeholders.

Discussion and Conclusion The chapter makes two contributions to the field: (1) a theoretical contribution to understanding the nature of building and exerting influence on industry stake­ holders, and (2) a methodological contribution to describing the nature of con­ ducting fieldwork, building relationships, gathering data, and reflecting on one’s ‘impact’ and self-development as an ethnographer in the field. The impact on the industry stakeholders was elaborated as part of a journey across six stages of development. On this basis, three broader categories of impact were constructed: preparatory impact, generative impact and reflective impact. This is visualised in the graphic below (see Figure 5.1).

FIGURE 5.1

The Nature of Impact on Industry Stakeholders over Time

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 87

Firstly, the impact on public and private stakeholders began, in this case, through gaining access and building relationships with the practitioners. The impact was exploratory in nature. In these two stages, I put my own agenda aside and focused on working together, learning, and adapting to the context I was in, laying the foundations for sustained collaboration. The idea at this stage was more about informing, listening and enabling knowledge sharing, idea development, and trust building. For these reasons, this is called the preparatory impact. Secondly, my jour­ ney progressed through various stages of gathering data and co-producing knowl­ edge. This could be seen in a stronger focus on aligning our goals, which were about gathering data, learning from one another, and interpreting the data toward producing knowledge and new insights, as well as contributing to being a part of their team/group. Our joint focus was on being successful together and working generatively toward new ideas that could also enhance their organisational and strategic practices. We used my research activities constructively for developing new ideas for the marketing of the organisation, such as by enhancing the description of their services, visualising activities in new ways, and creating new ideas for business pitches to clients. Therefore, this form is called the generative impact. Thirdly, the following two stages marked a move toward enhanced reflex­ ivity in actions and in impact. While I was developing as a practitioner/researcher hybrid, I was also becoming more aware of the continuous nature of my impact. I became aware that I could not ‘not have an impact’. Therefore, I took the time to reflect upon the development of my self-identity as a researcher-consultant. I asked myself what my impact should be and how I could best use my opportunities for informing, supporting, facilitating, reflecting and transforming (with) my industry stakeholders. Therefore, this form of impact is called the reflective impact. The chapter outlines my experiences and difficulties in developing relationships with industry stakeholders. It reveals that these relationships can sometimes take a long time to develop (in my case, from before 2013 to 2019 onwards). This exem­ plifies that building productive relationships should not be expected to just be about gathering data, viewing the field and writing up the report, as is suggested by many project plans and funding agencies. Instead, we need to learn that to achieve a more reflexive influence, such as a generative impact or reflective impact, one might need prolonged and intensive personal engagement with people in the field. Essentially, the research outcome is inherently uncertain and can only be productively co-cre­ ated over time. Furthermore, this research shows that building a mutually synergistic relationship is necessary to achieve joint success in a collaborative engagement with industry stakeholders. When starting a joint project, it may not be clear what direc­ tion the project will take, and it may need to be mutually constructed over time. However, there is a great potential for creative collaboration that cannot be foreseen ex ante, but that can be explored through engaging in an open-ended research process and genuine industry-participation. Similarly, as an ‘emergent strategy’ in media management (Horst & Järventie-Thesleff, 2016; Horst et al., 2019), the actors need to harness their skills for letting the future emerge (Chia, 2017). On this basis,

88 Sven-Ove Horst

‘impact’ may better be understood as an open-ended process of inquiry toward genuine engagement with public and private stakeholders. These outcomes are also relevant for other scientific studies, because if we want to create more elaborate concepts and better theories that enable us to create more meaningful impact for industry stakeholders (Achtenhagen, 2016; Mierzejewska, 2018; Murschetz & Friedrichsen, 2017; Picard & Lowe, 2016; Rohn, 2018), we need to continue questioning if we are a critical discipline that aims to foster change and transformation (Brown, 2016). We need to address and revisit what scope our research area has; for example, through asking what media management is (Küng, 2017) or what a media company is (Hess, 2014). Ultimately, we need to con­ tinuously push our thinking and possibly widen our scope in order to ‘redefine’ what media management is or can be (Achtenhagen, 2017; Horst et al., 2019; Horst & Murschetz, 2019; Ots et al., 2015; Rohn, 2018). The research is relevant for industry practitioners and decision-makers alike, because it shows the synergistic nature of the impact as well as the complexity and uncertainty of building productive relationships. Since research outcomes are often expected to be delivered within short time-spans, this chapter takes a contradictory stance and highlights that meaningful research outcomes may only surface after rather long periods of engagement with the field. The pressures from funding agencies tend, therefore, not to necessarily be supportive of producing novel insights but instead push researchers toward seeking short-term wins and rephrasing existing knowledge, thereby restricting reflection and the problematising of fundamental issues about developing knowledge in the field. This may lead to distortions and misconceptions of the research–practice relationship, and possibly even reduce the opportunities for preparatory, generative and reflective impact in the long run. Yet, we know that proximity and co-location are key for producing creative ideas (Bhansing et al., 2018). Therefore, this research shows that the research impact should not be seen as an ‘add­ on’ to research projects, but as a natural and constitutive element of genuine research, which is co-produced with industry stakeholders. The chapter is not without limitations, and it is worth highlighting these. The style of writing draws upon my own ‘close observation of and involvement with people in a particular social setting’ (Watson, 2012, p. 16) and presents one inter­ pretation of how I created and managed my impact on specific industry stakeholders. The story and the knowledge from these experiences are as much a co-construction between me (the researcher) and situational members (the industry stakeholders) (Yanow, 2012, p. 34) as they are only one particular interpretation of events and developments. However, the strength in this inquiry is seen in ensuring ‘access to privileged knowledge not usually available to outsiders and an intimate under­ standing of what it is and feels like to [impact industry stakeholders in this setting] – with all its limited information, unpredictability, emotional upheaval, lack of resources, and constraining sociomaterial conditions’ (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 290). To conclude, I want to highlight the importance of ‘giving more to others than receiving yourself’ (Onaran, 2019, p. 209). This is not only a fundamental

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 89

rule in networking, but also an underlying feature for developing long-term synergistic relationships with public and private stakeholders. As one of the fore­ most experts on female digital media networking, Onaran (2019) explains that ‘networking is not a one-way street’. This means, networking is not about con­ necting with others just to obtain access and data, but about being open, trying to understand others, giving support and sharing ideas. This is the basis upon which good interactions with public and private stakeholders are based, and from which meaningful impact can emerge.

References Achtenhagen, L. (2016). Developing media management scholarship: A commentary to Picard and Lowe’s essay. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(2), 117–123. Achtenhagen, L. (2017). Media entrepreneurship: Taking stock and moving forward. International Journal on Media Management, 19(1), 1–10. Adams-Bloom, T. & Cleary, J. (2009). Staking a claim for social responsibility: An argument for the dual responsibility model. International Journal on Media Management, 11(1), 1–8. Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity. Human Relations, 54(7), 863–886. Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Anderson, C. W. & Revers, M. (2018). From counter-power to counter-Pepe: The vagaries of participatory epistemology in a digital age. Media and Communication, 6(4), 24–35. Apostol, O. & Näsi, S. (2014). Firm–employee relationships from a social responsibility perspective: Developments from communist thinking to market ideology in Romania. A mass media story. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), 301–315. Bauman, Z. (2009). Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers?Cambridge, MA: Har­ vard University Press. Bhansing, P. V., Hitters, E. & Wijngaarden, Y. (2018). Passion inspires: Motivations of creative entrepreneurs in creative business centres in the Netherlands. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 27(1), 1–24. Biernacki, P. & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163. Blomberg, J. (2005). The coming of age of hybrids: Notes on ethnographic praxis. Ethno­ graphic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2005(1), 67–74. Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 20–40. Brown, C. (2016). Media management: A critical discipline? In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media management? (pp. 83–100). Heidelberg: Springer. Cassell, C., Bishop, V., Symon, G., Johnson, P. & Buehring, A. (2009). Learning to be a qualitative management researcher. Management Learning, 40(5), 513–533. Chalkley, T., Hobbs, M., Brown, A., Warren, B. & Finn, M. (2017). Communication, digital media and everyday life (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chia, R. (2017). A process-philosophical understanding of organizational learning as ‘wayfinding’: Process, practices and sensitivity to environmental affordances. The Learn­ ing Organization, 24(2), 107–118.

90 Sven-Ove Horst

Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, A. S. & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organiza­ tional identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of pro­ cesses, patternings and products. British Journal of Management, 18(S1), S1–S16. Couldry, N. & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Deuze, M. (2012). Media Life. Cambridge: Polity Press. Doloriert, C. & Sambrook, S. (2012). Organisational autoethnography. Journal of Organi­ zational Ethnography, 1(1), 83–95. Dundon, T. & Ryan, P. (2010). Interviewing reluctant respondents: Strikes, henchmen, and Gaelic games. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 562–581. Ellis, C. S., Adams, T. E. & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. His­ torical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4(138)), 273–290. Ellis, C. S. & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429–449. Fayard, A.-L. & van Maanen, J. (2015). Making culture visible: Reflections on corporate ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(1), 4–27. Fredriksson, M. & Pallas, J. (2017). The localities of mediatization: How organizations translate mediatization into everyday practices. In O. Driessens, G. Bolin, A. Hepp & S. Hjarvard (Eds.), Dynamics of mediatization: Institutional change and everyday transformations in a digital age (pp. 119–136). Cham: Springer. Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In T. S. Oakes & P. L. Price (Eds.), The cultural geography reader (pp. 41–51). London: Routledge. Giones, F. & Brem, A. (2017). Digital technology entrepreneurship: A definition and research agenda. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(5), 44–51. Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. & Vaara, E. (2015). Introduction: What is strategy as practice? In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Habisch, A. & Bachmann, C. (2017). Media management in the digital age: Toward a practical wisdom-based approach. In K.-D. Altmeppen, C. A. Hollifield & J. van Loon (Eds.), Value-oriented media management: Decision making between profit and respon­ sibility (pp. 181–188). Cham: Springer. Hess, T. (2014). What is a media company? A reconceptualization for the online world. International Journal on Media Management, 16(1), 3–8. Horst, S.-O. (2019). Strategisches Handeln von Start-ups im Kontext der Mediatisierung: Eine empirische Analyse der kommunikativen Praktiken der Markenführung. In C. Kochhan, T. Könecke & H. Schunk (Eds.), Marken und Start-ups: Markenmanagement und Kommuni­ kation bei Unternehmensgründungen (pp. 187–211). Heidelberg: Springer. Horst, S.-O. & Järventie-Thesleff, R. (2016). Finding an emergent way through transforma­ tional change: A narrative approach to strategy. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(1), 3–21. Horst, S.-O., Järventie-Thesleff, R. & Baumann, S. (2019). The practice of shared inquiry: How actors manage for strategy emergence. Journal of Media Business Studies, 16(3), 1–28. Horst, S.-O., Järventie-Thesleff, R., & Perez-Latre, F. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial identity development through digital media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 1–26. doi:10.1080/ 16522354.2019.1689767 Horst, S.-O. & Moisander, J. (2015). Paradoxes of strategic renewal in traditional printoriented media firms. International Journal on Media Management, 17(3), 157–174. Horst, S.-O. & Murschetz, P. C. (2019). Strategic media entrepreneurship: Theory develop­ ment and problematization. Journal of Media Management and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–26.

Conducting Media Management Ethnography 91

Islam, G. (2015). Practitioners as theorists: Para-ethnography and the collaborative study of contemporary organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 231–251. Järventie-Thesleff, R., Moisander, J. & Villi, M. (2014). The strategic challenge of con­ tinuous change in multi-platform media Organizations: A strategy-as-practice perspec­ tive. International Journal on Media Management, 16(3–4), 123–138. Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. & Spee, P. (2015). Constructing spaces for strategic work: A multimodal perspective. British Journal of Management, 26, S26–S47. Karmasin, M. & Bichler, K. (2017). Corporate social responsibility in the media industry: Setting the benchmark or falling behind? In K.-D. Altmeppen, C. A. Hollifield & J. van Loon (Eds.), Value-oriented media management: Decision making between profit and responsi­ bility (pp. 135–146). Cham: Springer. Kember, S. & Zylinska, J. (2015). Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Küng, L. (2007). Does media management matter? Establishing the scope, rationale, and future research agenda for the discipline. Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(1), 21–39. Küng, L. (2010). Why media managers are not interested in media management: And what we could do about it. International Journal on Media Management, 12(1), 55–57. Küng, L. (2017). Strategic management in the media: Theory to practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Lindgren, S. (2017). Digital media and society. London: Sage. Lowe, G. F. (2016). Introduction: What’s so special about media management? In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media management? (pp. 1–20). Heidelberg: Springer. Mierzejewska, B. (2018). Theoretical approaches in media management research revised. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 17–34). London: Routledge. Moisander, J. & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative marketing research: A cultural approach. London: Sage. Murschetz, P. C. & Friedrichsen, M. (2017). Making media management research matter. In M. Friedrichsen & Y. Kamalipour (Eds.), Digital transformation in journalism and news media: Media management, media convergence and globalization (pp. 17–28). Cham: Springer. Murthy, D. (2013). Ethnographic Research 2.0: The potentialities of emergent digital technol­ ogies for qualitative organizational research. Journal of organizational ethnography, 2(1), 23–36. Nambisan, S. (2018). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. Oliver, D. (2015). Identity work as a strategic practice. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 331–344). Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Onaran, T. (2019). Die Netzwerkbibel. Wiesbaden: Springer. Ots, M., Nyilasy, G., Rohn, U. & Wikström, P. (2015). Media business studies as we see it: Why does it matter, for whom, and how do you get published? Journal of Media Business Studies, 12(2), 103–106. Ots, M. & Picard, R. G. (2015). A new chapter in the history of Journal of Media Business Studies. Journal of Media Business Studies, 12(1), 1–2. Picard, R. G. & Lowe, G. F. (2016). Questioning media management scholarship: Four parables about how to better develop the field. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(2), 61–72. Pink, S. & Leder Mackley, K. (2013). Saturated and situated: Expanding the meaning of media in the routines of everyday life. Media, Culture & Society, 35(6), 677–691.

92 Sven-Ove Horst

Plesner, U. & Gulbrandsen, I. T. (2015). Strategy and new media: A research agenda. Strategic Organization, 13(2), 153–162. Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92. Poutanen, P., Luoma-Aho, V. & Suhanko, E. (2016). Ethical challenges of hybrid editors. International Journal on Media Management, 18(2), 99–116. Rohn, U. (2018). Media management research in the twenty-first century. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 425–441). New York: Routledge. Schultz, M., Maguire, S., Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (2012). Constructing identity in and around organizations: Introducing the second volume of ‘Perspectives on process orga­ nization studies.’ In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Con­ structing identity in and around organizations (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tedlock, B. (2003). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 165–213). London: Sage. Van Maanen, J. (2011a). Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 218–234. Van Maanen, J. (2011b). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vesa, M. & Vaara, E. (2014). Strategic ethnography 2.0: Four methods for advancing strategy process and practice research. Strategic Organization, 12(4), 288–298. Voyer, B. G., Kastanakis, M. N. & Rhode, A. K. (2017). Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Journal of Business Research, 70, 399–410. Watson, T. J. (2008). Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and struc­ tural circumstances. Organization, 15(1), 121–143. Watson, T. J. (2012). Making organisational ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethno­ graphy, 1(1), 15–22. Yanow, D. (2012). Organizational ethnography between toolbox and world‐making. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 1(1), 31–42.

6 EVALUATING ACTION RESEARCH TO INNOVATE DIGITAL JOURNALISM REVENUE MODELS Clare Cook MEDIA INNOVATION STUDIO, UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE

Introduction Publishers globally are delving deeper into the digital shift to explore the issue of business sustainability. For independent niche media operating in financially and politically pressured environments, survival has never been easy, but may never have been more difficult than it is today (Cook, 2016). From some of the world’s most media-restricted countries, publishers and journalists are forced into exile in order to exercise their right to share alternative viewpoints. Often considered criminals in their home countries, state-sponsored personal and electronic attacks silence them. Their capacity for income generation often remains limited due to internal factors such as lack of resources and business knowledge (CIMA, 2007), and externally due to operating in flawed markets with limited viable advertising revenues (Pon et al., 2017). Limited audience buying power and apathy constrains the potential for reader revenues (Schmidt, 2015). Revisiting media in the Global South after three years, financial survival remains the biggest worry for media outlets, followed by political risk and physical safety (Schiffrin, 2019). In sub-Saharan Africa, indirect funding models from print-based advertising dominate newspaper models with digital rev­ enues being less than 10% of total revenue (Gicheru, 2014). Squeezed from the one side by erosion of the traditional advertising-led business models, platform inter­ mediaries and increased competition that has challenged the entire industry, and from the other side by increased political pressures, the overall finding is that inde­ pendent media in developing countries are primarily reliant on donor funding. Mapping and case study methodologies have been used primarily to chart any move away from donor dependency to diversified revenue strategies. Some independent media organisations in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are generating revenue from advertising, sponsorship, training workshops or complementary activities such as

94 Clare Cook

consulting services, public relations and book sales (Ismail, 2018). There are a few case studies of independent media start-ups in India which are sustained by a combination of grant funding and advertising revenue as well as use of native advertising and affiliate marketing (Sen & Nielsen, 2016). Likewise, some independent media outlets in Latin America are utilising new business models such as memberships or subscriptions (Brei­ ner, 2014). Mixed revenue models or cross-subsidising of media businesses with com­ plementary for-profit business activities is growing in developing countries (Cook, 2016). Analysing 100 digital native start-ups in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico found that revenue diversity is critical to sustainability, including events, training, membership, crowdfunding, and native advertising with more than 65% reported they were earning revenue in at least three ways (Warner & Iastrebner, 2017). Yet when assessing the effectiveness of revenue diversity as proportional share of each revenue to total income, non-profit sites do not perform better because of revenue diversification (Massey, 2018), and local advertising is by far the most dominant revenue source. As such, it is too early to determine if revenue diversification goes hand in hand with sus­ tainability. There is little knowledge about firm day-to-day business operations (Cook, 2019) and much less about possible route maps forward. Meanwhile, media firms seeking sustainability are looking outwards, as well as inwards, to explore opportunities that lead to revenues. Taken quite broadly there are a number of examples in free markets that could be described as a collaborative revenue approach. For example, Piano is a federated paywall specialist that launched a common payment system for paywall agreements with nine Slovak publishers in 2011. It offers a software solution to pool content from distinct media providers behind a shared paywall and divide earned revenues between participating firms. In politically pressured environments, collaborations have formed around advertising networks. MCIL Multimedia Sdn Bhd in Malaysia established a premium publishers marketplace platform in 2018 which was the first and largest media consortium of a digital publisher-led programmatic advertising marketplace in Malaysia, reaching 60% of Malaysia’s digital population, with 11.4 million unique visitors per month. The consortium’s goal was to provide advertisers with more control to layer their own data, audience insights and programmatic advertising across the nine con­ tributing publishers giving exclusive access to real-time mobile inventory and crea­ tive advertising formats in a bid to compete with Google and Facebook for market share and revenue. There is no definition of such collaborative revenue models for digital journalism nor research on how digital technologies can facilitate such opportunities. At a time when industry is carving out new collaborative ways of capturing revenues, this research asks what is the effectiveness of action research in the emergence of new collaborative approaches to digital revenue models.

Action Research The research gaps discussed in the previous section highlight the need for a broader, more integrative research perspective on revenue creation and capture.

Digital Journalism Revenue Models 95

How can we avoid the enduring limitations that focus on the known limitations rather than the unknown possibilities? Action sciences offer a broad response by exploring the ways practice and life are agents for new knowledge. The three pri­ mary strands can be grouped as action learning (pedagogical process that involves learners working and reflecting together on real-time problems occurring often in organisations, mainly in-company, management and leadership development) action research (participatory and humanistic model for transformational change from a collaborative approach to research inquiry) and other forms of inquiry (action, appreciative, collaborative, co-operative, developmental action). Distinctions lie pri­ marily with the mode of operation, boundary of the researcher as decision-maker in the action process, and when or how academic knowledge is created. The action sciences are an apparent blind spot in the media management literature, despite having a wider community of scholarly support in development, education and management literatures. Action learning has received some attention. For example, Oliver (2008) evaluates the researcher’s role, time constraints and resistance to change in the failure of an action learning intervention with a UK television company and proposes action learning more broadly as a particularly well suited methodology for organisations seeking strategy formulation in unpredictable and competitive envir­ onments. Action learning shares many common values and positions on knowledge validity with action research, however, it is more happily rooted in practice com­ munities tackling context-specific in-company performance challenges. The shared philosophical grounding is pragmatism favouring a ‘future orientated instrumentalism that tries to deploy thought as a weapon to enable more effective action’ (West, 1989, p. 5). Pragmatism is the philosophical underpinning, that knowledge is acquired responding to the confrontation with reality through action. With its focus on a participatory process, linking practice and questioning on sig­ nificant real-world issues to instigate change improvements, action research is a par­ ticularly appropriate process of inquiry here. It has four key characteristics. Firstly, it is an inductive journey-based approach. The origins are broad and lie in the work of social scientist Lewin (1948, p. 206) who advocated ‘a circle of planning, action and fact finding’ through a bottom-up orientation with a hermeneutic that all under­ standing is context-dependent. Secondly, curiosity and inquiry are stimulated by questioning and doubt that become the driving force for agenda setting and change. Knowledge is uncertain, provisional and generated through a transaction between agent and environment, through intermediate situations and is arrived at through collaboration and consensus (Hammond, 2012). Answers are tentative and open to modification (Berlin & Hardy, 2000) through an iterative process developing living knowledge, questioning on significant real-world issues (Elden & Chisholm, 1993). Third, it is a model for transformational change fundamentally aimed at overcoming a relevance gap by increasing knowledge and improving practice. With its actionorientated focus on ‘social improvement’ (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006, p. 14), action research helps to investigate an environment and gain ‘immediate and deeply rele­ vant understandings of the situation’ (Stringer 1996, p. 32) because it is an ‘evolving

96 Clare Cook

process of coming to know rooted in everyday experiences’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2008, p. 5). Lastly, and particularly when working with a small community, it has the dual purpose of ‘providing practical advice and advancing knowledge’ (Locke, 2001, p. 14). Mutual sense making and collective action helps those involved to resolve the problems they see as important through a ‘collaborative approach to investigation’ (Stringer, 1996, p. 9). Between and across a range of stakeholders, new relationships can form through open dialogue and new communicative spaces. This allows for new meanings and possibilities to emerge as divergent views are compared and contrasted (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Action research is currently limited to a handful of digital journalism studies and nothing is known about its effectiveness to innovate around journalism revenue models. Grubenmann (2016) and Wagemans and Witschge (2019) argue for more action research to understand convergence processes: the former through the lens of editorial managers and the latter to understand innovation process. Appelgren and Nygren (2014) explore the development of data journalism at seven Swedish tradi­ tional media companies, but stop short of evaluating action research as an approach. Such practice-based applications can emerge first-hand insights into the progress of citizen-led news media in Australia (Flew & Wilson, 2010) or evaluate co-creation as a method for open journalism (Aitamurto, 2013). Applied to journalism issues, Hautakangas and Ahva (2018) find action research an effective way for Finnish journalists to understand their professional concerns by developing an understanding of conciliatory journalism. Similarly, Thomas (2016) finds that time taken to engage and collaborate with local communities in Rwanda through slow journalism breeds a more culturally responsive form of journalism. Answering calls for action research to act as a ‘framework for collaborative research between media organisations and scholars in order to develop problem focused and resolution-oriented outcomes fostering innovativeness in digital journalism’ (Grubenmann, 2016, p. 163) it is tested here for its effectiveness to innovate around revenue models.

Emerging an Action Research Approach The intention was to gain a holistic view of collaborations as experimental practice in determining revenue opportunities among media in exile or restricted environ­ ments beyond donor dependency. Rather than approaching the issue of revenue models at the individual firm level, it proposed to look for collective responses to ultimately similar needs. It asked what such digital revenue opportunities could be and how they could be actioned whilst challenging normative assumptions of competition and dominant corporate discourse around journalism business models. The open-ended approach of inductive action research was fitting for this exploratory work. The phased approach included contextual analysis followed by a two-day atelier with a range of stakeholders in the media development sector. Dewey’s systematic approach to inquiry involves five steps, which can be sum­ marised as recognising a situation is problematic, considering different definitions

Digital Journalism Revenue Models 97

of the problem, developing a possible line of action in response, evaluating potential actions and taking actions to address the situation (Morgan, 2014). A gradual and ongoing process of understanding the problem facing exiled and poli­ tically pressured media emerged across two years to gain a deeper empathic sense, a broader mind set and a better understanding of context. Core to action research is a cyclical process, which typically embraces two layers of cycles (Coghlan & BrydonMiller, 2014). The conceptualisation phase included desk-based research, work­ shop participation and mapping studies as part of three grant-funded initiatives. FOJO Media Institute’s Strengthening Media in Exile programme was a three-year programme of training interventions to strengthen the organisational capacity of their partners in exile. It identified lack of knowledge on how to strengthen their capacity, lack of time and money, and challenges in managing staff, resources and financial sustainability. It also found a strongly expressed need for a coordinated network for exiled media. A further study was commissioned by Internews Europe comprising of 27 semi-structured interviews with media organisations and repre­ sentatives of the donor community. The overarching aim was to offer an assess­ ment on how to kick-start a culture seeking to circumvent a cycle of grant dependency and, within that, what initiatives were delivering commercial reven­ ues. It focused on three categories of revenue: grants, private donations and earned income. It successfully surfaced, shared and mapped information about new sources of income besides grants, as well as helped the donor community better understand how they could assist those groups. It stopped short, however, of emerging solu­ tions or deeper lived insights. Finally, workshops aimed at supporting a 15-country exiled media network was spearheaded by Open Society Foundations. These varied activities enabled a process of rigorous inquiry, acquiring information (data collection) reflecting on that information (analysis) in order to transform under­ standing about the nature of the problem under investigation (theorising) to get ‘increasingly sophisticated’ understandings of the problems being faced (Stringer, 1996, p. 10), then disseminated to scholars and industry.

Action-Phase: Atelier From this contextual analysis, possible actions to address the problems were devel­ oped. An atelier was designed to include a series of facilitated panels, activities and interactive knowledge exchange. Such is the day-to-day pressure on media under threat that opportunities to explore wider possibilities for innovation or experi­ mentation are rare. Participants developed their understanding of barriers to revenue generation, collaborations, collaborative revenue concepts and potential new revenue opportunities. The aim was to step back from daily operations and institutional prio­ rities and reflect on future revenue possibilities less bounded in day-to-day realities. Action through a facilitated atelier held in December 2014 funded by the Research Council UK New Economic Models in the Digital Economy answered that need by creating a forum for exchange and exploration beyond piecemeal, individual revenue

98 Clare Cook

issues to facilitate a group process for collaborative inquiry and experimentation (Stringer, 2007). The main aim was to maximise the usefulness of the atelier outcomes for the community and not focus on generalisable or replicable outputs (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). The primary focus was to understand in what ways fragile media might be more financially resilient through a collaborative approach amongst them­ selves. In order to respond to the main question, research aims were developed to (1) articulate and define collaborative revenue capture as a model, (2) explore and eval­ uate how digital technologies can facilitate collaborative revenue capture, (3) assess the extent to which collaborative revenue capture can be used for the benefit of the exiled media sector and (4) for donor representatives and those working in the sector to leave with clearer ideas and roadmap for adoption mechanisms. It is an important aspect of action research to allow marginalised groups to find ways to tell their own story. In so doing, it is rooted in a liberationist tradition that extolls the dangers of relying on an elite top-down innovation process. The aim was to empower people to construct and use their own knowledge: an alternate system of knowledge production based on people’s roles participating in data gathering and analysis, and controlling the use of the outcomes. Journalists from different regions and countries were invited as we assumed that the problems pertaining to revenue models would vary and felt it would be valuable to use these differences as idea springboards. We also brought together stakeholders from a diverse range of expertise: from business models, revenue streams, advertising networks, grant organisations, creative and digital technologists as well as a significant number of stakeholders: media under threat representing Iran, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Syria and Sri Lanka, Jordan, Azerbaijan and Ukraine (11). We did not rule out any type of media platform or company, which we hoped would enable practitioners to broaden their focus from their immediate concerns and restraints and examine varying perspectives (Stringer, 2007). However, all media were on the edge of a media system in some way either due to exile or political exclusion. With limitations on licences and distribution for print and broadcast media, most exiled media focus primarily on digital platforms. There were many media that could not attend due to the atelier’s budget limitations and visa restrictions. Representatives from the media development community inclu­ ded Rory Peck Trust, Open Society Foundations and Internews Europe (three) alongside journalism experts and innovators (six) business experts (four) and academics (six). As such, the atelier set out to achieve a conscious and meaningful integration of numerous perspectives on practice, research, expert knowledge and activism appro­ priate for the complex and panoramic view needed to stimulate new knowledge on revenue models. At the planning stage, the two-day atelier was designed to move through cycles of curiosity, reframing, articulation, connection and idea development. There were six genres of activities across two days: idea brainstorming via an ideas wall; small focused discussion groups; structured anonymous question and response sessions; mini pre­ sentation panels; plenary discussions; and ideas lab, market and development. A series of planned questions were addressed through this inquiry process including

Digital Journalism Revenue Models 99

definitions, factors for success, barriers and obstacles. At the first stage, the aim was to capture what people were curious about and what they really wanted to see as a desired outcome of working together. Participants formed pairs with someone they did not know well and discussed two questions: What does success look like for exiled or restricted media organisations? What is the most successful collaboration they have personally been involved with? Pairs then joined another pair to form fours and share the main points of their discussion. The aim was to build energy in the room and build connections of trust between the participants. This ensured everyone had equal voice and established a model for sharing and listening in a deeply focused way, offering every participant the chance to develop their own thinking. A mini panel from experts probed what is collaboration thus widening out exposure of exiled media to collaboration and innovation in the sector. This started to focus thinking on what forms and purpose collaborations can take. We singled out the issues and practices that the journalists themselves regarded as problematic and then explored: What determines the financial resilience of exiled media organisations? What are the obstacles to building and sharing revenues? What forms of collaboration would be of most use to exiled media organisations? This was a World Café format with table hosts and groups mixing after timed rounds. Large paper tablecloths were used for groups to make notes of their ideas and views during discussions. One person on each table volunteered to act as table host, and started to focus the discussion in on money and the scope for collabora­ tion between and involving exiled media organisations. This revealed what were the most obvious areas for collaboration. The preliminary idea of collaborative revenue capture was presented followed by plenary discussions on the potential for collaboration to generate revenues for exiled media. With new discussion partners, reflections, ideas and questions were added to the ideas wall. At the second day, we brainstormed and planned more tangible, experimental projects. The ideas lab focused mixed groups of five on how digital technologies can be used to create new shared revenue streams for exiled media organisations. These ideas were developed into mini presentations and feedback. At the ideas market participants chose the idea they would most like to do more work on and organised groups accordingly. This idea of voting with your feet allowed people to follow passions and interests. A further ideas development phase gave teams the opportunity to explore and work up in more detail the strongest ideas, with input from a wider group of participants. Questions included how to turn ideas to reality including team and resourcing requirements, the business model, testing and innovation, and success measures. The final ideas were evaluated and feedback given, before considerations were explored in plenary discussions on next steps and adoption mechanisms.

Outputs Two facilitators and the researcher typically were guiding the discussions, and a multimedia practitioner captured photographic evidence of handwritten notes and

100 Clare Cook

brainstorming activities. Anonymous tablet-activated interactive brainstorming software was used to capture observation discussions (about 30 pages in total). This allowed responses to structured questions to be recorded, and viewed on a digital wall. Ideas were further explored using written notes and idea mapping facilitations in physical form, which were captured using photography. Together these com­ prise this study’s primary research material. However, we also interacted with the journalists beyond the atelier meetings in informal online and offline discussions and wrote personal memos during the entire project: the analysis is informed also by these activities. Lewin (1948, p. 210) states the need to ‘record scientifically the essential happenings during the workshop’. Documentation that somehow charts a tacit inquiry research process becomes increasingly important in making the neb­ ulous nature of future-facing industry-focused practice accessible to others, in par­ ticular to people in the wider profession. The project overall consisted of a number of key outputs (images, online report and social media).

Analysis The embedded nature of action research in a social setting make it difficult to divorce data collection and analysis, and analysis with action planning or interventions (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Data analysis was in one sense integral to and ongoing throughout the process. Collaborative or participatory data analysis, where community members or stakeholders were actively involved in the data analysis process, took place during the event. For example, the interactive brainstorming software viewed on a digital wall enabled participants to vote in real time on responses to structured questions, analyse responses into themes, connect topics and sub-topics. During idea brainstorming via the ideas wall or World Café discussions, participants synthesised discussions and prioritised action points. Developing visuali­ sations of the data assisted in summarising and categorising to aid understanding and interpolating. These included drawings, mind maps, word clouds and collages in both physical and digital form. This analysis focused on seeking out agreement and disagreement and to both resolve any contradictions or ambiguities and appreciate the extent of diversity (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). A phase of enhanced focus on data analysis after the atelier took an overview, made sense and generated understanding and insights from the base of evidence and reflection that had emerged during the project, with a view to contributing to new knowledge. The qualitative data outputs from the atelier were treated with thematic analysis. Deep immersion in the data identified key themes and associated sub-themes. Thematic codes were developed to build a comprehen­ sive, contextualised and integrated understanding of the structured data outputs, which in turn were applied to the text-based outputs to mark the occurrence of specific themes in different places in the data set. Patterns and groupings were noted and assertions developed. An interactive online report of the event was collated and disseminated as it is during writing up that the final learning and

Digital Journalism Revenue Models 101

understandings surface as they are articulated and the story emerges (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). This emphasis on scholarly rigour was important in advancing academic knowledge through understanding the action as research.

Ethics and Intellectual Property As action research claims a set of liberationist ethical norms including mutual respect, openness, participation for the co-generation of knowledge, it raises a unique set of ethical and governance challenges. The research was conducted in an ethical manner. As this was participant research involving human subjects it was based on informed consent. In line with established research ethics, human parti­ cipants were fully informed about the aims, methods and uses of the research. It was important that anonymity was honoured where requested in consent forms due to the politically sensitive position of some participants. Participants were able to opt out of recorded materials such as photographs. The purpose was to focus on the revenue models and as such it was not deemed necessary to attribute initiatives or reflections to individual participants. Personal data was only collected by the project leader where necessary for the provision of travel and communication. Explicit consent was offered for those working with pseudonyms. Data storage conformed with contemporaneous protocols. This atelier was held under the Chatham House Rule. As such participants were free to use the information received and generated, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, were revealed. There was no social media hashtag for the event to avoid participants being identified by association. Safety and that of other participants was ensured by steps to prevent locations being identified where necessary, by avoiding geographic social sign-in software, or using encrypted soft­ ware if required. The iterative and complex processes of knowledge generation made it oper­ ationally impossible to attribute particular findings and ideas to particular indivi­ duals. As a result, authorship of publications or products developed through action research are ‘intensely problematic’ (Greenwood et al., 2006, p. 83). Intellectual property rights are generally designed to exclude others from using a firm’s ideas and inventions while action research implies a willingness to allow knowledge sharing. As it was the intention to develop ideas which were appropriate for further research, testing or development, engagement with intellectual property agree­ ments was required from the start, with participants informed via an information sheet. The hosting university retained the copyright of materials created as a result of, or during the atelier. While the university reserved the right to commercially exploit any ideas or products, it was the intention to share (quantum to be agreed) any revenues that may have been generated with the participants. Any intellectual property agreements were subject to collaboration agreements post event accord­ ing to expressions of interest, steered by the university.

102 Clare Cook

Discussion Following an extensive period of contextualisation, the atelier opened a space for self-reflexive discussions. Practitioners were reorientated on their shared challenges and deeper understanding of revenue opportunities. In resolving their different perceptions and opinions, participants had the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the situation they faced, and how it might be improved. It turns on its head the notion that power concentration resides in the hands of a few, making sure ‘the voices of the most powerless groups tend to go unheard, their agendas ignored and their needs unmet’ (Stringer, 1996, p. 36). Collegial interaction and conversation became a fundamental component of the experience. A participatory spirit of honesty and candidness over traditionally secre­ tive experiences of business was needed to emerge new non-hierarchical forms of revenue creation and capture. The setting enabled direct and open relationships from heterogeneous participants to generate diverse viewpoints. Disconfirmation had the effect of refining the growing collective understanding and the process acted as a leveller across open and anonymous discussions from varied stakeholders. This was particularly important for journalists in exile, often vulnerable having experienced atrocities. Stakeholders interpreted the principles of collaborative revenue capture with varying levels of commitment and depth. The culture of honest collaboration resulted in a synergy to yield high-quality interpretations. Action research allowed for subject-subject approaches over subject-object. Compromising distance, the academic’s role was as facilitator ‘as a catalyst to assist stakeholders in defining their problems’ (Stringer, 1996, p. 22) by contributing professional expertise and planning, to present connecting factors for participant’s own analysis. By participating, the scholar abandoned a passive observing and neutral position in favour of one of participant observation to induce change (Ospina & Anderson, 2004). Experiencing research in this way allowed the researcher to fully reflect the complexity of the current media landscape through the process-orientated perspective of emergent phenomena. It also leveraged the academics relatively unburdened position away from day-to-day pressures of the newsroom and profit incentives. It was also a mode of working to adopt a learner’s attitude. The researcher and the researched contributed and shared knowledge as equals. This position allowed for small-scale theorising to specific problems in specific contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Here the application was knowledge sharing about lived business models as an instrument for social action. Adopting this methodology on the topic of revenue collaboration was a particular challenge. It aimed to positively shape the revenue experiences of otherwise fragile media. Business thinking on revenues are entrenched in the inherent nature of the corporate worlds of competition and advantage-seeking. For both profit and non­ profit media there is a tendency to incorporate or conflate the values and agendas of capitalism with its emphasis on measurement, profit, production and control into all areas of progressive discussion. This is a fundamental problem to pragmatism because

Digital Journalism Revenue Models 103

it is not ‘of giving but of taking advantage’ (West, 1989, p. 27). When issues relating to money are filled with tension, political economy contentions and real-life frus­ trations ‘inquiry will always be a moral, political and value-laden enterprise’ (Denzin, 2010, pp. 424–425). Business understanding for example is often thwarted by the use of jargon or esoteric subject matter, inflated notions of success, fear of revealing fail­ ures, or lack of clarity on what can or cannot be disclosed by whom. The emphasis here was on experimentation, and the richness in pooling thinking emerged a wide range of new revenue options worthy of further trial. We set out to go further than just describe and discuss. While insisting on business and organisa­ tional relevance, it offered a rare opportunity for media managers and stakeholders to explore a research inquiry for mutual benefit. A pragmatism underpinning provided action research with a dialectical perspective on the generation of knowledge: we came to know the world through our actions and interaction within the world as ‘we face gaps in what we know and new problems to address’ (Hammond, 2012, p. 603). Four categories of collaborative revenue models emerged: technology, rev­ enue-based systems, coordinating action and journalism production. The suggestions were not intended as a typology of collaborative revenues; this would be better achieved with methodologies better suited to mapping, and would be a worthy addition to the literature. However, the multiplicity of opportunities around part­ nerships and joined-up initiatives that could lead directly to revenue creation and capture poses a powerful argument about how central the core principle of colla­ boration is for journalism’s economic viability in the digital economy. We can see that there is an appetite for approaches which preserve niche and independence while offering strength and resilience economically. The revenue initiatives deemed most of benefit were not actionable at firm level and required some degree of collaboration. This raised important issues on trans­ ference. A management or representational body to action or implement the sug­ gestions into an impact phase of action research would be needed. The absence of such a coordinating level of media management thwarted the transfer of ideas in the real world thus emerging important implications for media development actors to support or facilitate the necessary coordination activities needed to unlock col­ laborative approaches that could strengthen independent media. Individuals spear­ headed the most successful actions beyond the atelier. The complexities of collaborating as a unified ‘body’ of exiled or restricted media were acknowledged. There were several barriers to collaboration both practically (language, country­ by-country differences) operationally (shared ethical and legal frames) and ideolo­ gically (finding a shared mission and vision).

Conclusion Action research has a role to play as a solutions-orientated approach. Here a con­ ceptualisation phase and atelier offered a holistic view of collaborations as experi­ mental practice in determining revenue opportunities among media in exile or

104 Clare Cook

restricted environments as they tried to carve out resilient digital revenue models beyond donor dependency. A rapidly evolving and competitive global marketplace has accelerated the demand for agile and experienced managers. Action research can have a positive and noticeable impact on a manager’s development in such areas. Particularly during the atelier, it was a way of challenging normative assumptions of competition and dominant corporate discourse around journalism business models. Action research was methodology to move beyond an expla­ nation of the now to emerge exploratory pathways for a forward-facing industry. It allowed for learning on the nature of collaboration and factors needed for success as well as lived experiences around revenue generation beyond the scope of qualitative methodologies tackled on a one-to-one basis. Critical reflection by themselves, peers and close stakeholders allowed participants to generate their own knowledge. This allowed for the invention of their own new practice theories and attitudinal change. Bridging a research-relevance gap, it focused on sourcing new knowledge whilst also improving practice. This study raised issues about how to reconcile tensions between action and research, and how they relate to each other. Measured in research terms, the methodology was particularly slow-burn and requires uniquely placed academics committed to an open-ended cycle of contextual and iterative learning. It relied on a unique set of competencies, connections and motivations open only to a few academics comfortable to work at the intersection of industry, practice and theory. It was particularly limited in emerging traditionally scientific and instrumentalist findings. In order to reach the rigorous standards of scholarity, data and processes must be systematic. In turn, such a commitment can open new opportunities to further extend the collaborative balance of practitioner and aca­ demic with collaborative or participatory data analysis. It provides rich subject-on­ subject compared to subject-on-object insights with the capacity to address power imbalance. To overcome criticism that action research tends towards the do-gooder, axiological choices and motivations must be transparent throughout. Transferring research into action was more problematic. Money is an inherently touchy subject for media managers and ideation around revenues is problematic due to normative values of non-disclosure. The revenue initiatives proposed required further championing and coordination, which did not exist. Some scholars conclude that action research is a contradiction in terms (Hammersley, 2004) suggesting that action and research remain different kinds of activity. While theoretical and practical understanding of a problem determines a close alignment between research and actions, the reality is that one does not necessarily result in the other. The full evaluation and impact of the interventions here, however, will require further measure and analysis. There is no fixed end-point to action research. These inquiries will continue along a broad research journey from multiple sources of knowledge, driving research and development around new revenue models. It is possible for participants to enact interventions that recursively generate learning within and beyond media organisations, and the wider community. Such a process

Digital Journalism Revenue Models 105

needs to develop appropriate research ethical and governance frames. Therefore, the approach goes some way to demonstrate new knowledge around revenue models may emerge from unorthodox practical forms of research when conducted in a rigorous way to go beyond explanation of the now and emerge exploratory industry pathways. However, real-world application is more problematic.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Research Council UK under New Economic Models in the Digital Economy.

References Aitamurto, T. (2013). Balancing between open and closed: Co-creation in magazine journalism. Digital Journalism, 1(2), 229–251. Appelgren, E. & Nygren, G. (2014). Data journalism in Sweden: Introducing new meth­ ods and genres of journalism into ‘old’ organizations. Digital Journalism, 2(3), 394–405. Berlin, I. & Hardy, H. (2000). The proper study of mankind: An anthology of essays. New York, NJ: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Breiner, J. (2014). Business models for new digital media. News Entrepreneurs. Retrieved from: http://newsentrepreneurs.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5-continents-thousands-of­ digital.html. CIMA. (2007). Sustainability of media: Center for International Media Assistance. Retrieved from: http://cima.ned.org/media-development/sustainability. Coghlan, D. & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.) (2014). The Sage encyclopaedia of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cook, C. (2016). Fragile finance: The revenue models of oppositional news outlets in repressive regimes. International Communication Gazette, 78(6), 514–535. Cook, C. (2019). Adapting to the digital unlocking journalism resilience: Adapting a digital busi­ ness model to promote press freedom. Paris: Wan-Ifra. Denzin, L. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419–427. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Elden, M. & Chisholm, R. F. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research: Introduction to the special issue. Human Relations, 46(2), 121–141. Flew, T. & Wilson, J. (2010). Journalism as social networking: The Australian youdecide project and the 2007 federal election. Journalism Theory, Practice & Criticism, 11(2), 131–147. Gicheru, C. E. (2014). The challenges facing independent newspapers in sub-Saharan Africa. London: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Greenwood, D. J., Brydon-Miller, M. & Shafer, C. (2006). Intellectual property and action research. Action Research, 4(1), 81–95. Grubenmann, S. (2016). Action research: Collaborative research for the improvement of digital journalism practice. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 160–176. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hammersley, M. (2004). Action research: a contradiction in terms? Oxford Review of Edu­ cation, 30(2), 165–181.

106 Clare Cook

Hammond, M. (2012). The contribution of pragmatism to understanding educational action research: Value and consequences. Educational Action Research, 21(4), 603–618. Hautakangas, M. & Ahva, L. (2018). Introducing a new form of socially responsible jour­ nalism: Experiences from the Conciliatory Journalism Project. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 730–746. Ismail, Z. (2018). Strengthening the financial independence of independent media organisations. Birmingham: K4D. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics (1935–1946). New York: Harper. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage. McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2006). Action research: Living theory. London: Sage. Massey, B. L. (2018). Testing the revenue diversity argument on independent web-native news ventures. Digital Journalism, 6(10), 1–16. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitiative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. Oliver, J. (2008). Action learning enabled strategy making. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 5(2), 149–158. Ospina, S. M. & Anderson, G. (2004). The action turn. In D. Coghlan & M. BrydonMiller (Eds.), The Sage encyclopaedia of action research (pp. 19–21). London: Sage. Pon, B., Donner, J., Locke, C. & Kishor N. (2017). Paying attention to the poor digital advertising in emerging markets. Retrieved from: www.cariboudigital.net/wp-content/ uploads/2019/01/PayingAttention-to-the-Poor.pdf. Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2008). The Sage handbook of action research. London: Sage. Schiffrin, A. (2019). Fighting for survival: Media startups in the Global South. Retrieved from: https://www.cima.ned.org/resource/fighting-for-survival/. Schmidt, C. (2015). Viability of alternative online news media in developing and transition countries. Universities, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development in Africa: German African University Partnership Platform for the Development of Entrepreneurs and Small/Medium Enterprises. Retrieved from: https://ideas.repec.org/h/sau/ueedcc/ 05066-078.html. Sen, A. & Nielsen, R. (2016). Digital journalism start-ups in India. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Stringer, E.T (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomas, H. M. (2016). Lessening the construction of otherness: A slow ethics of journal­ ism. Journalism Practice, 10(4), 476–491. Wagemans, A. & Witschge, T. (2019). Examining innovation as process: Action research in journalism studies. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 25(2), 209–224. Warner, J. & Iastrebner, M. (2017). Inflection point impact, threats and sustainability a study of Latin American digital media entrepreneurs. SembraMedia. Retrieved from: http://data.sembramedia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/Inflection-Point-Sembra Media-eng-7-20.pdf. West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

7 EXAMINING AD AVOIDANCE CONSUMERS A Collaborative Study with the Ad Blocker Industry Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted HAMBURG MEDIA SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

Introduction As media consumers take control of their media environment, digital advertising and marketing communications practitioners are increasingly concerned about the adoption of technology for ad avoidance purposes, particularly as they compete in the attention economy. The use of ad blockers to avoid online advertising is espe­ cially prevalent in Germany. It was reported that the German ad blocker user rate is twice as high as assumed and that the country has the highest blocked mobile sessions in the world. The use of ad blockers presents difficult challenges for the ad-supported media sector and advertisers. Publisher websites become less attractive for campaigns if the users are actively avoiding ads in their media use journey. Surprisingly, the motives of media users to install ad blockers are not principally to avoid ads per se. More dominant motives are security needs (30%), interruptions (29%), slowing speed (16%), too many ads (15%) and privacy concerns (10%) (Page Fair, 2017). Studies have also concluded that the ad blocking behaviour is not as much about the lack of context for the ad but about the irrelevance of ads that leads to a negative brand perception (AudienceProject, 2018). These insights suggest that ad blocker users are not necessarily or uniformly ad avoiders. Understanding the differences between ad blocker user and non-user groups might offer industry solutions that better serve the consumers while alleviating the challenges to today’s advertisers and marketers. In recent years, technology has enabled more means of circumventing ad blockers. Advertisers are also sceptical about reaching a target group which seems to actively avoid advertising through the use of ad blockers. This presents an interesting industry dilemma – should advertisers assume ad blocker users collectively as active ad avoi­ ders that have little value to them? Such an assumption has significant implications when the usage of ad blockers is likely to rise. As demonstrated, the use of ad

108 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

blockers and their consumer profiles are important issues for the digital advertising and publishing industries. However, there exists a knowledge gap as there are no empirical studies which systematically investigate the nature of ad blocker users and the differences between ad blocker users and non-users. To examine the users of ad blockers from an ad avoidance perspective, a collabora­ tive research team of international researchers from the University of Florida, Hamburg Media School, and one of the leading anti-ad blocker companies in Germany, tisoomi, was formed in 2018. This study is the first translational academic-industry project that addresses the growing issue of ad annoyance, ad avoidance and ad blocker use.

The Collaborative Research Project The collaboration between academics and practitioners offers a wide spectrum of ben­ efits. It allows the combination of scientific expertise and methods with the hands-on knowledge gathered from practice, therefore leading to a direct and practical use of the study’s findings as well as different approaches and methods for the collection of data. An industry–academic collaboration also elevates the impact of traditional scholarly research. The topics of ad avoidance and the growing use of ad blockers are relevant to today’s media environment and pose significant challenges to the media and advertising industry. Advertisers are increasingly querying the effectiveness of online adverting and media companies with business models relying on online ad revenues are in the burden of proof for their platforms. Many are concerned about the effectiveness of online ads in the target group of ad blocker users, but little is known about this consumer segment. Therefore, this collaborative project between media researchers and industry partners has the potential of delivering meaningful impacts with industry relevance. From a scholarly perspective, the non-proprietary nature of the consumer data enables the dissemination of gained knowledge to the academic community, contributing to the scientific literature regarding the construct of ad avoidance and online consumer char­ acteristics. The nature and process of the project is elaborated next.

Project Origin The industry partner, tisoomi, initiated this project. Tisoomi is a company based in Hamburg, Germany, offering innovative solutions for challenges from the use of ad blocker related technology. Its management has years of experience in online marketing and advertising. The company is relatively small and focuses on finding innovative means of understanding ad blocker usage in contexts. Tisoomi aims to help publishers and marketers raise their revenues by increasing access to audiences formerly not accessible due to their use of ad blockers. One challenge tisoomi faced in this process is advertisers’ scepticism whether the user group of ad blockers is of value because their ad avoidance behaviour and their differences from the non-user group. Tisoomi was interested in learning as much as they can about the variances between the two consumer segments.

Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers 109

Project Aims and Expectations The key research question for the project is to investigate how the target group of ad blocker users differs from non-users. With this as a starting point, the researchers from Hamburg Media School and the University of Florida began the literature review to fine-tune the project with specific aims and expectations. The initial conceptual fra­ mework was then chosen to centre on the ad avoidance construct. The academic research team, with limited budgets and access to technologies, agreed to perform the tasks of study design, data analysis and report/manuscript preparation, while the industry partner was responsible for providing access to un-primed participants (to be explained in more detail later). Both parties were committed to implementing a conceptually rigorous, unbiased and scientifically profound examination of the research question and affiliated hypotheses. It was also agreed that tisoomi would financially support the recruitment of subjects, and the academic team would have the freedom to design the study and disseminate the results in scholarly outlets. The aca­ demic team, in return, would address the aforementioned key research question, prepare briefings and deliver final results in the form of summary reports and industry conference presentations.

Collaboration Process and Funding After establishing the mutual objectives and expectation, the academic team, including both lead researchers and doctoral students, embarked on an in-depth literature review to finalise the research model and study design. The doctoral students served as apprentices to learn about the process and intricacies of inter­ acting with and briefing the industry partner. The biggest challenge of the colla­ boration was to provide a scientifically sound study while addressing the needs of the industry partner in terms of obtaining practical, actionable insights. This was especially taxing when trying to keep the length of the online survey manageable for the participants. To fulfil the expectations of the industry partner as well as those of the researchers, the study finally focused on gathering deeper insights about the general advertising perceptions, the attitude toward online ads as well as the usage of ad blockers, using theoretically sound ad avoidance constructs. After initial Skype meetings to get acquainted and discuss the research approach, the team began the project in the spring of 2018. While the researchers conducted the desk research, defined the constructs and model, and created the online survey using well-regarded constructs pro bono, the partners covered the dis­ tribution of the survey via banner ads in various online outlets. Tisoomi chose and coordinated the sites, on which the banners were shown. Since the data generation was largely done by tisoomi, the industry partner had a rather high involvement in the data collection phase of the study. It also invested significant expenditures by funding all the banner ads costs. During the collection, the researchers monitored the participation via the online-tool Qualtrics and directed

110 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

the distribution of the survey to user or non-user in order to derive two target groups of relatively equal sizes. The collaboration process was smooth during the data collection phase.

Research Method In this case, working with an industry partner proved to be especially bene­ ficial because they offered a valuable and unique way of data collection. Instead of gathering data with a panel – the typical approach for online based studies – the researchers were able to gather data directly from the publishers’ sites via an artificial campaign. Specifically, the participants were not screened or primed regarding their ad blocker usage because the distribution of the online survey was executed by banners which the industry partner placed on various leading websites in Germany during spring 2018. The websites used were diverse with 10% – Community; 14% – Family/Fashion/Cooking; 6% – Games; 28% – General Interest; 21% – News/Magazines; 13% – Sport; and 8% – Tech. The expertise and financial resources of the partner allowed this study to specifically reach the target group in their natural user habitat, while – due to the way the banners were put online – discerning whether the participant used an ad blocker or not. This approach is innovative in that the ad blocker usage was not self-reported but technically assessed, providing a more accurate picture of the usage status. The researchers used the survey platform Qualtrics to create two online sur­ veys respectively adjusted to ad blocker-user and non-user. Qualtrics offers a wide range of functionalities from simple questionnaires to detailed research projects. For this project, the possibility to create, test and monitor the partici­ pation of the surveys in real time proved to be essential in coordinating with tisoomi for user quotas. Tisoomi distributed the survey through banner ads with the incentive of winning a prize. Technical measures were taken in order to recognise whether the user, who saw the banner, used an ad blocker or not. Consequently, users were redirected to the appropriate survey after clicking on the banner. This procedure enabled the classification of ad blocker-users and non-users based on actual technical configuration instead of self-reported information, improving the usage accuracy while reducing the priming effect. Over the course of five weeks in spring of 2018, about 75 million ad impressions were delivered by tisoomi in order to recruit the participants. The nature of the websites, which displayed the banners, aimed to cover a wide variety of user content. The banners used were distributed in the advertising formats 300x250, 300x600, 728x90 and 800x250. In total, 560 participants were recruited. 299 of those used an ad blocker, while 261 participants did not. Interestingly, 19% of the ad blocker users were unaware of their usage of an ad blocker or unsure whether they were using one or not.

Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers 111

Literature and Project Study Design Until today, knowledge about the use of Internet ad blocking software as a form of online ad avoidance is very scant. Some scholars have noted the potential difference in Internet use pattern between ad blocker users and non­ users (Despotakis et al., 2017). Others, e.g. Miroglio et al. (2018) found that installing ad blockers substantially increases both active time spent in the browser and the number of pages viewed. From a publisher view, Despotakis et al. (2017) pointed out the need to differentiate two groups of Internet users based on whether they use ad blockers or not. The premise is that there is much heterogeneity in ad sensitivity between ad blocker users and non-users. Des­ potakis et al. (2017) thus argued that ad blocking can be beneficial to the pub­ lishers as it improves the effectiveness of marketing by filtering out ad-sensitive users for more targeted ad serving on the rest.

Value of Online Ads While appraising an ad, information value is taken into consideration and perceived as a positive attribute by users. Online users acknowledge ads as informative if new products, valuable product details and comparative facts regarding the product are presented (Logan et al., 2012). The information value of ads is of great importance as it enables the users to gather informa­ tion about the advertised product or service which is related to the indivi­ duals’ needs and desires (Celebi, 2015). Online users have a greater enjoyment once the online ads are engaging and not solely informative (Kelly et al., 2010). In the case of ads being congruent with the displayed editorial unit or eminent product involvement, the users are expressing a higher involvement caused by the increased entertainment value (Van den Broek et al., 2018). Users who browse the web in order to be enter­ tained are likely to be attracted by salient ads on the bases of a higher cognitive capacity to process the ads (Bang et al., 2018). Ads which are perceived with a considerable relevance attributed to the personal intrinsic needs, values and interests of the users are gaining greater attention (Van den Broek et al., 2018). This determination is based on the self-referencing theory by Rogers et al. (1977) which defines that personally stimulating ads increase persuasive effects and therefore enhance the positive response toward ads. Advertising provokes certain economic value for the user, namely the free usage of most online websites, comparison shopping, social networking, video entertainment, and the greater the appreciation of these advantages, the greater the positive attitude toward advertisements (Redondo & Aznar, 2018). Comparing ad blocker-users and non­ users, it is crucial to grasp their value set regarding online advertisements. Therefore, we include information, entertainment, personal and economic value in our online advertising target comparison.

112 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

Negatives of Online Advertisement If users perceive online ads negatively, the possibility of unfavourable image transfers to the advertisers’ brand increases and may result in a dismissive pur­ chasing behaviour (Van den Broek et al., 2018). Numerous reasons why online users carry out ad avoidance exist, whereby we focus on perceived goal impediment, sacrifice and prior negative experience. While utilising the Internet, users are often goal oriented and online ads are perceived as a source of disruption, hindering the users to fluently achieve their desired intention of using the web (Cho & Cheon, 2004). Perceived goal impediment represents the most significant factor influen­ cing online advertisement avoidance (Prendergast et al., 2014). In case of dis­ played ads being visually salient as well as achieving the task, the users’ level of goal impediment will diminish (Bang et al., 2018). Sacrificed users experience the online ad as a feeling of disadvantage, due to the displayed online ads. Emotions such as annoyance, irritation and risk of losing time, control as well as privacy occur (Redondo & Aznar, 2018). As a consequence, users often only recognise the ads once they start to get annoyed by them and thereafter are avoiding ads more consciously, especially those unfitting the editorial unit (Shin & Lin, 2016). The greater the extent of the advertisements being specifically targeted on the user, the more the ads are regarded as annoying and an infringement of the privacy (Tudoran, 2019) resulting in psychological resistance (Shin & Lin, 2016). The consumers’ prior knowledge is having a significant effect on the decisionmaking process before and during a purchase process including the attitudes and behaviour toward a product or service. The same applies for users who let their prior negative experience, namely dissatisfaction and perceived lack of utility as well as incentive, with an online ad influence their attitude towards the displayed (Cho & Cheon, 2004) and results in a declining willingness to accept future ads (Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Especially warnings or beliefs passed on in form of stories by family, friends or colleagues are highly valued by the users and a greater level of scepticism arises, contributing to the users embodying a general distrust of advertisements (Kelly et al., 2010).

Online Ad Avoidance Due to the fact that the online environment enables users to customise their behaviour, the avoidance of sources of displeasure is observed by the means of reducing distractions of the web content (Baek & Morimoto, 2012). Negative online experience is often related to disturbances concerning the cost, value and availability of demanded online content and influences the future beha­ viour of the users (Prendergast et al., 2014). The attitudinal reactions of users concerning online ads can be categorised in three essential features such as affective, behavioural and cognitive ad avoidance.

Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers 113

Taking the affective component of ad avoidance into consideration, users react by expressing feelings or emotions towards an object resulting in possible avoid­ ance of online ads on account of intensely disliking them (Cho & Cheon, 2004). The users’ negative belief of advertisements is identified as cognitive avoidance, a psychological defence mechanism. A consequence of cognitive avoidance is the deliberate avoidance of ads (Prendergast et al., 2014). The greater a negative assumption of online advertisement, the greater the adverse attitude of the cog­ nitive element of ad avoidance (Cho & Cheon, 2004). Behavioural ad avoidance is distinguished by the users’ proactive performing avoidance other than lack of attention for instance leaving the page, scrolling down or using an ad blocker (Baek & Morimoto, 2012). We will include all three dimensions in our study.

Ad blocker usage In the past users had solely the possibility to avoid online advertisements by expressing one of the previously mentioned types of ad avoidance. Nowadays, technology is available to support the online users’ decision to refrain from advertisements by the utilisation of ad blockers, an automated solution (Kelly et al., 2010). According to PageFair’s 2017 Adblock Report, the usage of an ad blocking software is growing exponentially with 615 million devices using such a service, accounting for 11% of the global online population. If a user is installing an ad blocker or not is immediately related to the degree of knowledge regarding the beneficial attributes of the software and it is presumed that the awareness concerning ad blockers is going to increase globally (Redondo & Aznar, 2018). As a result of the development of sophisticated marketing tools which take the users’ preferences into account and enable to display more targeted ads, the adoption of ad blocking or filtering appliances have advanced (Johnson, 2013). Hence, ad blockers provide the users with an extensive control over unsolicited ads and are regarded as a convenient and easy application (Redondo & Aznar, 2018). According to the study by Seyedghorban et al. (2016), users who choose an increased restriction of online ads by availing of an ad blocker perceive ads to be less goal restraining. As previously mentioned, prior negative experience is a considerable reason of ad avoidance and represents the most significant reason of users installing ad blockers (Van den Broek et al., 2018). The grounds for users to install an ad blocker differ. The main justifications for the application are security aspects such as the perceived risk of viruses and malware concerns (30%) as well as ads being considered interruptive (29%). Further motivations are speed (16%) in terms of slow website loading times, the enormous number of displayed ads (14%) and privacy concerns (6%) due to the fact that advertisers increasingly uti­ lising personal data by the means of creating specifically targeted ads (PageFair, 2017). Overall it can be stated that negative feelings evoked by the elements of ads are the main factor related to adopting an ad blocker (Tudoran, 2019).

114 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

Summarising previous research findings, we will focus on the perceived value as well as negatives of ads from a consumer perspective. We assume that these two dimensions have an impact on ad avoidance. Based on the described ad avoidance literature above, we will investigate ad avoidance effects based on three dimensions: affective, behavioural and cognitive. Figure 7.1 illustrates the con­ ceptual framework this study adopted. It explored how perceived positives/ negatives of ads and consumer characteristics affect different types of ad avoid­ ance. The behavioural ad avoidance was operationalised by the use of ad blocker as measured through tisoomi technology.

Main Findings The final sample skewed toward male respondents, especially for the user group. 75.7 % of the ad block-user and 66.5 % of the non-user self-reported to be male. Regarding its age, the overall sample includes a variety of age groups. The user group is slightly younger than the non-user group (69% vs 80% for 18–54), but

FIGURE 7.1

Conceptual Model

Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers 115

the non-user group has more millennial participants. The sample skewed toward middle/low income participants. From the perspective of consumer characteristics, the differences between the two groups were rather small. While both groups have similar income levels, the non-user group has slightly more people from the lower income segments. User and non-user groups have similar levels of education. About 2/3 of the participants have high school and above education. Looking at the media use overall, the respondents spend a lot more time on the Internet and mobile devices than on traditional media. Users use newspaper and streaming more than non-users. On the other hand, non-users watch more TV and use more mobile and slightly more Internet. Similarly, there is also no significant difference in terms of consumer attitude toward online advertising between users and non-users. Overall, non-users reported slightly more positive attitudes toward online advertising than users. In terms of perceived positives/value, non-users reported slightly higher per­ ceived values than users across all four types of ad value. Still, no significant dif­ ference in the perceived positives or value of online ad between users and non­ users was found. While non-users reported slightly higher perceived negatives than users across all four negative ad perceptions, in total there is no significant difference in the perceived negatives of online ad between users and non-users. In terms of the predictors of ad avoidance, four factors – Internet usage, informa­ tion value, goal impediment and lack of utility – were found to affect the ad blocker users’ tendency of affective avoidance of online ads either positively or negatively. For ad blocker users, Internet use and the negative perceptions of goal impediment, as well as lack of utility, contribute to affective ad avoidance. Of all these, the per­ ceived goal impediment is the most important factor that positively influences ad blocker users’ affective ad avoidance. The more the users perceived online ads to be goal impeding, the more likely they would exhibit ad avoidance affectively. Per­ ceived informative value, on the other hand, can negatively influence ad blocker users’ affective avoidance. The more the users perceived online ads to be informative, the less likely they would exhibit ad avoidance affectively. Looking at the predictors of affective avoidance of online ads for ad blocker non-users, five factors were found to affect the non-users’ tendency. These factors were goal impediment and sacrifice as well as informative value, streaming usage and age. For non-users, perceived negatives of goal impediment and sacrifice contribute to affective ad avoidance. Perceived sacrifice is the most important predictor that positively influences non-users’ affective ad avoidance. In terms of predictors of cognitive ad avoidance, six factors were found to affect the ad blocker users’ tendency of cognitive avoidance of online ads: newspaper usage, Internet usage, perceived negatives of sacrifice, lack of utility, informative value and entertainment. For ad blocker users, newspaper/Internet usage and per­ ceived negatives of sacrifice and lack of utility contribute to cognitive ad avoidance. Perceived sacrifice is the most important factor that positively influences ad blocker users’ cognitive ad avoidance. The more the users felt that online ads sacrificed

116 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

their control or privacy, the more likely for them to exhibit ad avoidance cogni­ tively. Perceived informative value and entertainment value can negatively influ­ ence ad blocker users’ cognitive ad avoidance. The more the users perceived online ads to be informative and entertaining, the less likely for them to exhibit ad avoidance cognitively. For non-users, four factors were determined: sacrifice, informative value, mobile usage and TV usage. For non-users, perceived sacrifice is the most important factor that positively influences non-users’ cognitive ad avoidance. The more the non-users felt that online ads sacrificed their control or privacy, the more likely that they would exhibit ad avoidance cognitively. Informative value, mobile usage and TV usage, on the other hand, can negatively influence non­ users’ cognitive avoidance. The more the non-users felt that online ads are informative, the more they use mobile devices and TV, the less likely they would exhibit ad avoidance cognitively. Regarding the last dimension, three factors were found to affect the ad blocker users’ tendency of behavioural avoidance of online ads. Those are goal impedi­ ment, sacrifice and entertainment value. For ad blocker users, perceived negatives of goal impediment and sacrifice contribute to behavioural ad avoidance. Goal impediment is the most important factor that positively influences ad blocker users’ behavioural ad avoidance. The more the users felt that online ads impeded their goals, the more likely that they would avoid ads behaviourally. Perceived enter­ tainment value can negatively influence ad blocker users’ behavioural ad avoid­ ance. The more the users felt that online ads were entertaining, the less likely that they would avoid online ads behaviourally. For non-user, five factors were found to affect the ad blocker non-users’ tendency of behavioural avoidance of online ads: goal impediment, sacrifice, income, streaming media use and informative value. Perceived negatives of goal impediment and sacrifice contribute to beha­ vioural ad avoidance in a positive way. Sacrifice is the most important predictor that positively influences non-users’ behavioural ad avoidance. The more the non­ users felt that online ads sacrificed their control or privacy, the more likely that they would avoid online ads behaviourally. Income, streaming media use and especially perceived informative value of online ads can negatively influence non-users’ cognitive avoidance. That is, the more the non-users felt online ads were infor­ mative, the more they streamed, and the higher income they have, the less likely they would avoid online ads behaviourally. Overall, ad blocker-users are younger than the non-user. Users also read more newspapers and use streaming-services more often than non-users. Non-users consume more TV and use their smartphone as well as the Internet in general more often than the ad blocker-users. Looking at the differences regarding ad avoidance, there is no significant difference between user and non-user on the three dimen­ sions (affective, cognitive, behavioural). However, while the non-users and users as a whole did not differ significantly, as discussed above, there are important differ­ ences in the drivers of their ad avoidances.

Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers 117

Main Conclusions The study lasted about six months and both industry and academic collaborators agreed that the results contribute to their understanding of the ad blocker users and ad avoidance phenomenon. Process-wise, after the data collection and analysis were completed the researchers made an internal presentation to the industry partner via Skype. With the audience background and objectives in mind, the presentation focused on the comparison of the user and non-user groups and the different drivers of ad avoidance with minimal academic jargon in statistics and theories and more market implications. In particular, statistical values were trans­ formed into percentage increases for easier comprehension. Follow-up industry presentations were made in leading online marketing events like the AdBlocker Day at Online Marketing Rockstars and the OMK Lüneburg. The first public pre­ sentation took place at the Publisher Business Conference 2018 in Hamburg, which was hosted by the collaboration partner tisoomi. As collaborators, the researchers and tisoomi team presented the results jointly to industry practitioners in Germany. The value for the business partner tisoomi was to gather independent research results, which could be used for B2B communication in the advertising industry. The study served as base to foster the discussion about an important topic with different stakeholders, e.g. advertisers, publishers and media agencies. From the academic side, the results were re-analysed using more statistical processes fol­ lowing the industry reporting. The completed manuscript, authored by both the lead researchers and doctoral students, was accepted for presentation at a leading advertising academic research conference and subsequently prepared for refereed journal submission. The results also delivered relevant knowledge for advertisers. Since the investment in advertising is costly, it is important to better understand ad blockers’ attitude toward advertisement in comparison to non-users and also get granular information about the cognitive, affective and behavioural ad avoidance behaviour of the special target group. The results showed that the target group of ad blocker-users should not be ignored as a target group per se. This again is a fruitful result for all publishers, whose business model is built on income from online advertising. We recommend that publishers investigate the attitude of their specific target group of ad blocker-users since it increases their target groups in the advertising selling market. The most interesting insight of this study is the relationship between the findings and intuition expressed by the industry practitioner prior to the study. Tisoomi expressed to the research team that they had doubts about the assumed differences between ad blocker groups based on their experiences. It was the trigger for their funding of the study. However, it was essential for both the researchers and industry partner to ensure that the study was conducted independently. Therefore, while the topic of the project was identified based on a business need of the industry, the investigation was performed without that influence. In this case, the results not only confirmed the partner’s suspicion but also offered

118 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

insights on why that might be the case. Of course, there is the likelihood that results would be contrary to the industry view; that is why the study design and conceptual framework must be developed independently with topical but not directional input. Another lesson from the project is the importance of communication. Because of the high involvement of the industry partner during the data gathering process, a very close and interactive project management was necessary. Frequent commu­ nication via email and telephone was deemed necessary to coordinate the dis­ tribution in real time according to the participation results gathered via Qualtrics. The higher involvement – compared to usual data gathering processes – of both parties led to more time commitment in coordination. Another aspect of com­ munication was in the approach and content of communication. Working on a project with industry practitioners means there is a need of adjusting the language of communications due to different levels of understanding in scientific methods and priorities. We recommend researchers to communicate this to the industry partner right from the start in the first meeting to ensure mutual understanding of the standards and processes. It is also essential to keep flexibility in mind when building an academic survey and explain to the industry partner the differences between the survey aiming for refereed publication with typical market research surveys. Furthermore, it is important to take time in the set-up of the project to discuss the whole process, especially regarding the methods, deeply and step-by­ step, while clarifying questions arising in order to prevent confusion during the project itself. Another lesson is the difficult battle between speed vs. accuracy and depth. While practitioners want the results as fast as possible, because they are usually working under time pressure, researchers are more likely to extend the timeline in order to obtain rigorous results. Unfortunately, practitioners tend to underestimate the expense and therefore the time a study like this takes, which is a topic that should be addressed very early in the collaboration. The industry partner needs to understand from the beginning that there can be no ‘quick and dirty’ solution to get academic sound results. On the other hand, researches need to limit the com­ plexity of research projects to an agreed upon amount and time to benefit both parties mutually. Overall, the expectations of the collaborative research project were met in a timely manner. The results were disseminated in both the industry and academic communities as planned. The knowledge gained was shared with the industry practitioners in appropriate public forums and led to active discussions. In fact, various industry practitioners expressed interests in working with the researchers for follow-up studies in this area after the conference presentations. This reinforces the importance of sharing collaborative research project outcomes in an industry, as long as the language and content priority are adjusted appropriately. The presence at important industry conferences can lead to future collaborative research projects that are relevant and impactful. The project concludes with the preparation of

Examining Ad Avoidance Consumers 119

academic dissemination through a scholarly conference and refereed journal. At this point, the research team needs to shift their focus to the aim and process of the academic outlets. The key of success then is the foresight to design the study comprehensive enough from the beginning to accomplish both goals.

Acknowledgements We thank Yoojin Chung and Xiaomeng Lan from University of Florida as well as Michelle Lucas and Jana Schamuhn from Hamburg Media School for their help in the project, especially in the literature review and data collection phase. We would also like to thank our research partner tisoomi, in particular their CEO Michael Siegler, who supported the research project with financial and time resources.

References Baek, T. H. & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me: Examining the determinants of consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59–76. Bang, H., Kim, J. & Choi, D. (2018). Exploring the effects of ad-task relevance and ad salience on ad avoidance: The moderating role of online use motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 89(12), 70–78. Bang, H. J., & Lee W.-N. (2016). Consumer response to ads in social network sites: An exploration into the role of ad location and path. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 37(1), 1–14. Benway, J. P. (1999). Banner blindness: What searching users notice and do not notice on the world wide web (Dissertation). Rice University. Celebi, S. I. (2015). How do motives affect attitudes and behaviors toward online adver­ tising and Facebook advertising ? Computers in Human Behavior, 51(10), 312–324. Cho, C.-H. & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet? Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89–97. Despotakis, S., Ravi, R. & Srinivasan, K. (2017). The beneficial effects of ad blockers. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstra ct_id=3083119. Johnson, J. P. (2013). Targeted advertising and advertising avoidance. RAND Journal of Economics, 44(1), 128–144. Jung, A-R. (2017). The influence of perceived ad relevance on social media advertising: An empirical examination of a mediating role of privacy concern. Computers in Human Behavior, 70(5), 303–309. Kelly, L., Kerr, G. & Drennan, J. (2010). Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites: The teenage perspective. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 16–27. Koshksaray, A. A., Franklin, D. & Hanzaee, K. H. (2015). The relationship between Elifestyle and onlineAdvertising avoidance. Australasian Marketing Journal, 23, 38–48. Logan, K., Bright, L. F. & Gangadharbatla, H. (2012). Facebook versus television: Adver­ tising value perceptions among females. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(3), 164–179. Miroglio, B., Zeber, D., Kaye, J. & Weiss, R. (2018). The effect of ad blocking on user engagement with the web. WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web

120 Lisa-Charlotte Wolter and Sylvia Chan-Olmsted

Conference, April 2018, pp. 813–821. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3178876.3186162. Moore, J. J. & Rodgers, S. L. (2005). An examination of advertising credibility and skep­ ticism in five different media using the Persuasion Knowledge Model. American Acad­ emy of Advertising conference proceedings. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/313748628_An_examination_of_advertising_credibility_and_skep ticism_in_five_different_media_using_the_persuasion_knowledge_model. PageFair. (2017). The state of the blocked web: 2017 global adblock report. Retrieved from: https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.13/dca.b64.myftpupload.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2017/02/PageFair-2017-Adblock-Report.pdf. Prendergast, G. P., Tsang, A. S. L. & Cheng, R. (2014). Predicting handbill avoidance in Hong Kong and the UK. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 132–146. PWC. (2018). Global entertainment and media outlook 2018–2022. Retrieved from: http s://www.pwc.com/gx/en/entertainment-media/outlook/perspectives-from-the-global­ entertainment-and-media-outlook-2018-2022.pdf. Redondo, I. & Aznar, G. (2018). To use or not to use ad blockers? The roles of knowledge of ad blockers and attitude toward online advertising. Telematics and Information, 35(6), 1607–1616. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A. & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688. Seyedghorban, Z., Tahernejad, H. & Matanda, M. J. (2016). Reinquiry into advertising avoidance on the Internet: A conceptual replication and extension. Journal of Advertising, 45(1), 120–129. Shin, W. & Lin, T. T.-C. (2016). Who avoids location-based advertising and why? Investigating the relationship between user perceptions and advertising avoidance. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(10), 444–452. Tudoran, A. A. (2019). Why do online consumers block ads? New evidence from con­ sumer opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Online Research, 29(1), 144–166. Van den Broek, E., Poels, K. & Walrave, M. (2018). An experimental study on the effect of ad placement, product involvement and motives on Facebook ad avoidance. Tele­ matics and Informatics, 35(5), 470–479.

8 LOCATION-BASED SERVICES IN REGIONAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION Insights from a Research Project Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers OSTFALIA UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES AND JÖNKÖPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL

Introduction Location-based services (LBS) – applications that create value for the user through geo-localisation (Masters, 2014) – gained significantly relevance in recent years. By 2015, 90% of adults in the US had used LBS on a mobile phone. The European market for LBS demonstrated a strong growth in 2016, which was expected to continue for the following years (EGNSSA, 2017). At the same time, the importance of mobile media in communication processes increased drastically (Goggin, 2010; Heinemann & Gaiser, 2014; Nayak, 2016). Its relevance is also evident for journal­ ism: ‘many people have shifted the ways they access the news in everyday life, with mobile devices gaining much significance’ (Westlund & Färdigh, 2014). Mobile news statistics show that 85% of adults in the US had received news on their mobile device at least once, and, in particular, young adults used their smartphones to access news (Lu, 2017). In 2018, smartphones were outpacing laptops and desktop com­ puter as the access medium to news (Fedeli & Matsa, 2018). Integrating LBS into the production and use of mobiles sounds promising for the media industry: Nyre et al. (2012) supposed a high potential for GPS-equipped phones in local journalism, as the integration of LBS in mobile news apps might allow innovative forms of news production, aggregation and presentation that, again, might increase the value of communication for the recipients. More pre­ cisely, the combination of the two technologies might enable a more ‘contextual user experience and an easier search for news as well as an easier comprehension and visualisation of local news’ (Schmitz Weiss, 2013). However, looking at the media markets, we can hardly observe any cases where media organisations have successfully integrated location-based features in their (news) media products (Ehlers & Rau, 2018b).

122 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

Following these arguments, the overall research question for the project reads as follows: what opportunities emerge from LBS-technology for regional media organisations (and other regional stakeholders), and how can/will it be used? This chapter will present our three-year (2017–2020), EU-funded LBS project as a current example for an applied research project that focuses on media innovation. After an overview of the relevant literature and the state of research, the project will be introduced. Hereby, we will not only present research-related findings but share insights in the planning of a research project that involves several project partners (aca­ demia and practice). In particular, we will shed light on the theoretical, methodological and practical challenges of researching media innovation, as well as the ‘soft’ organisa­ tional factors for media and management scholars and managers in the media industries.

Literature Review: Exploring the Field The project started with literature reviews in three fields: the state of the art and the development in location-based services (LBS) in general; the development of hyperlocal journalism, as well as the future of local journalism; and the use of LBS in journalism and media production and distribution. We surmise that the majority of contributions that focus on LBS in media were published at the beginning of the 2010s. In addition, there are only a few publica­ tions that consequently explored LBS in the context of news and information media (Nyre et al., 2012; Schmitz Weiss, 2013). Hence, we see a major gap for further research of the use of LBS, particularly in regional and local media and from the perspective of smaller and medium-sized content producers. Leading industries in terms of local or hyperlocal information-based services are retail, transport and logistics – linking media management advertising to retail solutions seems to be the only LBS topic consequently being focused on (Fang et al., 2016; Luo et al., 2014; Banerjee & Dholakia, 2008; Bruner & Kumar, 2007; Leek & Christodoulides, 2009; Butcher, 2011; Unni & Harmon, 2007; Skeldon, 2011; with an empirical approach also Gidofalvi, Larsen & Pedersen, 2008; Xu, Oh & Teo, 2009; Mazaheri, Rafiee & Khadivi, 2010 introducing new network technology; Xu et al., 2011 investigating the influence of content relevance and delivery time; Molitor, Reichart & Spann, 2012 analysing location-based coupons on consumer behaviour).

Location-Based Services A uniform understanding of the LBS has not yet been established (Basiri et al., 2015). Despite different approaches, we use a definition that researchers agreed was characteristic for LBS: LBS can be defined as services that identify the geo­ graphical position of a user’s mobile device and that provide the user with per­ sonalised information based on their position (Martin et al., 2010). By connecting the location with associated information, LBS generates an added value for the user through associating information with a context.

Location-Based Services 123

The research field of LBS is quite interdisciplinary, but, at the same time, it is strongly orientated towards technological issues. The Journal of Location-Based Ser­ vices (Taylor & Francis, 2007–) is dominated by geographical and IT-orientated research. Papers from such areas as management are rarely found. The Web of Science (Clarivate Analysis) database lists around 6,400 articles on LBS (March 2019), of which 68% are IT and telecommunication papers and 36% are marked as papers from an engineering background. Less than 3% are management orien­ ted and even less address, for example, sociological topics.

Hyperlocal Journalism The second field that we can take literature from is the area of hyperlocal jour­ nalism. Hyperlocal media is not LBS from the technological point of view and can be seen as a submarket (Yang & Chyi, 2011). Still, hyperlocal media projects often deal with different ideally audience-shaped (Tang & Lai, 2018) formats of local media distributions and new organisational structures in the production routines or concerning business models (Cook & Sirkkunen, 2013), even including micropayment (Hayes & Graybeal, 2011). Such projects are discussed as new solutions in challenging local media ecologies (Lowrey & Kim, 2016). Hence, the literature on hyperlocal journalism adds a broader perspective on the development of local media in terms of legacy media organisation, as well as entrepreneurial journalism (Brouwers, 2017), start-ups and non-profit organisations. Even though this is still a relatively small field, we could see the topic emerging particularly in the UK in the last years (White et al., 2017). Concepts of ‘hyperlocality’, on the one hand, refer to a distinct spatial proximity, such as a town, village, single postcode or other small, geographically defined com­ munity (Halkosaari et al., 2017). On the other hand, the majority of the definitions refer to hyperlocal media projects as defined by Metzgar et al. (2011): ‘hyperlocal media operations are geographically-based, community-oriented, original-news­ reporting organisations indigenous to the web and intended to fill perceived gaps in coverage of an issue or region and to promote civic engagement’ (p. 774). Hence, the term ‘hyperlocal’ functions as a proxy for describing different functions of media projects and organisations, rather than concretely referring to geographical proximity. As mentioned, hyperlocal media is not necessarily connected to any kind of technology use. In most cases, locally produced content is spread via websites, apps and social media groups that do not imply any distribution determined by spatial proximity. The literature in this field still implicates that there is a need of local and hyperlocal information both in rural as in urban areas. LBS could support an effi­ cient distribution of such information and media outputs. Hyperlocal projects could, therefore, be one major field of applying localisation technology and trying different concepts of localisation, before legacy media adapts the technology – especially in comparably small (media) market environments, where changing business models is a rare alternative (cf. Donders et al., 2018).

124 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

Localisation in Mobile Journalism Locative journalism explores the connection between local journalism and mobile news. The concept refers to journalism that ‘incorporates a place, space, and/or location (physical, augmented and virtual) into the process and practice of journalism’ (Schmitz Weiss, 2014). In comparison to the discussion on hyperlocal news, this concept incorporates the idea of using localisation technology, such as GPS positions. Westlund (2013) refers to locative news as ‘an important area of innovation for news publishers’, while Nyre and colleagues (2012) discuss locative journalism as a chance for local newspapers – localisation can strengthen the local focus and the commu­ nication with the local community as a key asset of local news organisations. From the user perspective, locative news is experienced as more interesting and informative (Øie, 2012). ‘Locative news is surely a new way of marshalling, mediating, and making sense of place … through projects of emplacement and by the movement in and through places by objects, technologies, and users’ (Goggin et al., 2014). Nyre et al. (2012) resume that, from the technical side, it is easy to design a medium that affords location-dependent journalism. From the content side, it is fairly difficult to establish a new writing practice among journalists to exploit the new possibilities. One contribution that empirically focuses on the diffusion of LBS in the field of journalism is by Schmitz Weiss (2013). Her analysis of the US media market shows that geo-location features were only used for service purposes, and a connection between news stories and locations did not occur. Accordingly, she identifies a gap between news organisations and consumers: even though we can observe a high use of LBS by smartphone consumers, media organisations use geo-location features in their mobile apps only for traffic and weather. ‘Legacy news organisations analysed in this study show that they are failing to keep up with the demand based on what news consumers, particularly young adults, are doing and using on their smartphone’ (Schmitz Weiss, 2013).

Project In the following paragraphs, the setup of the project is described and critically discussed. The focus here lies on the particularities of managing the project and the collaboration with partners.

Objective, Agenda and Adjustments The objective of the multi-level research project is to identify opportunities and risks of location-based services (LBS) for local or regional media communications – exemplified for two selected regions in the state of Lower Saxony (Germany). The core target is to identify models of success for the digital transformation of regional media communications by involving different regional stakeholders and national and international experts. Therefore, the aim is to sustainably address the issue of

Location-Based Services 125

content-related possibilities and the associated acceptance of local services, instead of simply concerning technical aspects. Originally, the following research steps were defined in advance: first, we sys­ tematically elaborate the relevant literature; second, a Delphi will explore current and future fields of application for LBS within regional media communications in conjunction with international experts in the field; third, focus group sessions with representatives of regional stakeholders (journalism, sports, culture, and regional economy) are held to examine opportunities and challenges on the regional level; and, fourth, quantitative studies are set up to examine usage beha­ viour and patterns of recipients mobile media usage. However, already in an early stage, difficulties of the research topic were encountered: there is no truly thorough overview of the market of applicable and employed technologies within the field. Additionally, LBS refers to various research fields (cf. supra). While research on LBS is at an advanced stage concerning aspects of information technology as well as concrete applications, conclusive offers of application are spread amongst various sectors. Furthermore, concrete communication offerings using LBS are barely applied on the regional or local level. Accordingly, the amount of work increased attendant to research, which led to extensive reconsiderations and adaptions of the project. To get a sufficient overview about the state of the art, both in research and practice, we decided to broaden the field in two ways. Firstly, the scope was broadened to general LBS applications to get best practice examples from other fields, such as retail or transportation. Secondly, the exploration was shifted to the international level to investigate cases in the bigger and more technology-driven markets of North America and Asia. With this broadly conceived exploration stage, other methodological challenges arose: how to analyse the international state of the art in LBS and locative media in a scientifically reasonable way, when there is no one market or one database, but, instead, information, actors and services spread everywhere. Thus, we worked on a combination of an exploration combined with elements of classical quantitative content analysis.

Partnerships, Application and Funding The project originated from a conversation among two colleagues from Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences and Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences during a conference of the German Communication Association in 2012. In 2012, potential industry partners were contacted and business meetings with both universities and media and IT companies were organised. From an early stage within the project, it was decided which funding line was to be pursued. Today, this is considered rather positive: once it was clear which funding framework the application would file, all further project partners could be specifically addressed. We decided to apply for the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRE). It required a regional setting, which meant the

126 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

end the project relied on the support of regional stakeholders. That is why, from the beginning, important players of regional communication were addressed. To increase the success rate while addressing managers from the industry directly, one should consider which of possible partners could benefit most from the potential. As this project was located within the field of regional or even local media communication, two regional based newspaper publishers had been involved. Top management of the two enterprises saw different departments in charge to support our project, and they respectively engaged different functional areas – leading to a major challenge right from the very first meeting, as the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung was represented by their editor-in-chief and the Braunschweiger Zeitung was represented by their head of marketing. Consequently, this resulted in varying opinions and goals. This duality gave a new spin to the project, and it was one of the reasons that we integrate both a journalism marketing view – at the end to support our exploratory study of LBS market. First talks on the concrete project started in spring 2013. At that time, project partners representing regional media enterprises were already con­ tacted – their reactions were positive, and they had been integrated fast. So, in this case, finding partners for the cooperation in industry had been no challenge at all. Essentially, this project developed into collaboration between the universities Ostfalia (Salzgitter) and Osnabrück (Lingen), the Braunschweiger Zeitungsverlag (newspaper publisher), the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung (newspaper publisher) and the IT-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH Emsland (information and service enterprise). These project partners were supported by Treiß-Media, a small media company that provides an industry-specific service called Location Insider, offering a daily newsletter that publishes white papers and businesstalks on a monthly basis. In 2014, both universities worked on the application, which was submitted in 2015. The application was phrased by the collaborating scientists only. During the actual application, none of the industry partners had any influence on the exact wording, planned research steps and used methods. It is our recommendation not to over-expand exchanges in the early stages of a project, as this might narrow the horizon to smaller problems of the contributing business partners, rather than creating a big picture driven by research gaps. Only by the end of 2016, everyone involved was informed about the accepted application and, thereby, the release of funds. In early 2017, both universities advertised for one position each and were successfully able to fill them. The fund­ ing started in fall 2017 with a three-year timeframe: the entire project was split between the two selected regions and the two schools. It allowed them to hire one research assistant per region. The project partner in Osnabrück was able to install one full-time researcher, and, at Ostfalia University, two half-time jobs were cre­ ated, which simultaneously enabled the suitable candidates to further qualify themselves to join the university’s master programme.

Location-Based Services 127

Methodology and Results Despite the systematic analysis and combination of the different literature streams, different methodological approaches were chosen to explore the field of (news) media and communication. A first overview over the situation in the German media market gave a broad content analysis of German news applications in 2017 (Ehlers & Rau, 2018b). Based on the (available online) database of the German Commission on Con­ centration in the Media (KEK), we chose a census of all news organisations to depict the German media system appropriately. All 511 national, regional and local newspapers, 439 public and private national, regional and local radio stations, 317 national, regional and local TV channels (public broadcasting and privately owned) were checked regarding whether they had a news media smartphone application. Of the 623 found news apps, 32% used some localisation, but, in the most cases, it remained unclear why the application was collecting spatial information. Only in a handful of cases was there actual value of integration spatial proximity in the dis­ tribution of news. This is in line with Schmitz Weiss findings from 2013 and it also show that, in the last five years, there was no significant development in products or services incorporating LBS in media communication. To get a better understanding of the state of the art of LBS apps in general, we conducted a market exploration, using around 200 international cases that were mentioned in the industry newsletters Location Insider, Street Fighter or Tech Crunch. We first used qualitative analysis to find common themes, dimensions and cate­ gories (such as technology, functions etc.) and then conducted a quantitative con­ tent analysis using the previously established features. The analysis showed interesting aspects, such as the observation of a trend leading to indoor LBS solu­ tions (e.g. with Beacons). At the same time, we conducted research on the regional level, including actors mentioned in the project application. To investigate the potential LBS providers’ perception on the local level, five guided focus group discussions were conducted in the city Brunswick with representatives of relevant sectors (tourism, culture, journalism, trade and sports). The discussions were transcribed and analysed using Mayring’s approach of qualitative content analysis. In the discussions, huge chal­ lenges became clear: if smaller players want to survive, their applications need clearly communicated benefits. Otherwise barriers caused by certain privacy con­ cerns (cf. Limpf & Voorveld, 2015) or a perceived lack of usefulness are perceived as too high. Additionally, two quantitative surveys were conducted in the region. First, we tested the technology acceptance for LBS in an everyday context (Ehlers & Rau, 2018a), surveying 243 participants with an age range of 18 to 76 years and vary­ ing levels of education. The analysis based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003) showed the importance of ful­ filling performance expectation, effort expectations and hedonistic motivation to

128 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

create services that will be accepted by the public. The survey also displayed that LBS already play a big role in people’s everyday life in Germany: LBS are reg­ ularly used for navigation and transportation services, as well as, for example, in gastronomy. Also, participants share their locations in social media and messaging applications to connect with others. Privacy concerns were, in this survey, smaller than initially expected. In a second survey, 452 young adults (18–35 years) from both rural and urban areas in Lower Saxony were asked about their local identi­ fication and their use of local and non-local digital, as well as analogue, media (Ehlers & Rau, 2018b). The results show that young adults are interested in news about their city and tend to care about events and happenings in the local environment. They access this information mainly via news websites and through social media feeds.

Contributions of the Project In sum, the project established a sustainable basis and prepared the ground for further research. The results contribute to an order of a rather diffuse object of research (cf. the paragraphs on the state of research), providing a better overview of the matter and, thereby, building a bridge between different traditions and approaches. Furthermore, the project introduced a market exploration that com­ bines an explanatory approach with quantitative content analysis. The outcome enriches future and even current diffusion research in terms of information tech­ nology innovation by combining economically pragmatic and analytical approa­ ches of communication sciences. The project has, at its current state, expanded the gap between the theoretically possible and the practically executed and has, therefore, demonstrated that innovations are often assessed too optimistically and are underestimated considering their practical use. It is to be expected that the upcoming Delphi study will approach this gap between experts who are con­ vinced of ‘enabling’ and who constantly refer to the cost-benefit relation. The main contribution to media management research this project offers is the following: location-based services could be a game-changing technology for regional media communication. But these services are, up till now, descried very poorly by management of legacy media. This, however, can offer opportunities for new actors in the market or societal driven media by using participatory communication strate­ gies, both requiring different media management approaches. Future research might also view this as a starting point. Projects that incorporate future-oriented innova­ tions need exactly this kind of multi-facetted perspective from all sorts of different disciplines – which, after all, might be the most important finding of this project.

Challenges in the Project Apart from the purely research-related aspects (methodology, definitions, sig­ nificant outcome, different traditions dependent on disciplines, etc.), especially

Location-Based Services 129

the ‘softer’ and mostly administration- or communication-related (timeframe, coordination between project partners, hiring research assistants, and adminis­ trative framework) factors will be considered in this section.

Aspects of Time: Between Application and Kick-Off Usually, the time between the application and the approval of a request, respec­ tively the release of funds for national and international research projects, can lie between one and a half and two years. Adding the fact that the work on an application starts about a year in advance, there is no doubt that this poses a core challenge to the success of a project. In our case, nearly three years lay between the first idea and the confirmation for funding. Research projects in the field of media management regularly focus on inno­ vative technologies, including innovative practical routines such as media recep­ tion. With innovation related topics, a time frame of several years might already change a project’s purpose. Some particular aspects might even lose in value over time, some gain attention respectively, as was also the case during this project. Location-based services (LBS) have undergone major changes. Big players, such as Google, have expanded their LBS by great measures and, thereby, stretched their edge over competition significantly. In the meantime, a large amount of services in the shape of mobile applications have joined the market. It must be noted that during this project, we were successfully able to show an outstandingly weak adoption of technologies and options of LBS in the field of local and hyperlocal journalism, which is probably a question of community structure (cf. Becker et al., 2010). Yet, we were able to transfer some considera­ tions from the initial application. In recent years, the field of LBS has not evolved in terms of velocity as much as it could have. This activity blackout led to the implementation of a very broad international market exploration in the process of our project (not intended in advance). The lengthy periods also have an influence on the structure of the staff. Research assistants opening the field and working on the application left the university before being able to start and work in the funded project. Various changes and transitions of responsibilities were a challenge for management – right from the beginning of the project.

Human resource management In addition to the previous challenge, all positions within projects (such as the one that we are talking about) are temporary – fixed just for the duration of the individual project. These positions remain as some kind of interim solution for qualified young researchers in the field of media and communication science, even if they might seek the possibility of gaining a doctorate. In this project, fluctuation has been well documented. To be precise, three employees left during

130 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

the project duration for other job offers, and the staff member who originally coordinated the application left the university right before successfully raising the funding. Continuity within the project presents itself as one of the principle challenges. As for all new research assistants joining the scientific world, the first major task is to get up to speed within the discipline. Furthermore, they will have to be able to put themselves in the position of those who, up to the present point, have designed the project.

Industry Versus Academia: Differing Timeframes and Priorities The problem of a transformed structure of personnel is even more problematic with industry partners. For example, the head of marketing at one of the two newspaper companies involved (with whom all arrangements concerning the application had been made in advance) left the company a few weeks after starting the project. Gen­ erally, the chosen project region sees a high amount of staff turnover in legacy media resulting from increasing economic pressure. During the project, various waves of reengineering changed the structure of the associated media companies in the Braunschweig-Salzgitter area. This exemplifies the pressure on the field in general. In our experience, the top management of media companies mainly act in reac­ tion to current market realities, and proactive measures take a backseat. This is sup­ ported by the fact that the local media practice partners did not actively involve themselves during the project. However, upon inquiry, the practice partners expressed deep interest in the cooperation. Equally, it became obvious that it is the promise of quick and economically tangible success that attracts legacy media to the applied sciences. This results in the collision of two worlds, researchers prioritise differently than managers. For researchers, it is always the topic itself that is in focus: they seek to gain knowledge and approach a phenomenon in an unbiased manner in concentric circles, discussing and broadening the field of possibilities, also doing so when it comes to the results of empirical research. In contrast, a manager must make decisions, weigh the pros and cons, reach a sound verdict in a short amount of time, assess the possibilities that might advance their business and, thereby, increase the total turnover. Considering the LBS project, the topic bares little relevance to the daily business of managers in media companies. We believe that this is the case since, first, there are several competing innovations that might be valuable for media organisations and, second, publishing houses increasingly feel the need to invest in engagements that bring quickly generated revenues. Managers in German local media companies seem to rather follow successful competitors’ models, such as the reengineering of newsrooms or the testing of new online payment models. We observe high pres­ sure on operative activities, which prevents strategic thinking and moves the focus away from the actual communication output of media companies. Overall, strate­ gically designed research projects, such as this, receive insufficient attention due to other more pressing daily operations.

Location-Based Services 131

Unclear Structures in the Industry Additionally, it is hard to clearly demarcate the industry: since there is no one LBS industry, we are facing a variety of different players in the market. At the same time, we strive for data that allows a benchmark. Since media organisations rarely use LBS, we broadened our focus to analyse how LBS are used in other industries, such as retail or tourism, to derive best practice examples and to increase the awareness of different possibilities in terms of technology and functionality. Con­ sidering the enormous dynamics of LBS that can be observed worldwide, even market experts are hardly able to gain an overview of all available successful appli­ cations. Therefore, it has been challenging to extract best practices, which is indispensable for proper application development in applied settings. To find an answer to those challenges, we had to look for alternative data sources, which we finally found in such professional newsletters as Location Insider, Street Fighter or Tech Crunch. Those allowed the extraction of cases of LBS products, firms using LBS in some way and developers working on LBS solutions. As described above, we based our market exploration of the LBS industry on those newsletter cases, which were analysed in a systematic qualitative and quantitative content analysis following the standards of social sciences. This method seems to deliver interesting information, but it is quite time consuming to complete.

Slow Diffusion in Media Industries As already mentioned, LBS are rarely used in media production and distribution. Accordingly, we can refer to a slow observed diffusion rate in the industry. The diffusion of innovation deals with ‘the process by which an innovation is commu­ nicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system’ (Rogers, 2003). In our project, mobile news applications with LBS features are defined as the innovation. The adaption of innovation not only refers to indivi­ duals but also to organisations. Here, media enterprises come into place: in the professional context, the diffusion of innovation mainly relies on the process of initiation and the process of implementation (Rogers, 2003). Media industries, in our case, implemented the media innovation slower than expected at the beginning of the research project. The content analysis of news apps of German legacy media organisations showed that the diffusion of innovative LBS approaches is eminently slow (Ehlers & Rau, 2018a) – which is in line with the findings of Schmitz Weiss (2013). Apparently, there was no significant devel­ opment from 2013 until 2018. This, at the same time, leads to the fact that man­ agers in the industry, e.g. in news media, have a limited understanding of the concept and the meaning of LBS. Thinking about conduction interviews with managers form legacy media organisations, they can barely be seen as experts in the field and, most probably, would not able to give any new insights in the topic.

132 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

Hypothetical Audience Research Resulting from the point mentioned above, we are facing challenges in impact and audience research. Firstly, the (quite technical) term LBS is poorly known by survey participants. Accordingly, in every survey that researches on different aspects of LBS usage, the topic must be introduced by describing the concept of LBS and by giving examples. We observed that most people are now aware that the applications they use in everyday life, such as map services or applications for public transport, are actually LBS. Even with an introduction to the concept, we can hardly ensure the validity of self-reported LBS use. Secondly, since only a few media products use localisation technology, scholars must keep their research either on a general level or – when going more into detail – default to hypothetical questions (Rau & Ehlers, 2017). This means that we can research motives, intentions and actual behaviour of general LBS use fairly well, but, in the context of localised media, we face huge limitations. Since most of the parti­ cipants had never used media outlets that incorporated some sort of localisation technology, we can do two things: we can ask for an interest describing a hypothe­ tical platform with distinct functions; or we can measure the general interest in local news and events, as well as the general usage of any kind of LBS, before combining those measures to estimate an interest in localised news media applications. Both options come with validity flaws and problematic assumptions. We had neither been able to refer on pilot tests, such as Putzke et al. (2010) did to examine the mass cus­ tomised newspaper, nor to reflect on a broad basis of studies conducted before starting our project – to stay with the example of mass customisation, several studies can already be cited by starting off in 2010 (e.g. Schoder et al., 2006; Ihlström & Palmer, 2002; Kaplan et al., 2007; Franke et al., 2009). We do not see any possibility to cope with that research design challenge – so, we decided to work on transpar­ ency, to discover all technological options and to deliberate applicable technologies. Rather than analysing actual applicable and promising solutions, we summarise pos­ sibilities. With that, the project’s outcome could be seen as a rich source for future managerial decisions. Finally, we can hardly give advice to project partners from the industry about the need and the acceptance of localised media applications.

Challenges of Prototyping Since there are only few LBS apps related to (news) media out in the market, it is challenging to collect data of the actual objective use of such services. Unlike the self-reported LBS use (see above), measuring the actual technology use (e.g. usage times or patterns) would provide valuable additional information. Hence, it would make sense to build a prototype – or even a fully operating LBS applica­ tion – to find out more about the actual use of LBS in local and regional media. However, we encountered several challenges regarding the practical imple­ mentation of the prototype. Research teams creating platforms and applications

Location-Based Services 133

with test users to measure user experience and usability aspects are typically located or strongly related to IT research groups. Without resources for the development of applications in the research team, the whole undertake becomes not only complicated but, most of all, expensive. In the case of news media LBS, not only the technical framework but also the content of the application must be developed – and, to generate as realistic usage data as possible, the content must be maintained and updated regularly. That means that to test a running system with at least a small group of users, both journalistic and programming work needed to be integrated into the project. Since team members are most likely to be hired because of their research-orientated skills, and third parties doing the ITwork might be too costly – so, the prototype development needs to be out­ sourced to additional complementing projects, such as student projects or by involving practitioners and programmers. Here, we encountered another diffi­ culty: in such ‘add-on’ projects, it will be difficult to meet the diverse expecta­ tions and requirements.

Further Reflections The following key insights can be summarised. Cooperation and coordination among all project associates remained during the phase of application. After the release of funds, there was the occasional exchange among the project partners, yet there was hardly any commonly coordinated processing and developing of the project – probably because there was no partners in the lead, none of the two universities involved were heading the project and no principle investigator was installed. Even though the project ran successfully, a closer exchange and more interaction of all involved parties might have led to an even richer outcome. This could be pinned as a learning for future projects: to plan, hold and protocol meetings (online or offline) more regularly in a fixed schedule that must be defined in advance. The two universities involved developed the project in quite different ways, which we mostly experienced as an enrichment of the project. Yet, it is interesting that all associates (from both university and other parties concerned) interpreted the content of the project in different ways, although it was based on two mostly similar EFREapplications. The individual approaches towards regional media communication, which was brought into the discourse by different researchers involved, enhanced creativity. All projects that are funded by the EU suffer from a very high number of administrative requirements. Basically, every single hour of work must be matched entirely with every single task that has been worked on. With every project being self-governed, this is a factor that must be crucially considered in terms of the coordination of the time available. In this case, this requirement must only be met by the scientific institutes. Nearly 20% of the entire time should be reserved for meeting administrative aspects (calculating and meeting budgets, protocoling workload and hours, meeting online system requirements of EU, transferring data to different stakeholders and writing regular reports).

134 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

As we have already mentioned the role of the industry partners, we recommend setting the goals of a project independent from the contributions of external partners. It is a specific learning, from previous publicly funded projects, that, in the end, it is the researchers’ responsibility to oversee resources and the design of processes. In our opinion (not only concerning the final application), the more tasks being delegated to practice partners during the scheduled project – such as acquiring partners for interviews – the tougher the managerial process. Ulti­ mately, the success of the project resulted from the fact that the project team did not necessarily depend on data provided by the project partners and was, there­ fore, able to work rather independently. The retroactive effects of this research project can only be speculated upon. It is possible to transfer these scientifically gathered results into practical use. As we are convinced of the value of the topic for media businesses, we also see that it requires a certain amount of effort and translation work. Casually speaking, scientific studies are unlike business plans, as the results will neither bare the desired amount of potential for savings nor concrete profits. This is the factual problem of cooperation between sciences, even applied sciences for that matter, and business-management practice. Media management research requires interdisciplinarity – this also could be an outcome of the project. Yet this criterion could not be met on the backdrop of the funding constellation. To continue further research in media communication, the authors recommend the connection and coordination of various disciplines, namely information technology, journalism research and practical journalism, as much as media economics and media management.

References Banerjee, S. S. & Dholakia, R. R. (2008). Mobile advertising: Does location-based advertising work? International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 3(2), 68–75. Basiri, A., Moore, T., Hill, C. & Bathia, P. (2015). Challenges of location-based services market analysis: Current market description. In G. Gartner & H. Huang (Eds.), Progress in location-based services (pp. 273–282). Cham: Springer. Becker, J. U., Clement, M. & Schaedel, U. (2010). The impact of network size and financial incentives on adoption and participation in new online communities. Journal of Media Economics, 23(3), 165–179. Brouwers, A. D. (2017). Failure and understanding within entrepreneurial journalism. Journal of Media Business Studies, 14(3), 217–233. BrunerII, G. C. & Kumar, A. (2007). Attitude toward location-based advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 3–15. Butcher, M. (2011). Cultures of commuting: The mobile negotiation of space and sub­ jectivity on Delhi’s metro. Mobilities, 6, 237–254. Cook, C. & Sirkkunen, E. (2013). What’s in a niche? Exploring the business model of online journalism. Journal of Media Business Studies, 10(4), 63–82. Donders, K., Enli, G., Raats, T. & Syvertsen, T. (2018). Digitisation, internationalisation, and changing business models in local media markets: An analysis of commercial media’s perceptions on challenges ahead. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(2), 89–107.

Location-Based Services 135

Ehlers, A. & Rau, H. (2018a). Acceptance as core factor for the success of LBS. In P. Kiefer, H. Huang, N. Van de Weghe & M. Raubal (Eds.), Adjunct proceedings of the 14th international conference on location based services (pp. 207–212). Zurich: ETH. Ehlers, A. & Rau, H. (2018b). The future – a question of time and place: Mobile jour­ nalism and localized news. Paper presented at The 68th annual conference of the international communication association, Prague, Czech Republic, 24–28 May 2018. European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (EGNESSA). (2017). Spotlight on loca­ tion based services. Retrieved from: www.gsc-europa.eu/news/spotlight-on-location-ba sed-services. Fang, Z., Yang, Y., Xu, Y. & Li, W. (2016). Boost movie ticket sales by location-based advertising: A Bayesian VAR approach. Journal of Media Economics, 29(3), 125–138. Fedeli, S. & Matsa, K. (2018). Use of mobile devices for news continues to grow, outpacing desktops and laptops. Retrieved from: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/17/ use-of-mobile-devices-for-news-continues-to-grow-outpacing-desktops-and-laptops/. Franke, N., Keinz, P. & Steger, C. (2009). Testing the value of customization: When do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 103–121. Gidofalvi, G., Larsen, H. R. & Pedersen, T. B. (2008). Estimating the capacity of the loca­ tion-based advertising channel. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6, 357–375. Goggin, G. (2010). Global mobile media. London: Routledge. Goggin, G., Martin, F. & Dwyer, T. (2014). Locative news. Journalism Studies, 16(1), 41–59. Halkosaari, H., Rönneberg, M., Laakso, M., Kettunen, P., Oksanen, J. & Sarjakoski, T. (2017). Concept design of #hylo—Geosocial network for sharing hyperlocal information on a map. In G. Gartner & H. Huang (Eds.), Progress in location-based services (pp. 309–327). Cham: Springer. Hayes, J. & Graybeal, G. (2011). Synergizing traditional media and the social web for monetization: A modified media micropayment model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 8(2), 19–44. Heinemann, G. & Gaiser, C. (2014). Social - Local - Mobile: The Future of Location-based Services. Heidelberg: Springer. Ihlström, C. & Palmer, J. (2002). Revenues for online newspapers: Owner and user per­ ceptions. Electronic Markets, 12, 228–236. Kaplan, A. M., Schoder, D. & Haenlein, M. (2007). Factors influencing the adoption of mass customization: The impact of base category consumption frequency and need satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 101–116. Lee, Y. C. (2010). Factors influencing attitudes towards mobile location-based advertising. In W. Li (Ed.), Software engineering and service sciences (ICSESS) (pp. 709–712). Kaoh­ siung, Taiwan: IEEE. Leek, S. & Christodoulides, G. (2009). Next-generation mobile marketing: How young con­ sumers react to Bluetooth-enabled advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(1), 44–53. Limpf, N. & Voorveld, H. A. (2015). Mobile location-based advertising: How information privacy concerns influence consumers’ attitude and acceptance. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 15(2), 111–123. Lowrey, W. & Kim, E. (2016). Hyperlocal news coverage: A popul ecol perspective. Mass Communication and Society, 19(6), 694–714. Lu, K. (2017). Growth in mobile news use driven by older adults. Retrieved from: www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/12/growth-in-mobile-news-use-driven-by-older­ adults.

136 Harald Rau and Annika Ehlers

Luo, X., Andrews, M., Fang, Z., Phang, C. & Aaker, D. A. (2014). Mobile targeting. Management Science, 60(7), 1738–1756. Martin, E., Liu, L., Covington, M., Pesti, P. & Weber, M. (2010). Positioning technolo­ gies in location-based services. In Ahson, S. & Ilyas, M. (Eds.), Location-based services handbook: Applications, technologies, and security (pp. 1–46). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Masters, H. (2014). Location based services: Developments and privacy issues. New York: Nova Science. Mazaheri, A., Rafiee, N. & Khadivi, P. (2010). Location based targeted advertising using bayesian network and fuzzy topsis. 5th International Symposium on Telecommunica­ tions. Retrieved from: 10.1109/ISTEL.2010.5734103. Metzgar, E., Kurpius, D. & Rowley, K. (2011). Defining hyperlocal media: Proposing a framework for discussion. New Media & Society, 13(5), 772–787. Molitor, D., Reichart, P. & Spann, M. (2012). Location-based advertising: What is the value of physical distance on the mobile Internet? Retrieved from: https://wcai.wharton.upenn. edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Spann_Value_of_Distance_Mobile_Internet.pdf. Nayak, M. (2016). Seventy-five per cent of Internet use in 2017 will be mobile: Report. Retrieved from: www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-mobilephone/seventy-five­ percent-of-internet-use-in-2017-will-be-mobile-report-idUSKCN12S29L. Nyre, L., Bjørnestad, S., Tessem, B. & Øie, K. V. (2012). Locative journalism: Designing a location-dependent news medium for smartphones. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(3), 297–314. Øie, K. (2012). Sensing the news: User experiences when reading locative news. Future Internet, 4(4), 161–178. Putzke, J., Schoder, D. & Fischbach, K. (2010). Adoption of mass-customized newspapers: An augmented technology acceptance perspective. Journal of Media Economics, 23(3), 143–164. Rau, H. & Ehlers, A. (2017). Location Based Services – alles eine Frage der Akzeptanz. In W. Seufert (Ed.), Media economics revisited (pp. 257–284). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Schmitz Weiss, A. (2013). Exploring news apps and location-based services on the smartphone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(3), 435–456. Schmitz Weiss, A. (2014). Place-based knowledge in the twenty-first century. Digital Journalism, 3(1), 116–131. Schoder, D., Sick, S., Putzke, J. & Kaplan, A. M. (2006). Mass customization in the newspaper industry: Consumers’ attitudes toward individualized media innovations. International Journal on Media Management, 8(1), 9–18. Skeldon, P. (2011). Location-based ads starting to drive mobile and high street shopping, US study finds. Retrieved from: http://internetretailing.net/2011/02/location-based­ ads-starting-to-drive-mobile-and-high-street-shopping-us-study-finds. Tang, T. & Lai, C.-H. (2018). Managing old and new in local newsrooms: An analysis of generation C’s multiplatform local news repertoires. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(1), 42–56. Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007). Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile locationbased advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 28–40. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Westlund, O. (2013). Mobile news: A review and model of journalism in an age of mobile media. Digital Journalism, 1(1), 6–26.

Location-Based Services 137

Westlund, O. & Färdigh, M. A. (2014). Accessing the news in an age of mobile media: Tracing displacing and complementary effects of mobile news on newspapers and online news. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(1), 53–74. White, D., Pennycook, L., Perrin, W. & Hartley, S. (2017). The future’s bright but the future’s local: The rise of hyperlocal journalism in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Journalism and Media, 6(1), 71–82. Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M. & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision-making process for location-aware market­ ing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42–52. Xu, H., Oh, L. B., & Teo, H. H. (2009). Perceived effectiveness of text vs. multimedia location-based advertising messaging. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 7, 154–177. Yang, M. J. & Chyi, H. I. (2011). Competing with Whom? Where? and Why (not)? An empirical study of U.S. online newspapers’ competition dynamics . Journal of Media Business Studies, 8(4), 59–74.

9 SUSTAINING SMALL TELEVISION ECOSYSTEMS Lessons from Policy-Driven Research in Flanders Tim Raats IMEC-SMIT, VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL

Introduction In recent years, policymakers in small media markets have expressed increasing concern regarding the sustainability of domestic original television production, and the respective broadcasting and production industries (Raats et al., 2016). The pressure on traditional business models and revenue streams, following an increase in ad-skipping and a migration of advertisement spending to online players (Lotz, 2007), alongside the surge in competition with video-on-demand players, particularly succeeding the entrance and popularity of over-the-top (OTT) players such as Netflix in domestic European markets, have been fuelling these concerns (Evens & Donders, 2018; Lobato, 2019). Policymakers fear that increased competition will lead to an even higher fragmentation of audiovisual production financing, especially in television, where streaming players rarely compensate for the investments made by broadcasters, the traditional financiers of domestic television content. In Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium), the importance of TV production sustainability has been high on the agenda since then Minister of Media, Sven Gatz, took office in 2015. The Minister emphasised the increased importance of high-end drama export capacity, the prioritisation of screenwriting and compelling storytelling, the protection of volume and diversity of current investments in television and production, and the paramount benefit of sustaining the ‘flourishing’ independent TV production industry in Flanders. Over the past two decades, several mechanisms were launched to support independent TV production in the highly fragile Flemish market. The Flanders Media Fund (Mediafonds) was launched in 2010 as a support mechanism for highquality television. Four years later, an additional decree that obliged TV service providers (cable distributors, on-demand players) to invest in the production of

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 139

original, local TV content was also passed (Raats et al., 2014, 2016). Partly pres­ sured by the domestic TV industry, that was keen on receiving higher levels of support, and inspired by the success of the Danish TV drama production model (e.g. Novrup Redvall, 2013; Jensen et al., 2016), which had gained international praise and had generated significant global sales, following the success of The Killing, Bron/Broen, and Borgen, policymakers felt a strong need to evaluate the impact of these mechanisms and potentially review current levels of funding for these mechanisms. As part of transposing this new policy agenda, the Minister of Media and the Department of Culture Youth and Media (DCYM) commissioned a first study in June 2016 and a follow-up study in the summer of 2018. Both were conducted by Econopolis, a financial consulting agency also engaged in contract research on creative industries, in collaboration with imec-SMIT-VUB, a research institute affiliated to the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Both studies can be seen as part of a larger ‘media ecosystem’ agenda (Donders et al., 2018), based on partnerships and continuous dialogue with industry and policy, and heavily pushed by a rhetoric of shared fate (in this case ‘our local content is under pressure if we do not stand together’) and common adversaries (in this case being Netflix and Google). The first study (Econopolis, 2017) involved an evaluation of the Flanders Media Fund and the investment obligation for TV service providers, and the formulation of recommendations for preserving and increasing Flemish TV content’s sustain­ ability. The second study (Econopolis, 2018) was commissioned after a stand-still in discussions between broadcasters and distributors to reach an agreement on tackling decreased ad-revenues, following the spectacular uptake in ad-skipping in Flanders since 2016. Both reports were made available for wider audiences. The research resulted in a series of recommendations aimed at keeping domestic TV production sustainable in Flanders. They have directly paved the way forward for a number of policy decisions taken at the level of the Minister of Media, which include, among others, an increase of the Flanders Media Fund’s budget, the launch of an invest­ ment obligation for OTT players like Netflix (see Donders et al., 2018) and have formalised dialogue between different media players. This chapter presents an overview of the collaboration with policymakers and industry players in these studies. It focuses particularly on the relevance of both stu­ dies for policymaking as well as academic research, and the tension between pro­ viding future-oriented research that anticipates policy change and providing evidence-based research to legitimate past policy decisions. In the chapter I first present the context of the study and the sustainability of domestic television in small media markets, with a particular emphasis on TV fiction, followed by the second and third parts in which the research’s process and the outcome of both studies are dis­ cussed. The fourth section looks into the pitfalls and advantages of research colla­ borations with industries and policymakers. It also aims to provide potential strategies to mitigate these risks. The lessons learned in this chapter reflect the views of the author only, who was involved in both studies as one of the lead researchers.

140 Tim Raats

Context of the Studies New services and players in the audiovisual industry have put pressure on existing financing models for television content. This is particularly the case for small media markets, which are characterised by limited resources: for example, public service broadcasters have a smaller budget than their counterparts in large markets; adver­ tising revenues of free-to-air commercial broadcasters are lower compared to larger markets; there are fewer options for recouping investments through retail and video-on-demand (Bignell & Fickers, 2008; Berg, 2011; Lowe & Nissen, 2011; Puppis & Künzler, 2013). This results in limited budgets available for domestic TV production, which in turn affects the potential of cross-border distribution since these low-budget series face much harder competition from big-budget TV pro­ ductions originating from the US. In Flanders for example, purchasing foreign drama is 11 times cheaper than investing in domestic drama, while the production cost of foreign series can go up to nine times the budget of Flemish series (Wauters & Raats, 2018). Despite the significant cost of domestic production compared to content acquisition, broadcasters continue to invest large sums of money in domestic productions. The main reason for this is that domestic drama attracts large audiences (Picard, 2011). Different forms of policy support have been set up across Europe in order to overcome the challenges of small markets, most of them in the form of direct subsidies or indirect fiscal measures for production (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2017). However, broadcasters, who are the main financiers of original domestic con­ tent, are being hit hard by changing market conditions (see Doyle, 2016; Lotz, 2007; Lobato, 2019). First, media use has shifted towards on-demand (VOD) and subscription-based services (SVOD) provided by national distributors and telecoms, or by international OTT platforms such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, whose high-quality offerings for a relatively small monthly subscription fee compete directly with traditional broadcasters’ offerings. Furthermore, these new players also invest in competitive high-end and big-budget original programming. While players like Netflix could provide opportunities for the export of TV drama pro­ duced in small markets, it is less likely that they will allocate significant budgets to original content in small markets. Secondly, broadcasters have come under increasing pressure due to the shift of advertising spending from traditional media (print, radio, TV and cinema) to Internet and mobile advertising, where international platforms such as Google and Facebook take the highest shares of the market (Evens & Donders, 2018). According to the European Audiovisual Observatory (2018), more than half of all online advertisement spending in Europe is commanded by Facebook and Google. Thirdly, delayed viewing puts significant pressure on free-to-air broadcasting investments in domestic content. Ironically, the most expensive genres, such as TV drama, also exhibit the highest rates of ad-skipping, which increases the exerted pressure on media production’s sustainability. According to data provided by the

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 141

European Broadcasting Union (cited in Econopolis, 2018, p. 9), Flanders, together with Switzerland reached up to 16.7% of ad-skipping in 2017. In peak time and for TV drama, figures of ad-skipping go up to 65.6%. This is dramatically, especially since commercial broadcasters in Flanders have always been important for sustain­ ing investments in local original production. In fact, for many years, the two main private broadcasters (DPG Media and SBS) have commissioned higher levels of TV fiction than public broadcaster VRT (Raats et al., 2014). Despite increased pressure on domestic content in smaller markets, however, the success of Nordic Noir or recent popularity of crime drama from the Frenchspeaking part of Belgium show the potential for revenue generated from export, and thus the potential for sustaining TV production in small markets. Yet, the same examples convincingly show the necessity of a clear business strategy and smart policy choices that puts storytelling and quality at the forefront (Novrup Redvall, 2013).

Contents and Process of the Studies This chapter reports on two studies commissioned by the Minister of Media and the Department of Culture, Youth and Media (DCYM) on the basis of a tender application that was sent to universities’ research departments and a number of consultancy agencies. Having experience with government-commissioned research, Econopolis and imec-SMIT-VUB partnered up to conduct both studies. The first study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the audiovisual policy and to formulate policy recommendations that would serve the negotiations between the government and the Flanders Audiovisual Fund (VAF) for their management contract renewal (for the period 2018–2021) (VAF, 2018). The second study was launched as a follow-up. Following the recommendations of the previous study, the Minister of Media sought to facilitate a dialogue between broadcasters and distributors on the issue of ad-skipping and possible mechanisms for intervening the discussion in case the negotiations would fail. Methodologically, both studies relied on a combination of document analysis (annual reports, financial statements), analysis of quantitative data (audience metrics, awarded projects, budgetary data, etc. obtained from different industry stakeholders and audiovisual agencies or policymakers) and stakeholder inter­ views. For both studies, regular meetings were planned between the research team and representatives of the Media Cabinet (the Ministerial Department) and the DCYM (the Government administration). Additional meetings were added during the process, according to the availability of specific key representatives of the Government (including the Minister), which further earmarked its strategic relevance. Table 9.1 outlines the requested tasks for both studies, and how the research team split these into subtasks and methods.

TABLE 9.1 Studies and Their Respective Subtasks and Methods

Study

Subtasks

Methods

Study 1: Assess­ ment of the audiovisual policy in Flanders & pre­ sentation of policy recommendations (2016)

Creation of an overview of support by the Flanders Media Fund and the Stimulation Decree, and a stakeholder evaluation of its effectiveness and efficiency

Analysis of data from the Flanders Audiovisual Fund (VAF), DCYM, and distributors; 18 interviews with key representatives (broadcasters, funds/agencies, distributors, producers, government) Analysis of data from the VAF

Analysis of the budgets of the Flanders Audiovisual Fund Analysis of the strengths of the Danish TV drama model given the domestic and international popularity of Danish TV drama

Analysis of trends affecting TV drama production (advertisement, cut-backs, new distribution platforms)

Study 2: Followup study with the focus on sustainability of production, aggregation and distribution of television content in Flanders (2018)

Calculation of the net cost per window (free-to-air, preview and VOD) for Flemish content in order to come to a better framework for negotiation between producers, distributors and broadcasters on the management and exploitation of secondary rights Presentation of durable policy recommendations Update on different market trends (OTT penetration and market share, ad-skipping percentages) Creation of an overview of the different subscription formula and tariffs of cable and telco distributors for television and pay-tv since the introduction of digital television Economic assessment of the available funding for TV content in Flanders Calculation of the impact of ad-skipping on the net revenue of private broadcasters in Flanders Estimation of the return in different potential scenarios preventing part or full possibilities of ad-skipping

Desk research of Danish scholarly work; analysis of annual reports of DR, Danish Film Institute, Copenhagen Film Fund, Nordvision and Nordisk; Eight interviews with broadcasters, funds/agencies and producers in Denmark Analysis of primary data from broadcasters and distributors, secondary data of market trends research reports and databases (e. g. IHS Market, Statista, etc.) Analysis of data from other European markets (UK, France, Netherlands), input from VOD platforms, distributors, broadcasters and producers

Based on the conclusions of the overall study Analysis of data from broadcasters and distributors, and secondary data from trend market reports and databases Desk research of newspaper articles, press releases and announcements, data from the Flemish Regulator for Media and consumer representative organisations Interviews and meetings with broadcasters, distributors and producers Calculation based on data from ad-skipped viewing and revenue per advertisement slot Scenario analysis based on the results of the above

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 143

Outcome of the Studies The fact that this research clearly served a strategic agenda of the Minister for govern­ ment and industry action benefited the public exposure. Both studies were presented in public (involving press statements and interviews given by the Minister, parliamentary hearings and additional presentations for industry bodies such as the Media Council). More importantly, however, the studies also served specific policy decisions.

First Study Outcome The first inquiry provided a strategy for sustainable TV fiction in Flanders. It presented a ‘virtuous cycle’ where more public funding would increase budgets for screenwriting and production budgets, bringing as such benefits to the production quality and diversity of content, and in turn providing more access to the interna­ tional market and return on investment for domestic players. The results revealed a fragmentation of existing resources: despite increasing pressure on the funding of the Media Fund, more projects have been awarded support over the years. This resulted in lower grants per project, which in turn impeded the quality and export potential of these series. Analysis of all TV drama productions’ budgets from 2009 onwards, revealed that budgets of TV drama series in Flanders have gone up over the past decade, from €440,000 per episode (in 2012) to €521,000 (in 2017) (Econopolis, 2017, p. 47) for projects that were awarded Media Fund support. Projects that did not get support showed an average budget of €264,000 (in 2012) going up to €304,000 (in 2017). Five main objectives, each time backed with several recommendations, were put forward to develop a sustainable audiovisual ecosystem: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

‘Evolve toward an integrated film and television policy’: this involves, amongst others, a better coordination of existing training initiatives in the audiovisual sector. ‘Everybody contributes to the ecosystem’: the researchers called for struc­ tural dialogue between broadcasters and distributors, and an extension of the existing investment obligation to include players such as Netflix. ‘Put screenwriting at the core of the fiction value chain’: this included a call for higher grants for screenwriting and prioritisation of screenwriting in training initiatives. ‘Scale and sustainable funding are crucial’: recommendations included the possibility of the Media Fund to award sequels as well, award more funding to less projects, increased involvement of the VRT as a match-maker for international financial deals, and obliging rights holders to commercialise all potential windows. ‘More flexibility for the Media Fund’: this included, aside from more financing, the call to expand support to high-end series as well as online TV

144 Tim Raats

drama, and a call to get additional funding to better monitor market trends and audiovisual sector’s financial performance. We calculated that ideally, the Media Fund would receive €13.6 million, with a minimum of €9.5 million to be effective (based on an estimation of the required volume and award per project).

First Study Impact The study underpinned the Minister’s decision to grant the Media Fund more financing; it led to a series of changes at the level of the Film Fund, including a new categorisation of TV projects (see VAF, 2018), increased support for screenwriting grants for high-end drama from €25,000 to 75,000 and increased overall grants per project (up to €1,250,000 per project). The recommendations of the study were also referred to by the Minister to back a new investment obligation for ondemand audiovisual players – following regulatory practices in France and Ger­ many – as Netflix, to contribute to original Flemish audiovisual production.

Second Study Outcome The second study provided various insights on the status of delayed viewing and advertisement income in the Flemish media market. Our own calculations based on audience data of broadcasters and distributors showed that up to 4% of total viewing in Flanders (between 18–23h) is taken up by SVOD players such as Netflix. Average viewing in minutes/day in Flanders slightly increased from 109 minutes (in 2008) to 112 minutes (in 2018), while live viewing decreased from 109 minutes (in 2008) to 83 minutes (in 2018). The data shows that average delayed viewing between 17–24h reaches up to 32.7% in the commercial target group 18–54, which means that advertisement losses are much higher than previously expected, as these are peak hours and thus relevant audiences for advertisers. Comparisons with data from other countries (collected via broadcasters, EBU and audience metrics companies) revealed that in terms of delayed viewing Flanders is amongst the highest in Europe (together with Switzerland), and that a clear link can be established between cable penetration and delayed viewing. The study found that delayed viewing (contrary to what the previous study showed) also increased in all genres including sports, news and all channels, including the public broadcaster whose programmes are not interrupted by commercials. Estimates based on the total programming budgets of all broadcasters and distributors (based on undisclosed data received from key industry stakeholders) show that on average €567 million is invested in original programming. The study recommended significantly increasing the level of targeted ads as they generate much higher return for broadcasters, and to explore the potential of a limited number of non-skippable advertisements, both in catch-up and in recorded programmes. The study explicitly did not wish to specify an exact number of ads or minutes per hour and as such, left this open for negotiation.

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 145

Second Study Impact Following the second study, which was delivered at the end of October 2018, representatives from broadcasters and distributors were invited for a closed meeting at the Minister’s office, where the results were presented. Stakeholders were invi­ ted to provide input and comments on the study’s recommendations in the weeks following the presentation. While most stakeholders effectively contributed to the consultation, the effect remains limited. Private negotiations did take place between industry stakeholders, however, on a highly strategic level and mainly serving direct interests rather than a joint sustainable solution. On 13 February 2019, a new hearing, a public one this time, was organised by the Flemish Parlia­ ment. The study was often referred to, yet the hearing mostly echoed statements already put forward on several earlier occasions: a need to counter the impact of ad-skipping, and a call to collaborate on what has been coined as a ‘Flemish Net­ flix’ in media and policy discussions. Parallel to the discussions taking place, TV distributors Telenet and Proximus presented new subscription packages for pre­ mium services that were seen as harming the interest of domestic broadcasters, while broadcaster DPG Media rolled-out an app-based streaming service (with non-skippable advertisements) in the form of VTM.Go. Unsurprisingly, both events reduced chances of reaching an agreement even more.

The Perks of Collaborating with Industries and Policymakers Over the past two decades, the use of research as part of policymaking in Flanders has markedly increased. This has mostly resulted from the increased importance given to evidence-based policymaking and the increasing complexity of media economics and their impact on the Flemish market. Recent studies include, aside from the studies discussed in this chapter, an evaluation of video game support policy (Raats et al., 2016), the sustainability of regional broadcasting (PPM, 2016) or stakeholder con­ sultations into the role of the public service broadcaster VRT (Raats et al., 2015). The rationale is that policy decisions are more effective and trustworthy when informed by all knowledge and insights readily available. Media policy decisions are often sup­ ported by contract research from universities or consultancy agencies. Generally, there seems to be a clear preference in government and industry-driven research for ‘hard data’, which results in a clear preference for quantifiable findings and making more qualitative research or mixed methods approaches more difficult to defend, or at least to be treated with the same attention (Raats, 2019). At its worst, this might result in research that privileges quantitative data and attractive easy-to-grasp graphs over sci­ entifically backed insights revealing significantly bigger complexities. Although both our studies combined quantitative and qualitative analyses, government and press communications following from our studies only presented quantitative data. From an academic perspective, the main advantage of studies like these is the momentum they create. Being government-commissioned research projects allows

146 Tim Raats

for quicker access to research data, as players often willingly collaborate or feel it is somehow necessary to get involved as part of keeping government ties optimal. For the first study, the Film Fund offered quantitative output of support projects and was open for additional feedback throughout the entire research project. Var­ ious senior staff members of media companies shared confidential data during var­ ious meetings and follow-up meetings on advertisement revenues, programme cost, subscription numbers and ad-skipping. The input from the interviews was highly relevant, involving different confidential aspects that were given in an open and constructive way, as we were very clear about how we would use the data. This clearly served the recommendations, which were a translation of concerns and issues raised in interviews. Another factor which might have benefited this is that only senior researchers with experience in the field and knowledge of the media stakeholders and their interests were involved in the interviews and discussions with industry and policymakers. Projects like these also allow close collaboration and access to the government itself, especially in a small market like Flanders. On multiple occasions, in both studies, the head of the media cabinet and the Minister of Media took part in meetings on the progress of the work. Furthermore, the momentum created by these research projects allows an outlet for academic researchers to share their views and work with broader communities other than their academic peers. Both studies formed the starting point of our involvement in boards and councils, parliamentary hearings or informal advice sessions. Indirectly, the research thus forms an inroad for future data collection, as well as extending the professional network and increasing visibility of the academic host institution and/or research centre.

The Challenges of Doing Policy Research Despite the clear advantages, our involvement in these two contract studies also reveals a series of challenges for researchers in this type of policy-driven contract research.

Challenge 1: Safeguarding Autonomy and Independence A first challenge relates to safeguarding autonomy and independence of research at all times, especially when industry lobbying for a clear policy solution is intense, and when policymakers have already indicated their intention to progress in developing measures based on the study, or, when working with data that is difficult to access and that is provided by third-party stakeholders. Here, it is often difficult to clarify the validity of the data, which also poses specific challenges when later transposing the research into peer-reviewed academic publications. Unsurprisingly, stakeholders that expect to get the biggest gain from the study’s outcome are usually also the ones that are the most cooperative.

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 147

A lot of the potential obstacles related to independence can be discussed beforehand and even included in the proposal when tendering for a government study or discussions during the first meetings with the contractor(s). Some aspects, however, are more difficult to mitigate as they relate to more subtle forms of bias. For example, in the case of both our studies, the DCYM published very specific briefings on the different aspects they wanted included in the analysis and which were considered a priority for the government. In the Media Fund’s evaluation, for example, several factors were put forward that related to the economic impact of the Media Fund (number of projects, budgets of projects, export, etc.), while cul­ tural and more qualitative factors were not included (partly because they are also more difficult to ‘measure’). In the second study the central aim was to identify key trends in ad-skipping and premium content consumption from conducted inter­ views with different stakeholders in order to get clear scenarios and ways forward for industry and policy. However, to what extent these scenarios would be wel­ comed by audiences was not part of the study and might have revealed a strong opposition for scenarios where ad-skipping for television is blocked. This obser­ vation is in line with Freedman’s (2010, p. 4) observations on ‘media policy silen­ ces’. Freedman warns that policy researchers might be blinded by the ‘current rush of legislative and regulatory initiatives’ only, rather than focusing on the questions not asked, the decisions not taken, or, in this case, the research that is commis­ sioned at a certain time and in a certain policy context. More difficult to mitigate, especially since researchers often lack time, capacity and a forum to actively follow-up on press statements or political rhetoric, is managing a perceived lack of independence from the researchers, irrespective of the extent to which this is actually the case. Especially in highly politicised issues, tendentious questions in debates can be addressed on specific choices researchers made when including cases and stakeholders, why specific aspects were not considered, why specific stakeholders’ opinions diverted from what was said in press statements, and others. Often, factors such as time constraints, lack of data or availability of the sta­ keholder are explanatory, yet they might destabilise researchers while presenting and defending their results. For researchers, the best way to mitigate perceived biases is to clearly describe why specific cases were chosen and others were not or to what extent the contractor was involved in defining specific cases.

Challenge 2: No Grip on the Use of the Results by Policymakers A second problem relates to the use of the evidence and results presented by the researchers. As Freedman (2008, p. 97) rightfully points out, the relationship between research evidence and politics is ambiguous, to say the least. Freedman refers, amongst others, to how evidence is always interpreted according to the ideological, personal or emotive beliefs and seldom a rational translation of evi­ dence into policy. According to Freedman, evidence-based policy tends to mar­ ginalise ‘more critical and conceptually minded academics’ (p. 101), which in turn

148 Tim Raats

contributes to a field which becomes ‘instrumental and dominated by corporate interests’ (p. 101). Recommendations of studies like the ones presented in this chapter are seldom rationally translated into policies. Instead, they lead to forms of ‘argument cherry picking’, i.e. when policymakers take out specific elements that support their claims, plans, budgets or ideological beliefs, etc. while other aspects are overlooked or are not included in policy based on the research. This was very much the case in the stakeholder consultations and benchmark studies conducted in preparation for the management contract renewal between the Flemish government and VRT, where both defenders and opponents of the public broadcaster referred to findings of the same report (Donders et al., 2018). In practice, how useful research results are for policymakers depends on the easiness to transpose them in terms of cost, legal constraints, number of stake­ holders involved, public attractiveness of a measure, and other contextual factors. For example, in the first study, various concerns were voiced by stakeholders relating to the investment obligation for service providers of TV fiction (see Don­ ders et al., 2018), recommending an amendment to an already complex decree that would almost certainly not meet the demand of all players and would be difficult to put into practice. Other recommendations, such as the demand for an obligation for VOD players, set out from an entirely new arrangement, would gain high public attention and are thus picked up more easily – albeit highly defendable according to the report – as a priority for government. In addition, policy-driven contract research not only aims to shape the development of future policies, it also helps to legitimise decisions already planned but requiring additional evidence to support them. In our first study, claims on the necessity for more financing for the Media Fund were already voiced on various occasions and were also part of the policy agenda. The results of the study then clearly supported the claims of the Minister and backed the media cabinet in their call to expand the budget of the Media Fund.

Challenge 3: No Grip on the Public Discussions of Research Results It is, thirdly, also difficult to keep control of researchers’ own messages and recommendations and how they are being framed in policy, press and public debate. This was very much the case in both our studies. In the first study, the results of the research were presented in a parliamentary hearing where private broadcasters were invited. This inevitably narrowed a highly complex policy issue on how to keep the Flemish audiovisual ecosystem sustainable to a discussion on how to keep private broadcasters alive. Other factors that did not come up were how cut-backs on the public broadcaster affect the ecosystem, how private players are cannibalising their own business by competing in a rat race for producing and commissioning domestic content, how limited remuneration for authors (screen­ writers, directors) affects the number of projects they have to work on and thus inevitably leading to pressure on quality, or how the highly fragmented education

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 149

system for audiovisual professions provides much more skilled professionals than there are jobs in the industry. Shortly after its public release, the second study was picked up in the press as a green light to support the development of a ‘Flemish Netflix’, a partnership-based SVOD service with Flemish original television content, similar to initiatives as Britbox (UK), NLZiet (the Netherlands) and Salto (France). While the study suggested that the addition of a new player would theoretically be realistic in the Flemish market, it also stated that the success of shared VOD platforms depends on various factors (willingness of the public broadcaster to contribute, the size of content catalogues, the ability to produce distinctive new premium content on the platform, etc.). Discussion on the feasibility of a ‘Flemish Netflix’ player was highly debated on social media, and often based on inconsistent interpretations of the study’s opinion leaders.

Challenge 4: Practical Organisation of the Work A fourth challenge relates to the practical organisation of research. The two studies were commissioned with a quite strict deadline and had to be conducted within a limited set timeframe (respectively five and four months). Additionally, especially when data is required from third parties (for example in the form of interviews and focus groups), practical constraints come to attention. As a further matter, studies are often commissioned in preparation of future policy works and have in Flanders often been running during the summer months, which makes it difficult to reach stakeholders. In both our studies, and always in close collaboration with the con­ tractor, deadlines shifted as the projects progressed, partly due to practical con­ straints such as setting up meetings with stakeholders and partly because additional questions were posed by the government for further investigation. As researchers, we found that the best way to approach this field was to do regular follow-up meetings with the same stakeholders, in continuous dialogue with the cabinet. This approach clearly increases access to important data and evidence, yet it also intensifies the pressure on the budget and timing of the project. Furthermore, the work might be asked to be presented in parliamentary hearings, to stakeholders or academic peers, and as such, might lead to additional clarifying questions to be asked, which have to be taken into account from the outset when starting the research. Both our studies have been picked up widely and researchers have been invited to present the results on various occasions.

Challenge 5: Adapting the Results into a Specific Narrative and Tone of Voice A final observation is that presenting evidence and recommendations for policy­ makers requires a different tone, style and format than the one used in academic research. This explains why governments prefer the accessibility and attractiveness

150 Tim Raats

of many consultancy reports. Academic reports and publications often follow a similar pattern in which a clear research question and hypothesis are put forward, followed by a literature review, methodological description, analysis and conclu­ sions. In contract research like ours, the aim is to present recommendations based on evidence, which basically implies to use ‘only relevant knowledge and data necessary as evidence to support the argument is included’ (Young & Quinn, 2002, p. 19). When communicating with policymakers, the clarity of the message becomes crucial, yet it represents a challenge when dealing with multifaceted and complex issues and research (Okaka et al., 2016). Rather than presenting the diversity of the work or the chronology in which the research took place, the structure of the report should build towards the recommendations. Writing a policy report is not policymaking, so researchers need to find a right balance in terms of detail and prescription. From a policy perspective, the outcome is more important than the process of the research. Too many precautionary warnings on how to interpret the data or contextualise and nuance the results, or elaborate lit­ erature and methodological descriptions might obscure the clarity of the recom­ mendations or the impact of the message. The key is to present findings in a comprehensible way by simplifying research results and transcending complexity, without hampering the validity of the results or overlooking necessary details required to interpret the data in a correct manner. Researchers may also find it difficult to take a specific position and present a clear argument in a limited number of words. Based on our two studies, as well as other research projects for governments and media regulators, we found that the value of one’s recommendations increases if one gives an indication of: (1) What is the desirable outcome, and what is the most feasible outcome? (2) What is the timeframe in which these recommendations need/could (to) be translated into policy measures? (3) What resources are needed to realise the recommendations? In the first study, the policy recommendations formed the core of the report. Rather than developing various chapters with evidence (which, given the various inter­ views, data analysis, literature review and case studies, would have been an option), specific parts of the results were clustered to support five key recommendations (see above). In order to connect these results with the recommendations, the research­ ers used additional statistics, tables and figures to contextualise the Flemish ecosys­ tem, and structure the results within a narrative, thus guiding the reader towards the recommendations. For the second study, an adjacent management summary containing ten recommendations was provided to the government and selected industry partners in preparation for future formal negotiations. Both reports were developed in the form of an extensive slide-set presentation. This structure allowed researchers to easily communicate progress on the research to the steering group and develop a document that easily allowed the addition of various evidence, findings and arguments along the way. The use of a visual and comprehensive slide-set report allowed broad communication, which also increased the use of the report in other forms of communication. The downside of the slide-set is that it

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 151

does not cover the nuance and detail that is often necessary to avoid specific interpretations, bias or to clarify specific choices made as researchers. To avoid misinterpretation, the recommendations in the second study that were provided separately, were written down in full text.

Conclusions and Discussion This chapter provided an overview of conducting two policy-driven contract research projects in Flanders. Both studies followed an increased concern for the sustainability of the Flemish audiovisual ecosystem, which has been heavily affected by increased adskipping, migration of advertisement revenues, the introduction of new players such as Netflix and pressure on public spending for original content production. The chapter has highlighted the clear importance of backing policy by research-based evidence, and has highlighted both the studies’ direct impact, resulting in specific mea­ sures developed at the level of the Flanders Media Fund and Flemish Government, and its indirect impact, backing the government’s clear wish to enforce an agreement between broadcasters and distributors, without the necessity of legal intervention. At the same time, the chapter has highlighted a number of obstacles, mostly related to the use and interpretation of research results, as well as the challenges of safeguarding research independence and avoiding policy or industry bias. It showed that, especially for academic researchers, the format of contract research also poses challenges in terms of the way results and recommendations are pre­ sented. Five challenges were highlighted: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Safeguarding independence and autonomy of the research. These could be partly mitigated by clear communication on the limits of the work and the context in which the work takes place, as well as clear dialogue with the contractor. A lack of impact on how the results are used by politicians in future policies, as they often set out from pragmatic choices. Options to mitigate might be to prioritise recommendations and be as clear as possible on the feasibility and outcome of recommendations. A lack of impact on how results will be interpreted and used in public dis­ cussions and press; the latter is difficult to manage, yet clarity of the message, avoiding ambiguities and presenting data in an accessible way might counter some of the associated struggles. Practical organisation of policy contract research, which could be partly addressed by involving senior research staff and a highly flexible working structure allowing multiple tasks to take place in parallel. Presenting the research results in an attractive, comprehensible narrative that makes it easy for policymakers to interpret the message, while avoiding redundant research contextualisation (which by no means implies abandon­ ing systematic analysis or academic rigour).

152 Tim Raats

Despite the aforementioned challenges, projects like these provide an extremely important inroad for developing expertise in the field, directly in the form of get­ ting access to different forms of stakeholders and data and indirectly by gaining knowledge that steers future research projects and more fundamental research tracks. For policymakers, involving media economic and media management researchers in developing policies, be it in the form of consulted advisors or through studies like these, is key. Media management researchers can broaden existing policy perspectives, can underpin decisions by estimating the likely impact, or add detailed expertise in complex dossiers. In the projects presented, collabora­ tion with the media industry and media policymakers in Flanders has been overall positive, as the Flanders Media Fund/VAF as well as all policymakers involved have provided access, constructive criticism and debate, and at no time have put pressure on steering the recommendations in a specific direction. The fact that studies like these are being commissioned – despite open to criticism – also shows a clear preference for policies that are backed by a multitude of stakeholders, com­ parisons and lessons learned from other markets, and expertise from researchers with a track record in the field.

Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank all researchers involved in both studies, all industry and government partners involved in the studies, and Adelaida Afflipoaie for her helpful suggestions and comments. The views and experiences presented in this chapters are the author’s own.

References Berg, C. E. (2011). Sizing up size on TV markets: Why David would lose to Goliath. In G. F. Lowe & C. S. Nissen (Eds.), Small among giants: Television broadcasting in smaller countries (pp. 57–89). Göteborg: Nordicom. Bignell, J. & Fickers, A. (2008). A European television history. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Donders, K., Raats, T., Komorowski, M., Kostovska, I., Tintel, S. & Iordache, C. (2018). Obligations on on-demand audiovisual media services providers to financially contribute to the production of European works: An analysis of European Member States’ practices. Brussels: imec-SMIT-VUB. Donders, K., Raats, T. & Van den Bulck, H. (2018). The politics of pleasing: A critical analysis of multistakeholderism in public service media policies in Flanders. Media, Cul­ ture and Society, 41(3), 347–366. Doyle, G. (2016). Digitization and changing windowing strategies in the television indus­ try: Negotiating new windows on the world. Television and New Media, 17(7), 629–645. Econopolis. (2017). Doorlichting van het audiovisuele beleid in Vlaanderen. Wilrijk: Econopolis & imec-SMIT-VUB. Econopolis. (2018). Leefbaarheid van productie, aggregatie en distributie van audiovisuele content in Vlaanderen. Wilrijk: Econopolis & imec-SMIT-VUB.

Sustaining Small Television Ecosystems 153

European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO). (2017). Public financing for film and television content: The state of soft money in Europe. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory. European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO). (2018). Online video sharing: Offerings, audiences, economic aspects. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory. Evens, T. & Donders, K. (2018). Platform power and policies in transforming television markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge: Polity. Freedman, D. (2010). Media policy silences: The hidden face of communications decisionmaking. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(3), 344–361. Jensen, P. M., Nielsen, J. & Waade, A.-M. (2016). When public service drama travels: The internationalization of Danish television drama and the associated production funding models’. The Journal of Popular Television, 4(1), 91–108. Lobato, R. (2019). Netflix nations: The geography of digital distribution. New York: New York University Press. Lotz, A. D. (2007). The television will be revolutionized. New York: New York University Press. Lowe, G. F. & Nissen, C. S. (2011). Small among giants: Television broadcasting in smaller countries. Gothenborg: Nordicom. Novrup Redvall, E. (2013). Writing and producing television drama in Denmark. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Okaka, W., Nagasha, I. J. & Ayikoru, J. (Eds.) (2016). Communicating policy, research and development: Communication for sustainable development. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Picard, R. (2011). Broadcast economics, challenges of scale, and country size. In G. F. Lowe & C. S. Nissen (Eds.), Small among giants: Television broadcasting in smaller countries (pp. 43–56). Nordicom: Göteborg. Podium Performance Management (PPM). (2016). Studie leefbaarheid regionale tv-omroepen (2012–2016). Antwerp: PPM. Puppis M. & Künzler M. (2013). Private television in small European states: Ireland, Aus­ tria and Switzerland. In K. Donders, C. Pauwels & J. Loisen (Eds.), Private television in Western Europe (pp. 85–101). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Raats, T. (2019). Writing policy reports. In M. Puppis, H. Van den Bulck, K. Donders & L. Van Audenhove (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research (pp. 611–626). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Raats, T., Evens, T., Braet, O., Ruelens, S., Schooneknaep, I., Ballon, P. & Loisen, J. (2014). Duurzame financieringsmodellen voor Vlaamse televisiefictie. Brussel-Gent: iMindsSMIT & iMinds-MICT. Raats, T., Evens, T. & Ruelens, S. (2016). Challenges for sustaining local audiovisual ecosystems: Analysis of financing and production of domestic TV fiction in small media markets. Journal of Popular Television, 4(1), 129–147. Raats, T., Evens, T., Vanhaeght, A-S., Ruelens, S. & Loisen, J. (2015). Stakeholderbevraging ter voorbereiding van de nieuwe beheersovereenkomst van de VRT met de Vlaamse Regering. Brussel-Gent: iMinds-SMIT & iMinds-MICT. Raats, T., Waeben, J., Bleumers, L., Ruelens, S., Vandenplas, R., Vermeulen, L. & Van Looy, J. (2016). Doorlichting van het Vlaams gamingbeleid. Gent-Brussel: imec-MICT & imec-SMIT. Van den Bulck, H. & Donders, K. (2014). Pitfalls and obstacles of media policymaking in an age of digital convergence: The Flemish signal integrity cases. Journal of Information Policy, 4, 444–462.

154 Tim Raats

Vlaams Audiovisueel Fonds. (2018). Beheersovereenkomst 2018–2021. Brussels: VAF. Wauters, D. & Raats, T. (2018). Public service media and ecosystem sustainability: Towards effective partnerships in small media markets. In G. F. Lowe, H. Van den Bulck & K. Donders (Eds.), Public service media in a networked society (pp. 175–191). Gothenborg: Nordicom. Young, E. & Quinn, L. (2002). Writing effective public policy papers: A guide for policy advisers in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Open Society Institute and Local Government Public Service Reform Initiative.

10

RESEARCHING NEWS MEDIA Creating Societal Impact from Research for the Media Industry and Policymakers Mikko Grönlund UNIVERSITY OF TURKU

Katja Lehtisaari and Carl-Gustav Lindén UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI

Mikko Villi UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ

Introduction Even though the consumption of media content in general has increased, the media industry is facing many difficulties. International competition, changes in consumer habits and rapid technological development have all put pressure on the media industry in many countries, Finland among them. The structure of the industry is changing, and companies from other industries are entering the field. The changes and the search for sustainable business models necessitate renewal in the industry. In addition, healthy news media and journalism are vital for the functioning of democracy. Yet, efforts by legacy media companies in Finland to adapt have been somewhat ineffective, and there have not been attempts at radical transformation (Lehtisaari et al., 2012; Lehtisaari & Grönlund, 2015). According to data provided by Statistics Finland, the total value of the Finnish mass media market was about €3.8 billion in 2017. Despite recent growth, this was still about 5% lower than in 2010. In the same period, mass media’s share of total GDP in Finland fell from 2.1% to 1.7%. Importantly, there are considerable differences in the development of the various media sectors. The value of the electronic communica­ tions sector (television, radio, Internet operations) has grown significantly, while both publishing and recording communications have declined. After a decade-long decline, publishing accounted for approximately half of the total value of the media market in Finland (€2.0 billion; 53%), and newspapers alone about a quarter (€0.9 billion; 24%). By contrast, the electronic communications sector has grown

156 Mikko Grönlund et al.

significantly since 2000. In 2017, it constituted over 41% of the total value of the mass media market, of which television accounted for about 30% and online 10%. Advertising has long been one of the main contributors to both print and elec­ tronic communications. The economic downturn that began in late 2008 halted its growth, and in 2017 the total value of media advertising in Finland, at approxi­ mately €1.2 billion, was still nearly one-fifth less than before the recession. According to data from Kantar TNS, since 2000 the media advertising structure has also gone through a major transition. The proportion of online media, expressed as a percentage of the total value of media advertising, has risen from close to zero in 2000 to almost one-third (32%) in 2017, and has overtaken newspaper advertising. As in many countries, a large proportion of online media advertising and its growth in Finland goes to two international players, Google and Facebook. These developments in the media economy, and especially the decline of printed press, set the background for the two research projects outlined in this chapter. The first project shows how media policy can address these develop­ ments and spur innovation, while the second explores new business models for newspaper publishers to seek new growth. The purpose is to illustrate the societal impact of research (Bornmann, 2013), specifically how media management research can inform policymaking and strategic decision-making, and how colla­ borative research can create value for everyday practitioners.

Project 1: The State of Media and Communications Policy and How to Measure It From discussions at round table meetings organised by the Finnish Ministry of Trans­ port and Communications in early 2017, it had become evident that there was no consistent understanding of the issues presented above. Nor was there any reliable information on the direction of development among the different stakeholders; that is, public service and private commercial media companies (Lund, 2016; for more on sta­ keholders, see Mitchell et al., 1997). In April 2017, the Finnish government decided to begin the preparation of a new media policy programme. This programme was to be part of a major governmental project focusing on growth in the digital business envir­ onment. The goal of the programme was to create a favourable business environment for digital services and new business models, and to find ways to safeguard the diversity of Finnish media. It was introduced in 2018 and will run until 2023. The starting point for the media policy programme was citizens’ rights to information, and the conditions and availability of journalistic content. The programme seeks ways to ensure the diversity of Finnish media. It looks at media policy comprehensively across the administration. With regard to this, the media policy project aimed to create a wider knowledge base and an overall picture of the challenges faced by Finnish media, as well as a proposal on indicators that can be used for longer-term monitoring of the media environment.

Researching News Media 157

Because of the conflicting interests of the stakeholder groups and media com­ panies, it was necessary to commission a broader external and impartial research project to outline the policy programme. In September 2017, the Ministry of Transport and Communications commissioned an extensive university consortium formed by the University of Helsinki and the University of Tampere, with the participation of researchers from the universities of Turku and Jyväskylä. The project focusing on media and communications policy (referred to here­ after as the ‘media policy project’) aimed to produce a multidisciplinary academic study of the current state of media policy in Finland by bringing together expertise from journalism studies, communication studies, business economics, and law. Instead of a traditional sectoral approach, the study sought an innovative, holistic way of evaluating the development of the media and communications field. Thus, the project was not directly about media management research, but through its results, it provides essential information on media structures, eco­ nomics and business for media managers. In the project report, the current state of affairs in Finland is described from the viewpoint of the seven essential principles of media and communications policy (Picard & Pickard, 2017), based on the fundamental values of democracy: i ii iii iv v vi vii

citizens’ fundamental communication rights; access to media and communication services; diversity and plurality of ownership structures and content; protection of users and society; providing transparency and accountability; the pursuit of developmental and economic benefits; and the pursuit of fair and effective communication policy solutions.

A Nordic comparison was appended to the study. It was carried out using a range of research materials, such as media industry and market statistics, statistics related to media support and grants, the availability of broadband services statis­ tics, and media usage data. According to Picard and Pickard (2017), the treatment of broadcasting, tele­ communications and media as separate operating and political sectors is not well embedded in the current environment, in which virtually all content and net­ works are intertwined in different ways. The ability of media and communication policies to respond to rapid technological, economic, political and societal chan­ ges is also weak, because the policies are often created to tackle specific challenges at a given time, and thus their connection to media and the normative basic principles of communication policy may have become superficial. In accordance with this, the main objective of the project was for policymakers instead to look at the current situation at a more extensive and fundamental level, and seek new ways to achieve the goals.

158 Mikko Grönlund et al.

The media policy project was organised into eight working groups, roughly corresponding to the seven principles and adding a dimension of international comparison. Each working group consisted of 1–4 researchers who worked independently and partly at a different pace. The three key research questions of all the working groups were (i) whether statistics or other resources on the theme had already been produced in Finland, and if so, what and how; (ii) what vari­ ables best described the development of each theme and policy area, and which indicators and materials were suitable for reliable monitoring of their change; and (iii) whether there were already any useful, ready-made models for measuring the development of the theme or policy area, and if not, how their development would be meaningful in Finland.

Results The final report of the research project, The State of Media and Communications Policy and How to Measure it, was published in March 2018. Based on input from all the working groups, the final report presented the following key recommendations: 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The citizen’s perspective must be closely linked to media and communica­ tions policy decision-making and drafting of laws. In the development of access to media and communications services, the implementation of reforms should also be monitored from the point of view of citizens and consumers. Media and communications policy should regularly monitor the develop­ ment of the industry, content, and the use of media. In the pursuit of competition in different sectors, it should be borne in mind that the increase in supply does not automatically lead to an increase in diversity. Actions to support diversity should be designed and targeted across all media, not one medium at a time. Risks associated with the misuse of personal data, and the content produced and disseminated by users, pose challenges for media and communications policy, as well as creating demands on the media industry. Information should also be collected on new forms of harassment and entirely new risks associated with Internet use. Media outlets clearly indicating to which media group they belong, and what ethical guidelines they follow can improve the transparency of the media business. Media organisations could be required to disclose their ownership structures in a comparable manner. Indicators are needed to define the relevant market, evaluate the competi­ tive situation, assess the development of the business and financial situation, and enable indicators of longer-term development to be reviewed retrospectively.

Researching News Media 159

The report presented a measurement model (scorecard) intended for monitor­ ing changes related to seven dimensions of Finnish media and communications policy. The 26 variables and 52 indicators included in the model are not based solely on the results and suggestions of individual working groups in the project, but are also based on the collaboration between the working groups.

Collaboration with Stakeholders The media policy project was conducted in close cooperation with Finnish media and communications policy stakeholders. Researchers presented the project to public stakeholders at different stages. Both public and private stakeholders were asked to provide material for the study, which further developed the relationship between the researchers and stakeholders and raised awareness of the results. In October 2017, researchers presented the project plan to the project steering group that consisted of officials from several ministries and the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority. Round table discussions were then held with approximately 30 representatives of the research consortium, media companies, ministries, col­ lective societies, and industry and labour organisations. Other stakeholder groups, such as Statistics Finland, were also asked to help collect research material. Early in 2018, participatory workshops and hearings were arranged with stake­ holders to identify options for action. The hearings were based primarily on the themes and issues that emerged from the final report of the project. The aim of the participatory approach was to obtain a future-oriented view from media organisa­ tions and other stakeholder groups, and provide them with a well-founded over­ view of future trends, particularly the necessary practical measures and policies. The Ministry of Transport and Communications arranged the first public stakeholder-hearing event in April 2018, moderated by a consulting company. Project results were presented to approximately 20 representatives of the communications regulators from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In other stake­ holder hearings, the propositions of the project were approached through strategic options aimed at addressing the key development themes underlying the disruption of the media sector in Finland, and the advancement of options to tackle them. The strategic options intended to respond to the changes in the media sector and to look at the challenges and opportunities of each policy option. Strategic alternatives were not necessarily mutually exclusive but could also be promoted at the same time, as part of a development agenda. The hearings gathered approximately 50 participants representing a wide range of stakeholder groups. In addition to the hearings, an open online consultation was organised to gather views on media transformation, matching the necessary practical measures and poli­ cies. Twenty-two people who widely represented various stakeholders, including media companies, media associations, NGOs and governmental institutions, com­ pleted a questionnaire.

160 Mikko Grönlund et al.

The draft of the new media policy programme was widely distributed to sta­ keholder groups, including such bodies as the Finnish Communications Reg­ ulatory Authority, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority, the Council for Mass Media, Statistics Finland, Business Finland, as well as media organisations. Many commentators were pleased to be given the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the media policy programme and demonstrated their willingness to continue their cooperation in the future. Following the project, the Ministry of Transport and Communications has launched a new Media Policy Network. Its mission is to monitor the implementation of the media policy programme approved by the government in July 2018. The Media Policy Network will improve the opportunities for stakeholders to obtain information on the preparation of media-related issues and the possibility of participating in the preparation. The network was planned to meet three or four times a year, and is open to and intended for media organisations, content producers and authors, researchers, NGOs and public authorities. At the first meeting of the network in September 2018, with approximately 50 par­ ticipants, the current situation of the media policy measures was reviewed. The second meeting, with about 70 participants, was arranged in March 2019. The Ministry of Transport and Communications executed a follow-up project, using the scorecard and developing systematic monitoring of the development of media policy in Finland, in the second half of 2019. It is planned that the decisions and the realisation of the objectives will be monitored with the stakeholders in the Media Policy Network, and the actions will be imple­ mented mainly within the framework of the state budget. Measures requiring additional appropriations will be decided within the framework of central government finances and annual budgets. The links to other key projects will be ensured during the imple­ mentation phase. In addition, the state of media policy in Finland is monitored crossadministratively by means of continuous or repeated research.

Project 2: New Business Models in News Media In addition to the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Finnish Newspapers Association (FNA) has been eager to tackle the challenges affecting Finnish media companies and to fund research that can provide insights for an industry confronted with a complicated situation. Instead of focusing on the devel­ opment of media policy, the latter has been more interested in the changes in media business models. In order to help Finnish news media companies, the FNA along with the Media Industry Research Foundation of Finland commissioned a group of researchers from several Finnish universities (Turku, Helsinki and Jyväskylä) to carry out three projects on news media business models in the Scandinavian countries, the United States and Germany. The projects were realised in 2016–2018. The purpose of these interview-based studies (also using relevant market and financial data) was to analyse how the changes in the digital environment affect

Researching News Media 161

the news media ecosystem. They also explored how the business operations of news organisations, especially newspapers, are changing. The outcomes offer a comparative perspective and a benchmark on new business models and revenue sources that can be used by news media companies in developing their business models and editorial practices. All members of the research consortium – the authors of this chapter – had previous experience with projects commissioned and financed by the FNA. The FNA was a stakeholder in all projects, but the funding models varied.

News media in Scandinavia The initial idea of the first project focusing on news media in Sweden, Norway and Denmark was discussed in late 2015 in a meeting with the research consortium and FNA representatives. Based on the discussion, a two-part proposal was intro­ duced. First, an analysis of financial statements of newspaper publishing companies in Scandinavia and related statistical data would be made. Second, a qualitative study based on 29 in-depth interviews of representatives of major newspaper publishing companies, industry experts and significant scholars would be con­ ducted. The project duration was to be relatively short; approximately six months. The study was carried out in 2016 and was financed by the FNA. The project also involved a small follow-up project that focused specifically on local and regional news media business in the three countries.

Results The research demonstrated that the media markets in Sweden and Norway are the most similar, as both have many paid-for local and regional newspapers (Lehtisaari et al., 2016; 2017a). Denmark has significantly fewer paid-for newspapers, and the number of free papers is high. In general, the absence of a sustainable business model suited to the new digital environment is a challenge for the entire newspaper busi­ ness. One particular challenge is recruiting readers among the younger generations, and convincing them to include digital news in the monthly ‘media package’ on which they spend time and money. The interviews revealed that the Scandinavian newspaper companies have not generally been tremendously innovative in creating new approaches to reach a younger audience (Lehtisaari et al., 2018b). However, several good examples of innovative and successful practices were found. They can be divided into two main types: (i) digitally-driven business models and (ii) brand and community building. Digitally-driven business models include such features as systematic testing of price levels, advanced user analytics, engagement orientation with value-based offerings, digital newspaper subscriptions bundled with mobile phone subscriptions, regionally based personalisation of the digital subscription, and a feedback loop through which new practices and opera­ tional models are first tested in some titles and then expanded to other titles. Brand

162 Mikko Grönlund et al.

and community building includes practices such as exclusive events for loyal cus­ tomers, a monetising service formed around the brand (e.g. Politiken Plus in Denmark), and targeted news in order to reach a desired audience (e.g. Justin Bieber’s visit to Norway being covered in detail in order to lure young readers).

Collaboration with Stakeholders The preliminary results were presented in May 2016 at the annual FNA Spring meeting and seminar. The seminar gathered more than 100 participants from Fin­ nish newspapers and other interest groups around the country. The presentation was well received and gathered positive feedback and constructive comments. Because of this and because of requests from newspapers unable to participate in the event, the FNA arranged another seminar in Helsinki in September 2016, with two presentations. The first put a Nordic perspective on the results of the Digital News Report released in June 2016 by the Oxford University Reuters Institute. The second touched on the new business models for news media in Scandinavia, with an emphasis on explaining the experiments made by news media organisations to transform or grow their business. Pekka Mervola, the editor-in-chief of the Keskisuomalainen newspaper, then commented on the two presentations. The event was streamed live, to gain as large an audience as possible among FNA representatives. It attracted approximately 50 participants and more than 80 spectators followed the live stream. By the end of 2016, the recording of the event had been viewed more than 260 times. The final report of the project was published in the publication series of the University of Helsinki (Lehtisaari et al., 2016). However, it was first made avail­ able exclusively for FNA members via the federation’s intranet platform. After a short period of ‘quarantine’, the report was made available freely. The study focusing on Scandinavia surveyed the business development of newspaper publishers and their ongoing experiments. However, since the FNA has 123 members, mostly small local newspapers, it financed a spin-off project that focused on examining the situation and prospects of local newspapers, city newspapers and free papers. The final report of the spin-off project was also published as part of the University of Helsinki series (Lehtisaari et al., 2017a).

News media in the US The Scandinavian project was followed in 2017 by an analysis of US news media (Lehtisaari et al., 2017b). The same research design was used, combining quanti­ tative and qualitative data. The interview questions were based on the experi­ ences from the first project and were highly similar, for comparative reasons. As in the first project, the funding institution did not have any direct influence on the research questions (such as requiring its approval), but as can be expected, discussions with FNA representatives did orient the research design. In the project, it was decided to focus more specifically on the following topics:

Researching News Media 163

� � � � � � �

the proportion and growth of digital revenues, particularly digital subscriptions; new businesses outside the traditional two-sided business model of advertis­ ing and subscription income; unique solutions in organisations; creative partnerships; organisational and cultural change; creation of one’s own technology; adaptation of new technology.

Funding for this project was different. The Media Industry Research Founda­ tion of Finland financed it through an open call for research proposals on the topic. In this sense, the project was not commissioned but had to compete for funding. The research consortium’s experience from the Scandinavian project possibly influenced the funding decision favourably. For the project, the research group saw a need for additional expertise and decided to collaborate with three colleagues from the United States: Robert G. Picard (Yale University and University of Oxford), Bozena Mierzejewska and Axel Roepnack (both Fordham University). The contract for the research project was signed in March 2017 and the project would run for approximately six months. The communication between researchers on two continents was carried out via email and regular Skype meetings. Mikko Villi made a two-month research visit in 2017 to Fordham University in New York City (hosted by Mierzejewska and Roepnack) to support collaboration and data collection. The researchers also met at several events, for example during the 2017 ICA conference in San Diego, as well as during the shorter data collection visits to the US made by Katja Lehtisaari, Mikko Grönlund and Carl-Gustaf Lindén.

Results The study used quantitative data to develop a picture of the overall business environment of US newspapers. In addition, qualitative interview data were col­ lected in 2017 from media managers, researchers, industry representatives and media analysts (N = 35). The results revealed the wide differences between the approaches of US newspaper publishers. The study concluded that foreign newspaper publishers wishing to learn from the US media industry must deter­ mine individually which approaches are most appropriate for them, as there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for publishers operating in the US. According to one interviewee, ‘There is no silver bullet, only silver shrapnel’. It is understandable that there is a huge difference between newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post and the metropolitan newspapers and local newspapers in smaller cities (Villi et al., 2019). The results show that business model innovation is focused on building and nurturing value-creating relationships with readers, advertisers, partners and

164 Mikko Grönlund et al.

intermediaries. Contemporary news business models and activities require knowledge and competencies that are often absent from traditional news industry workforces. Most publishers are still struggling to adapt to the digital age, and little ‘reinvention’ was found. For legacy media rooted deeply in a formerly stable ecosystem of actors, routines, habits and norms, the upheaval is often felt as a threat. The leap from print to digital publication, as well as the integration of content, audience and producers, is a challenge for newspaper organisations. The New York Times and the Washington Post, which have led developments in the digital environment, perceive those investments as central to their strategies and future growth. According to the findings, many smaller news organisations seem to think that they must follow the national news organisations without developing their own business models and strategy, or without regard to whether they will be equally useful. Thus, innovation (or often, isomorphism and imitation) seems to be the goal itself rather than the means to a goal (for further analysis, see Villi et al., 2019). The review of the US news media business revealed that it is struggling to reinvent business models and find its own path in the digital environment. The US experi­ ence shows the unwillingness or inability of many established newspaper firms to consider value creation and business relationships in the broader way that digital competitors and emerging news providers are embracing. There is no universal solution, but the examples provided in the project report may serve as inspiration in finding new ways of value creation in newspaper publishing.

Collaboration with Stakeholders The key results were presented to private and public media stakeholders at a seminar held in Helsinki in September 2017, which attracted over 50 participants. In addition, approximately 100 spectators followed the live stream of the event. The event was organised by the Media Industry Research Foundation of Finland and the Finnish Media Federation (Finnmedia). The latter is an advocacy orga­ nisation for the Finnish media industry and printing companies. Including its member associations (the Finnish Periodical Publishers’ Association, the Federa­ tion of the Printing Industry in Finland, the Finnish Newspapers Association and the Finnish Book Publishers Association), it has in total nearly 700 member companies, which employ about 20,000 people. After the event, the final report of the project was made available freely via the University of Helsinki website (Lehtisaari et al., 2017b). The results were also presented in 2017 in an article in the Suomen Lehdistö (‘The Finnish Press’) periodical. The article focused on the key findings and ideas of the research project, and findings from the simultaneously executed project, ‘New Business Models in the News Industry in the United States’, a study con­ ducted by the consulting and research company Kairos Future. Suomen Lehdistö

Researching News Media 165

targets decision-makers at Finnish newspapers and is published eight times a year. The average number of readers per printed issue is approximately 2,600. Another tangible effect of the US study occurred when the Media Industry Research Foundation of Finland launched a special theme call for project proposals on Paid Content and Global Development in the Media in 2018. The purpose of the call was to accumulate research projects that would present international cases that are scalable in the Finnish media market. The text of the call for proposals included a link to the US report and a comment that it would be worthwhile for applicants to read the report, to draw useful ideas for their own proposals.

News media in Germany The third project in the series, focusing on Germany, was conducted in 2018 and financed by the FNA. Its purpose was to analyse how the digital environment affects the ecosystem of news media. The final report offered a perspective on new business models and forms of revenue in Germany, and revealed a wide variation in the approaches by newspaper publishers to the changes in the media field. The report came to similar conclusions to earlier reports on Scandinavia and the US, in that those who want to learn from the German media industry must determine individually which approaches are the most appropriate to them.

Results For the study, the research group applied a similar approach to those of the two other studies. They used financial performance data and market data to form a picture of the overall business environment experienced by German newspapers. This was combined with qualitative data collected by interviewing media man­ agers, researchers, industry representatives and media analysts (N = 20). Castulus Kolo (Macromedia University) and Barbara Brandstetter (Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences) helped in providing contacts and arranging interviews. The results demonstrated that German news media operate in a highly conservative industry characterised by family ownership. From the outside it seems to be exposed to the same forces of consolidation that are prevalent in other European countries, while on the inside, few expressed any sense of urgency. In addition, the study concluded that German news media companies are slower to adopt new pay models than are compa­ nies elsewhere in Europe. Despite the media industry at large in Germany being mostly reluctant to risk it is still profitable print-based business models, a few examples of creativity and innovation were found. During the study, the researchers were informed of several projects that aim to implement payment solutions, i.e. paywalls. Especially in northern Germany, managers showed interest in how Nordic media companies have developed their subscription business. One person noted that his company had started a new R&D project called Oslo, named ‘after our idol, Schibsted’ – Norwegian Schibsted Media Group is an international media group with 8,000 employees in 22 countries.

166 Mikko Grönlund et al.

Collaboration with Stakeholders In a similar fashion, the findings were first shared with the FNA. Preliminary results were presented to Finnish private and public media stakeholders in Helsinki in May 2018 in a keynote presentation at the FNA Spring seminar. The final report, published in December 2018, was first made available to FNA members only before being published for the broader audience as part of the University of Hel­ sinki series (Lehtisaari et al., 2018a). In addition to such venues, the final reports of the projects did not gain much public visibility. There were a few stories in the media, most of the coverage being concentrated in media outlets aimed at media industry professionals. It seems that the findings of the projects are used more for internal discussion in the industry and the government than as seeds for creating public debate. However, the researchers themselves have been actively disseminating the findings in journal articles (Lehtisaari et al., 2018b; Villi et al., 2019; other papers in process) and through more than ten academic presentations at international conferences, including the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA), European Media Management Association (emma), International Communication Association (ICA), International Symposium on Media Innovations (ISMI), NordMedia, and the World Media Economics and Management Conference (WMEMC). The findings have also been advantageous in education and have been firmly included on the agendas of courses at the universities of Jyväskylä and Helsinki. There has been no systematic analysis of the studies on Scandinavia, the US and Germany concerning their impact in Finland, and thus it is difficult to evaluate exactly how much difference they have made. This is certainly something that should be addressed in future projects, as a systematic framework would serve in collecting data about the impact. However, it is possible (and desirable) that Finnish news media companies have used insights from the studies and adopted certain sug­ gestions as part of their development processes. The FNA has signalled the impor­ tance of benchmarking studies of this type for the Finnish news media. In addition, the FNA used the reports as reading material for a study trip for its members to Norwegian news media in September 2018 and a similar trip to Sweden in December 2019. One of the researchers in the project, Carl-Gustav Lindén, was asked to identify industry experts and interesting media trends in the national context as well as to provide background information about the media companies visited in Norway and Sweden. He also provided participants with a set of salient questions and participated as an expert in the discussions with media companies.

Discussion In the remaining section of the chapter, we critically reflect on the research col­ laboration and actual impact on policymaking and strategic decision-making.

Researching News Media 167

Practical vs. Theoretical Contributions The starting points of both projects were practical rather than theoretical. The aim of the projects was not to develop media management research in Finland as much as to bring into the discussion practical issues, best practices, and ideas that can be used when media companies develop their strategies. In sum, the projects were oriented by the purposes of the funding parties. However, media management research played a background role in the planning phase and when carrying out the projects. Although the projects were not theory-driven but motivated by industry demands, it is important that the researchers were not content with only the commissioned project reports, but strived to produce more academically oriented publications. In this way, the outreach of the projects could be extended to the academic community and could assist in developing the field of media manage­ ment research both theoretically and practically. The two projects presented in this chapter differ in several ways. The target group of the media policy project consisted primarily of political decision-makers, despite the fact that the project aimed at continuous interaction with other stakeholders as well, including media companies. In contrast, the interests of media companies tar­ geted precisely the projects focusing on new business models for news media, and therefore their objectives were more business-oriented and practical.

Influence of Funding Modality on Research Due to differences in both the funding and backgrounds of the projects, there were also significant variations in their documentation. The media policy project was financed with state support. In Finland, the use of appropriations financed through tax revenues must be open and, therefore, the whole process from beginning to end was transparent and well documented. In contrast, the studies focusing on new business models for news media were funded by an industry organisation or an industry-connected foundation. Therefore, negotiations, con­ tract issues and other interactions were in principle not public but were confined to personal interactions.

Including Stakeholder Interests The media policy project had a formal steering group. The regular steering group meetings provided the research team with feedback throughout the project. Cooperation with the project funder and other round table stakeholders worked quite well via representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Collaboration with other ministries and state authorities in the steering group varied and, in some cases, the research group found that there was room for improvement. To some extent, this was because some of the people appointed to the steering group had insufficient expertise-related resources to support the

168 Mikko Grönlund et al.

research project. There was also a great deal of variation in stakeholder activity. Some stakeholders provided data and commented on the data collected by the researchers, but some did not. In general, the research team had slightly higher expectations of the collaboration than what transpired. Public consultation was arranged after the report was published. Furthermore, the Ministry of Transport and Communications has organised meetings of the Media Policy Network in order to facilitate continuous dialogue with stakeholder groups. However, the future of the network depends on the parliamentary elections in Finland in 2019 and the inauguration of the new Minister of Transport and Communications. In contrast, the projects focusing on news media business models did not have formal steering groups or regular meetings between the research team and the representatives of the Finnish Newspapers Association and the Media Industry Research Foundation of Finland. However, the funding parties were kept informed of the progress of the studies in informal discussions and email correspondence. The main feedback was given after the funding representatives had read the first drafts of the final reports. They also approved the final versions of the reports. In the media policy project, the extent of the project, the tight schedule, coor­ dination requirements, and somewhat restricted resources made the execution of the project demanding. During its early stages, before any actual work or results of the work packages could be reported, there was quite a lot of reporting on the project plans to the steering group. The project consisted of multiple work packages and therefore the budget per work package was rather small and the number of work hours that could be allocated to each work package was limited. The research consortium collaborated well; perhaps even better than the project coordinator had expected. While the consortium was large and scattered across sev­ eral institutions in Finland, many of the members of the groups involved in the work packages already knew each other. In addition, the liaison person between the Ministry and the consortium parties played an important role. During the first stage of the project lifecycle, it took some time to clarify the task of individual work packages in order to avoid overlap. Nevertheless, when these issues were resolved, all members of the consortium committed to meeting common schedules and goals. The consortium had monthly meetings at which presentations were made about the progress of each sub-project, and any necessary fine-tuning was agreed upon. It is important to understand that in such large projects, experts do not require micro­ managing. Rather, they should be given the space and time to do their work, in addition to having sufficient resources to cover support functions and auxiliary tasks. Several members received no additional resources for the project (e.g. in the use of their work time), which became noticeable in their reduced capacity for collabora­ tion and active contribution to the project, and an overall understanding of its goals. Even though the research agenda and goals of the media policy project were agreed in the original contract, due to the open process, some efforts were made by stakeholders to expand the project during its lifecycle. The main reason for this was the substantial number of stakeholder groups with differing agendas or

Researching News Media 169

interests. The stakeholders included media companies, industry associations, and NGOs, and thus their views might contradict each other. Statements at round table meetings could often be understood to be lobbying by stakeholders. For example, participants who had not attended the previous meetings could make statements promoting their own interests, showing they were unaware of the project’s objectives and task constraints. Some of the suggestions or information needs presented by stakeholders during the project were so extensive, or outside the agreed boundary conditions, that it was not possible to implement them.

Time Constraints of Applied Projects The business model projects had fewer stakeholders and the researchers could carry out the study without being disturbed by lobbying. They were in this sense much simpler and more straightforward as projects. The projects focusing on Scandinavia, the US and Germany opened the possibility for the researchers to learn much about conditions outside Finland and generate new connections with foreign media industry people and academics. On the other hand, it can be mentioned that the schedule required the data collection, analysis and reporting to be carried out in six months, which might be the normal pace in the media industry, but is less common in the academic context. The report on media and communications policy is available online (Ala-Fossi et al., 2018), and the results have been used in scholarly publications (Ala-Fossi et al., 2019). So far, the model and framework created by Picard and Pickard (2017) have not been tested in practice. However, the Finnish research consortium has started negotiations with representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Communications to test, research and evaluate selected indicators in practice. Thus, it is probable that the insights from the project can be integrated with media policy in Finland. The findings on Scandinavia, the US and Germany were presented to Finnish media managers in reports containing many practical implications, potentially offering input for their decision-making. All project reports are available free online; the presentations and reports were widely distributed and created con­ siderable interest among news media representatives in Finland. Beyond that, the researchers have no knowledge about what the stakeholders have learned from the results, how they have taken advantage of the information provided, or if they have implemented any changes or new practices based on the insights from the three studies. The follow-up, through study trips for FNA members to Norway and Sweden, did indicate that the reports created curiosity to know more. It should also be noted that media managers frequently attend events at which best practices are shared, including those arranged by industry associations such as the World Asso­ ciation of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), International News Media Association (INMA) and Global Editors Network (GEN). Despite the international activities in which many media leaders participate, the FNA still sees a need to provide research-based information in Finnish to its stakeholders.

170 Mikko Grönlund et al.

Academic Career vs. Practical Impact The more theoretical and academic considerations of the studies have been used in scholarly articles (Lehtisaari et al., 2018b, Villi et al., 2019), conference presentations, and in teaching. In addition to providing tangible deliverables to media companies and policymakers, the researchers have thus been able to advance their own research agendas and careers. Moreover, open and honest discussions with media managers have helped the researchers to get a better and more nuanced picture of the com­ plexity of innovation dilemmas facing the media industry and learn how media organisations tackle challenges such as a scarcity of financial resources and skills shortages. One important insight is that media and journalism scholars have much to gain from engagement with practitioners, even though this is little appreciated in academia, at least not in Finnish universities. The reward and career system in Finnish universities is focused more on publications and less on mingling with practitioners. The use of materials collected for more practical applied research, such as news media industry reports, need not be problematic if used in scholarly publications. Data has to be collected and analysed as stringently as in academic research projects. However, there is something of a dichotomy between academic publishing and industry reports, as the latter have to be pragmatic and business-oriented. Their purpose is to provide applicable information and ideas directly to business representatives, often in the form of bullet point lists. An applied research project rarely offers a basis from which to build major theoretical contributions without trade-offs. Thus, such media industry reports are often a compromise between academic knowledge and applied science. The practical impact of these studies is not easy to measure. Often, no funding is available for such post-project endeavours, and after the project has ended, the researchers tend to concentrate their efforts on producing academic publications. However, in our experience, the type of collaboration analysed in this chapter has clear advantages for academic research. One obvious advantage is the access to wellplaced sources. Media managers often appreciate a frank discussion with researchers about their challenges, innovation ideas, trade-offs and plans (Nenonen et al., 2017). To get the best results from an open discussion, researchers need not avoid the media industry but should be prepared to share their insights and to accept the limitations of their knowledge. Research should undergo a ‘reality check’ and provide insights that industry and policy experts recognise as being well grounded. The discussion would then have a better chance of creating a societal impact; that is, creating real value for the media industry and policymakers. The second major advantage is that these conversations and analyses also provide researchers with a view of the future of the industry and ideas for further research. In this chapter, we have not delved much into the field of teaching, but an obvious advantage of applied research is that it provides a more informed picture of what is going on outside the high walls of academia. These insights are valu­ able to students who must finish their studies while at the same time trying to determine what skills and capabilities are valued in the job market ‘out there’.

Researching News Media 171

Even though not presently rewarded in scholarly rankings, updating the knowl­ edge of those who teach at universities should be a core demand from university management. This is especially true in a field that is rapidly being transformed under the pressure of new communication technologies. Finally, media management research deals with the complexity of decisionmaking in uncertain circumstances and a rapidly changing business environment. Since there are many moving parts (from changing business models to the demand for new skills and the transformation of the technological landscape), a multidisciplinary approach is much needed. Our advice is that research teams should incorporate multidisciplinary expertise and skills to be able to analyse these complicated contexts competently.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Marko Ala-Fossi, project coordinator of the media policy project, for sharing his views on the execution of the project.

References Ala-Fossi, M., Alén-Savikko, A., Grönlund, M., Haara, P., Hellman, H., Herkman, J., Hildén, J., Hiltunen, I., Jääsaari, J., Karppinen, K., Koskenniemi, A., Kuutti, H., Lehtisaari, K., Manninen, V., Matikainen, J. & Mykkänen, M. (2018). Media- ja viestintäpolitiikan nykytila ja mittaaminen. Loppuraportti [The state of media- and communications policy and how to measure it. Final report.] Helsinki: Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Vol. 4/2018. Ala-Fossi, M., Alén-Savikko, A., Hildén, J., Horowitz, M., Jääsaari, J., Karppinen, K., Lehtisaari, K. & Nieminen, H. (2019). Operationalising communication rights: The case of a ‘digital welfare state’. Internet Policy Review, 8(1). Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233. Kantar TNS. Media advertising in Finland (different years). Lehtisaari, K. & Grönlund, M. (2015). Online activities of Finnish newspapers in the changing media business environment. Austral Comunicacion, 4(1), 131–156. Lehtisaari, K., Grönlund, M., Lindén, C.-G., & Villi, M. (2016). Uutismedian uudet liike­ toimintamallit Pohjoismaissa [Scandinavian news media in search for new business models]. Viestinnän tutkimusraportteja 1/2016. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Lehtisaari, K., Grönlund, M., Lindén, C.-G. & Villi, M. (2017a). Paikallis- ja kaupunki­ lehtien uudet liiketoimintamallit Pohjoismaissa [Scandinavian local and free newspapers in search for new business models]. Viestinnän tutkimusraportteja 2/2017 (huhtikuu 2017). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, Sosiaalitieteiden laitos, Viestinnän tutkimuskeskus CRC. Lehtisaari, K., Grönlund, M., Lindén, C.-G., Villi, M., Picard, R. G., Mierzejewska, B. & Röpnack, A. (2017b). Uutismedian uudet liiketoimintamallit Yhdysvalloissa [New business models for U.S. news media]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, Aleksanteri–instituutti. Lehtisaari, K., Karppinen, K., Harjuniemi, T., Grönlund, M., Lindén, C.-G., Nieminen, H. & Viljakainen, A. (2012). Media convergence and business models: Responses of Finnish daily newspapers. Communication Research Centre CRC, Department of

172 Mikko Grönlund et al.

Social Research, University of Helsinki. Media and Communication Studies Research Reports. Retrieved from: www.helsinki.fi/crc/Julkaisut/Media_Convergence.pdf. Lehtisaari, K., Lindén, C.-G., Grönlund, M. & Villi, M. (2018a). Uutismedian uudet liike­ toimintamallit Saksassa [New business models for German news media]. Helsinki: Hel­ singin yliopisto, Svenska social- och kommunalhögskolan. Notat 3/2018. Lehtisaari, K., Villi, M., Grönlund, M., Lindén, C.-G., Mierzejewska, B. I., Picard, R. G., & Röpnack, A. (2018b). Comparing innovation and social media strategies in Scandi­ navian and US newspapers. Digital Journalism, 6(8), 1029–1040. Lund, A. B. (2016). A stakeholder approach to media governance. In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media manage­ ment? (pp. 103–120). Berlin: Springer. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Nenonen, S., Brodie, R. J., Storbacka, K., & Peters, L. D. (2017). Theorizing with man­ agers: How to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance? European Journal of Marketing, 51(7/8), 1130–1152. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Levy, D. A. L. & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Reuters institute digital news report 2016. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Digital% 2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf. Picard, R. & Pickard, V. (2017). Essential principles for contemporary media and communications policymaking. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/essential-principles-contempora ry-media-and-communications-policymaking. Villi, M., Grönlund, M., Lindén, C.-G., Lehtisaari, K., Mierzejewska, B., Picard, R. G. & Roepnack, A. (2019). ‘They’re a little bit squeezed in the middle’: Strategic challenges for innovation in US metropolitan newspaper organisations. Journal of Media Business Studies. doi:10.1080/16522354.2019.1630099.

11

RESEARCH FOR INNOVATION

Improving the Management of Co-Located and Clustered Industries Erik Hitters ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM

Introduction From the early 1990s, the co-location of industries, workers and entrepreneurs has risen to the attention of both academics and urban policy makers. The tendency to cluster was particularly visible in the field of cultural production and in creative and media entrepreneurship (Karlsson & Picard, 2013; Porter, 2000; Pratt, 2008). The emergence of media, cultural and creative clusters demonstrates the significance of co-location. In globally and digitally connected industries, place is still important because local net­ works are grounded in particular places where culture is produced and consumed (Cairncross, 1977; Currid, 2007; Davis et al., 2009; Markusen, 1996; Wijngaarden et al., 2019). In media management literature research into media clusters has become established recently (see Komorowski, 2017; Virta & Lowe, 2017). The Cultures of Innovation in the Creative Industries (CICI) research project focused on such co-located industries. It examined how creative business centres for small and medium-sized companies foster innovation, develop entrepreneur­ ship and which management interventions are conducive to these goals. Even while the creative industries as a term is notoriously difficult to define as well as heavily contested, we have used it in our research in order to be able to encompass the broad range of firms in the locations we researched. Many of these could also be labelled as media industries, or information industries as most of them produced creative content relying on mass and digital media for their business ventures. Our locations represent the width of the creative industries, including many media firms active in broadcasting, publishing, film, music, games, advertising, public relations, digital design and digital media. The multidisciplinary and cooperative focus of the companies in the buildings, as well as the curation and community management within them, made these places

174 Erik Hitters

an interesting research environment. In this research, we focused on the develop­ ment of and interrelationships between companies, markets, networks and the places where they are located, and on the practices of innovation and management, creative work, business conditions, knowledge and information spill-overs, med­ iation and technological needs. How effective has these centres’ management been as intermediaries for creativity and innovation? What are the specific economic (value, performance, employment) and socio-cultural (symbolic value, atmosphere, branding, working conditions) effects of co-location? Our focus was on the prac­ tices within these creative business centres and their role as intermediaries in fos­ tering collaboration, entrepreneurship and innovation. In other words, how does the process of innovation actually work? In our view, such innovation emerges in places by agents in a structural context, embedded in interactive processes of embodied learning and feedback (Wijngaarden et al., 2016). In addition to offering insights about the collaboration between creative busi­ nesses, in this chapter we will also analyse the collaboration between the researchers in the project and the businesses involved. Partner in this research was the Dutch Creative Residency Network (DCRN), a network of 30 creative business centres across the Netherlands, where around 2,000 companies are loca­ ted. We will include a critical reflection on the interactions of the researchers and public and private stakeholders – an evaluation of the collaboration in itself. Of particular interest are also the workshops and seminars that were offered to loca­ tion managers. The research provided answers to questions on the impact and effectiveness of management on co-located businesses. The utilisation of this knowledge was a central aspect to the research design. In addition, this work has offered insights, examples and best-practices about collaboration, growth and innovation of creative businesses. We will critically elaborate on our method of knowledge utilisation and discuss how we were able to provide added value and cross the bridge between research and industry. An important part of the sector’s agenda focused on strengthening the base of expertise for the creative industries by making existing knowledge accessible, developing new knowledge and realising the link between science and practice. Our project raised a number of questions that are of vital importance to this sector. Not only did we contribute to the academic understanding of the inno­ vation process, we also provided insight into the role of research in the innova­ tion ecosystem and how may we raise practitioner’s awareness of the conditions under which innovation take place. Thus, sharing our results and knowledge with the sector was central to our project. The centrality of knowledge in the inno­ vation process is convincingly explained by Bathelt and Cohendet (2014). According to them, processes which lead to innovation require dynamic knowledge flows about the relevant knowledge structures and practices and their dynamics. The pro­ cesses by which new developments of ideas and artefacts crystallize are

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 175

generally referred to as knowledge creation … [These] processes are shaped by specific circumstances, which is exactly why constant flows of knowledge and efforts to access and process this knowledge are so decisive. (pp. 869–870) Understanding how innovation works, is an important prerequisite in developing instruments in order to make the creative industries more innovative and compe­ titive. Our research project aimed to reach precisely that, as well as looking at actual intervention policies, the role of intermediaries and the ways in which they could impact the everyday working environment and business practices. It gener­ ated knowledge about the specific conditions under which the creative industries can realise their innovative potential. Furthermore, it helped in understanding the contextual and organisational factors underpinning the development of creative entrepreneurship. In close knowledge exchange with the businesses involved, the results could translate into opportunities for the creative industries nationally as well as internationally. Although creativity and innovation have become very fashionable terms in policy, business as well as academia, there is a lack of scientific and strategic knowledge about the contextual and embedded nature of relationships and networks that enable and sustain creativity and innovation in the creative and media industries (Cunning­ ham, 2013). As Pratt and Jeffcutt (2009) label these terms as ‘snake oil for the 21st century’, academic knowledge about the precise and place-specific conditions under which creativity may lead to innovative outputs is still scarce. Valuable work has been done on the meso and macro-level of firm interactions (Davis et al., 2009, Potts et al., 2008). Within firms, creativity is often approached as a managerial or sociopsychological phenomenon, which may be maximised in order to generate innova­ tive outcomes (Amabile, 1997; De Vaan et al., 2015). Much less is known about the micro-interactions between small and medium-sized firms in small-scale clusters. Furthermore, managerial and policy interventions in clusters are often prescribed but hardly subjected to research on their effectiveness. Our research made an attempt at filling part of that gap, by taking a mixed method comparative approach in order to better understand how particular types of knowledge relationships in particular contexts may lead to innovative outcomes. Understanding the innovation process is crucial not only to the media indus­ tries but also to other creative industries, or even the knowledge economy as a whole. We emphasised understanding such spill-overs not just in terms of direct spill-overs and knowledge transfers (Ibrus, 2019) but also in the form of reputa­ tional economies. Knowledge and value in the creative industries are crucially related to place reputation and the dynamics of taste. Reputation economies affect products’ value and are very often related to and supported by the reputa­ tion of the place they are brokered and sold within. Subsequently, our results added to the legitimacy of the creative industries as a sector that is of vital importance to a sustainable knowledge economy.

176 Erik Hitters

The Research Project The CICI research project ran between 2013 and 2018 and focused on innovation practices in the Dutch creative industries. It examined such practices in creative business centres (CBCs), buildings offering co-location facilities to small and medium-sized businesses. Partner in our research was the DCR Network, a net­ work of 33 creative hubs across the Netherlands, where around 4,000 companies are located. They represent the width of the creative and media industries, ranging from marketing agencies to app developers. They included the following subsectors: advertising, architecture, arts and antiques, crafts, design, designer fashion, digital and entertainment media, film, video, photography, music, performing and visual arts, software and electronic publishing, TV and radio and publishing industries. Our overall research question addressed the impact and effectiveness of CBCs as intermediaries for creativity and innovation. What are the specific eco­ nomic (value, performance, employment) and socio-cultural (symbolic value, atmosphere, branding, working conditions) effects of co-location for the creative industries? The research explored the development of and interrelationships between companies, markets, networks and the places where they are located (the CBCs) and the effects of their co-location on both the companies themselves, their competitiveness, their cooperation and their practices of innovation. Specific questions focus on management practices, creative work and working conditions, knowledge innovation and information spill-overs, mediation, creative entrepre­ neurship and reputation. In other words, what happens in co-located creative industries places, under which economic and social conditions and with what kind of innovative outcomes. In close cooperation with DCRN, our industry partner, we selected ten creative business centres, where we conducted research under the administrators and the tenants. The location managers were active in project management. Our ten part­ ner CBCs were spread throughout the Netherlands and were of different sizes. The smallest CBC in our sample accommodates 50 entrepreneurs, and the largest CBC houses 400 entrepreneurs. The research team consisted of a PhD student, a post­ doctoral researcher and the project leader, assisted by several student assistants. Our research consisted of three stages. In the first stage of the research we developed a substantive secondary review of creative markets and information sources; and of questions about the situated mediation of knowledge. This stage identified gaps in the existing data sources, and developed ways to ensure more accurate data and information on the creative industries. In addition, a first round of interviews (N=32) among location managers and companies was carried out articulating the challenges and needs of both creative entrepreneurs and the managers of the loca­ tions. Methods used here were secondary analysis of existing research, data sources and literature as well as expert interviews. In the second and third stages of the research our methodology consisted of a mixed methods approach. First, 43 in-depth interviews were conducted with

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 177

creative entrepreneurs between September 2014 and October 2015. Through convenience and snowball sampling our sample of 43 respondents represented a broad range of industries and diversity in age and gender. The in-depth inter­ views deepened our knowledge and insights that were gathered in the previous stages of this research, specifically looking at day-to-day business practices of creative entrepreneurs. They focused on issues related to creative labour, knowledge, competition, cooperation and innovation. All interviews were coded in Atlas.ti in an inductive approach resembling the grounded theory method developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990). We used a thematic analysis, aimed at uncovering the conditions of innovation in order to compare and contrast with the existing literature (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Second, the inter­ views were also used to develop items that served as the basis for quantitative analyses in the next stage. In the third stage, the Cultures of Innovation in the Creative Industries (CICI) Survey 1 and 2 provided the empirical quantitative data for our research. These surveys mainly focused on working conditions in creative business centres, creative labour and entrepreneurship, passion for work, entrepreneurial identity, place reputation and innovation. Out of the sample of 998 firms located in our 10 cen­ tres a total of 319 (1) and 207 (2) surveys were completed. The quantitative data collected in this stage charted how the selected creative companies assess their business practice, creative labour, working conditions, knowledge mediation, innovation, and informational and technological needs. With respect to the loca­ tional cultures of innovation, the data provided key economic indicators of the selected creative hubs and how they assessed their role and effectiveness as inter­ mediaries and facilitators. In that way, we could find answers to the question of the specific economic (value, performance, employment) as well as socio-cultural (symbolic value, atmosphere, branding, working conditions) effects of co-location that could be identified for the creative firms concerned.

Assessing Societal Impact In order to assess whether and to which degree scientific research has contributed to society or industry, a wide body of research is available. A synthesising effort in this field has resulted in the Societal Impact Value Cycle (SIVC) model (Van de Burgwal et al., 2018). This model (Figure 11.1) has been developed in order to be able to assess the effectiveness of so-called valorisation practices by academic researchers. The model posits that academic knowledge is central to any society’s innovation ecosystem. In order to derive socio-economic benefits from academic knowledge, a process that transfers the knowledge to society and translates this knowledge into valuable products and services is necessary … Here we use the term knowledge valorisation, since it encapsulates the concept of transferring

178 Erik Hitters

FIGURE 11.1

Societal Impact Value Chain (adapted from Van den Burgwal et al., 2018)

knowledge or technology to actors with an industrial or societal perspective and the concept of commercialising knowledge by adapting and developing the knowledge in order to yield socioeconomic benefits. (p. 9) Van der Burgwal et al. (2018) specifically draw attention to the fact that valorisation turns academic knowledge into value for society by making it suitable and available for societal or economic purposes (Van den Nieuwboer et al., 2016; Van Geenhuizen, 2010). The second half of the model thus specifically incorpo­ rates commercial development and market deployment. However, with respect to commercialising knowledge, or in other words bringing it to the market, we may ask ourselves whether this should in fact be an objective of publicly funded research in subsectors where innovation often remains hidden (Cunningham, 2013). Especially when looking to enhance the awareness of a certain sector with respect to the process of innovation, it may be a bridge too far to be also held responsible for providing the tools to commodify or commercialise the knowledge generated by academic research. This implies that the second half of the model may need significant adaptation. Instead of discussing valorisation in terms of commercial development and market deployment, it may be better to use the terminology of knowledge utilisation.

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 179

In their work on the uses of social sciences, Landry et al. (2001) draw attention to the context in which knowledge is produced and processed and the different ways this is influenced by the contexts in which scientists and users operate. In order to do that, we need to turn the attention to the actions that individual researchers undertake to promote the utilisation of their research results. Here we follow Landry et al. (2001) and suggest to follow an interaction perspective, which states that knowledge utilisation depends on various disorderly interactions occurring between researchers and users rather than on linear sequences beginning with the needs of the researchers or the needs of the users. Sometimes, a difference between the culture of science and the culture of users leads to a lack of communication between them and, consequently, to low levels of knowledge utilisation. How­ ever, the more sustained and intense the interaction between researchers and users, the more likely there will be utilisation. It suggests giving a greater attention to the relationships between researchers and users at different stages of knowledge pro­ duction, dissemination and utilisation (Landry et al., 2001). We thus refrain from discussing the latter two stages of the SIVC and replace these by a discussion of interactive knowledge utilisation.

Needs Assessment and Demand Articulation The first stages of the Societal Impact Value Cycle include a careful assessment of needs and a subsequent articulation of the demands for research. Policy makers and representatives for the societal domain cooperate to identify unmet needs and subsequently evaluate these in order to prioritise those needs that are most urgent or most feasible to tackle. Prioritisation as such does not mean that the needs with the highest priority will be articulated as a demand to the academic domain since demand articulation depends on dynamics in the policy or industrial domain. Identified demands are translated into directions for solutions and objectives for research and innovation projects. These solutions and objectives are based, among other things, upon the feasibility of knowledge-based solutions and the necessity of new knowledge development versus the availability of already developed knowl­ edge. Alignment of the society and policy domain with the science domain occurs via research agenda-setting, and the management of stakeholder expectations. This kind of assessment of needs and the articulation of demands took place within the research agenda-setting of the government-funded Topsector Creative Industry. The project was part of a larger programme, initiated by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), the main Dutch research funding organisation. The programme focused on making knowledge accessible for the creative industry, developing new knowledge and realising the link between science and practice. To achieve this, NWO specifically included measures to ensure that the desired collaboration between researchers and entrepreneurs and the valorisation of the knowledge acquired could be realised in a mutually acceptable manner. In all cases projects needed to be realised with consortia of at least one knowledge

180 Erik Hitters

institution and at least one private party, possibly supplemented with other private and or public or semi-public parties. With this programme, NWO deliberately connected to the innovation agendas of the Topsector Creative Industry, which received strong government support. The CICI project speci­ fically related to the innovation agenda of the CI Next Business Innovation network. In an appendix to the call, the need for academic research and knowledge development was clearly articulated: ‘Capitalising on innovation opportunities at a sector level, regional level or even national level calls for knowledge development, strategy and actions that are beyond the scale of individual businesses. Research can be used to help identify such opportunities and develop models for exploiting them’ (NWO, 2012, pp. 4–5) The call fur­ ther specified that for the creative industries, a network-based approach would be preferable for the development of knowledge, identifying ‘opportunities for the sector, and also on developing the best possible conditions to enable the creative industries sector to realise its economic and social value. This last aspect also includes detecting bottlenecks and barriers to development, as well as ways of overcoming them or reducing their negative impact’ (NWO, 2012, pp. 4–5). On a more practical level, in the science domain, the SIVC model suggests that ideas for research projects can be based upon articulated demands or interactions with societal actors. These ideas are evaluated and project preparation activities are conducted, such as establishing joint R&D partnerships and developing solid research proposals (Van de Burgwal et al., 2018). In our case, the research proposal was carefully prepared in collaboration with our partner DCRN. DCRN is a major player in the Dutch start-up movement and helps to develop the country’s enterprise culture. It is a unique network without parallel in Europe. Established in 2010 it connects 33 creative hubs in 18 cities in 11 provinces, housing 4,000 companies with collectively nearly 10,000 employees (https://dcrnetwork.nl/). Many of these hubs or complexes are housed in emblematic older industrial buildings that have been refashioned for the new economy. DCRN aims to pro­ vide its members the opportunity to improve the environment for their tenants. It is a platform for knowledge and exchange on the entrepreneurs’ level, between members and between government and industry. DCRN strives to make the creative industry clear and accessible, encourages knowledge exchange and strengthens its economic vibrancy. Our research was an important pillar in the knowledge and research agenda of DCRN. In our collaboration with societal stakeholders, we were very aware of the needs for tangible or even intangible research output (such as support for legitimation, as we will elaborate further). According to Van der Burgwal et al. (2018) not all academic researchers are aware of the possibilities for further development of their research output and therefore the promotion of disclosure opportunities and the identification of findings are vital steps in the progress of the value cycle. Via DCRN we conducted research under the administrators and the tenants of 10 colocation complexes. But they were not merely the subject of research. DCRN and

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 181

the companies they represent provided in-kind contributions to this project. These consisted of over 1,000 professional working hours by the companies involved in the research. Tasks consisted of collecting data from the company on the financial performance, labour, transactions etc., as well as providing information through detailed surveys and interviews. Also, the location managers were active in the project management. In the first stage of the research we did a first round of interviews among the business centres’ managers and the companies, which was carried out in close collaboration with our business partners and the intermediary organisations. These interviews charted more precisely the specificities of each location involved and identified a number of practice-based business cases. Questions asked in this first stage focused on key findings in previous empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative) into creative industries networks and hubs or clusters, with respect to economic value, performance, innovation and spill-overs. We looked at the role of both institutionalised as well as informal location-based networks and how they have been identified as being central to the value adding capacities of creative industries. Also we charted the availability of national as well as international data sources on the creative industries in order to measure economic value, performance, innovation and spill-overs. Finally, our interviews focused on characterising context (culture), management and organi­ sation in all of the participating locations. The findings of this first stage were crucial in setting the agenda for the subsequent stages.

Research Collaboration and Findings In the two-step mixed method approach of the subsequent stages we conducted interviews and two surveys. All respondents were housed in our ten creative business centres, and these locations’ managers or directors served as gatekeepers for reaching the potential respondents. For the interviews, we proceeded by means of convenience and snowball sampling: finding respondents ‘on the go’ and by being forwarded by interviewees. Our primary selection criterion was selfidentifying as working in the creative and media industries. The respondents were asked, among some other topics, about their professional work, their perceived creativeness and entrepreneurship, their definitions of innovation in general and for the creative industries, their own innovativeness, what contributes to innovation, what settings make them (more) innovative, how they develop new ideas and implement them, and whether and how they think innovativeness can be measured. We examined how these companies do assess the importance of co-location and the level of institutional involvement (thick­ ness) within their location, and to what extent context and organisation do play a role in their own experience of innovation practices within their working envir­ onment, both internal as well as external to their own business.

182 Erik Hitters

In the third stage, the Cultures of Innovation in the Creative Industries (CICI) Surveys focused on working in creative business centres, creative labour and entrepreneurship, place reputation and innovation. Again, we collaborated closely with the location managers. All entrepreneurs were sent an invitation to a survey with a cover letter explaining the topic and importance of the research project. In the locations, the entrepreneurs were notified about our study by the clusters’ managers by email. The cooperation with DCRN and the managers/adminis­ trators of our research locations was essential to data collection and the progress of the research. They provided access to the creative companies that we researched and provided logistical support. Thanks to the smooth cooperation, we were able to collect voluminous and rich data from creative companies. Another result of the collaboration is that the locations concerned better understood their tenants, how they appreciate the locations but also any problems they experience. The managers were also provided with a private report of our findings particular to their location. The CICI research yielded a number of tangible findings (see also Wijngaarden et al., 2016; Bhansing et al., 2018, Wijngaarden et al., 2019). Creative Business Centres (CBCs) are used by creative entrepreneurs to show that they are risktaking, innovative and artistic; it reinforces their identity as a creative entrepreneur. CBCs are also used by creative entrepreneurs for its creative and professional reputation. When co-located, creative entrepreneurs appreciate the sense of colle­ giality with other entrepreneurs. Creative entrepreneurs find that they innovate because they are involved in a continuous recombination of new and existing ele­ ments of already existing products and services. Sources of innovations of creative entrepreneurs are the atmosphere of the location, the passion for their work, and contacts with peers and partners. CBC managers experience a lack of continuity and a high degree of volatility in finances, management and ownership. Creative entrepreneurs appreciate co-loca­ tion in one building or complex, but would like more advice and support from the management of the property. The findings of the CICI research project can be summarised in three main conclusions on the value of creative business co-location for entrepreneurs. Firstly, the hub provides a context that stimulates the creative entrepreneur in the development of products and services. Secondly, it gives the creative entrepreneur the chance to show them who he/she is. And thirdly, crea­ tive business hubs are essential for a functioning ecosystem of the cultural and creative industry. It is necessary that there are affordable workplaces for starting and growing creative entrepreneurs. However, there is a risk that developing a sus­ tainable creative industry through creative co-location can fall prey to the growing opportunities of economic exploitation of the properties involved. Managers run­ ning creative business hubs would gain from a continuity strategy in which one takes account of any possible displacement to other locations. A bottleneck in the cooperation with our partners was the uncertain policy and market environment in which they operate, as well as the rapid individual muta­ tions that took place at these organisations. In seven cases there were financial

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 183

difficulties to the owner/administrator, in two cases the locations were sold to other owners and the management organisation the changed at four other loca­ tions. In six cases there were significantly less intensive programmes for tenants and in eight cases there were individual changes in the management. As researchers we sometimes encountered problems with the continuity of our research, which also has led to some delay in the data collection.

Knowledge Dissemination and Utilisation The CICI project set out to answer questions about the impact and effectiveness of the co-location and agglomeration of creative industries. What happens in creative business hubs and complexes; how are they managed; how is a culture of innova­ tion fostered; and what kind of innovative outcomes are experienced? From the outset, the research was targeted at not only generating academic knowledge and contributing to debates on the effectiveness of clustering and co-location, it was also set up in close collaboration with industry partners and aimed to generate applicable knowledge for the sector. Especially the management of the locations were able to apply this knowledge to improve the quality of their facilities. The findings were shared with the users and the broader field in a number of dissemination activities. There were three types of activities. First, in close coopera­ tion with our partners, we organised several conferences and expert meetings. The CICI research team has disseminated its findings from the onset onwards at different times, during meetings such as DCRN Board meetings and meetings of its Interna­ tional Advisory Board. A broader audience was reached during DCRN’s Knowledge Days, which were specifically aimed at disseminating knowledge and knowledge sharing among members of the network. We participated in those meeting on sev­ eral occasions. The linkages that we established with DCRN proved to be very conducive to the utilisation of knowledge. Our scientific research provided impor­ tant insights for improvement of the positive effects of co-location of creative industries. At the conference ‘Science meets Creativity’, hosted at Strijp-S in Eind­ hoven in 2014, the most current research and successful practical cases were pre­ sented and discussed. Here, researchers, managers and entrepreneurs shared their insights and experiences, and discussed on the topic of what science and creative colocation buildings had to offer each other. The input of the location managers during the first seminar had a formative influence on the CICI research. At the larger CICI project conference ‘The place to be’, we targeted managers, entrepreneurs, policy makers and academics. It took place in year 3 of the project at The Creative Factory, Rotterdam. We presented a mid-term report of the project results to a broader group of users. In addition to the presentation of results, the conference offered dedicated workshops for policy makers and man­ agers, where we looked at possible applications of relevant themes. Also the (interviewed) entrepreneurs from different locations could share insights with each other through workshops around the theme of entrepreneurship in creative

184 Erik Hitters

co-location centres. A closing expert meeting ‘Here to stay! Business Continuity Strategies for Creative Hubs’ was organised in year 5 of the CICI project. We targeted an audience of CBC managers, interested creative entrepreneurs and policy makers. It was hosted by one of the DCRN members, De Kroon, Rotter­ dam. Following the conclusions of the CICI research we discussed business con­ tinuity strategies for creative hubs. Now the real estate market has picked up steam again, formerly obsolete urban areas, which housed many creative industries hubs, became subject to urban development and gentrification. One of the conclusions of the CICI research was that in this dynamic creative hubs – whether or not they were (temporarily) established in times of crisis – often lose out. The participants jointly formulated starting points to increase the continuity strategy of hubs. In that way, they directly translated the conclusions of the CICI research into concrete plans of action. Second, a website was developed for knowledge dissemination. During year 1 we prepared and went live with our project website: www.ciciproject.nl. On this website we presented (short) information about CICI research: the main questions and approaches, and we shared the findings of sub-projects, we introduced the researchers involved as well as our partners. In addition, the website was regularly updated with news about the progress and events. The website was increasingly used to disseminate knowledge. Working papers, presentations, reports and the final conclusions were presented through the website to the partners, users and the general public. A third set of dissemination activities were our publications and reports. Of inter­ est here are our professional and general publications in which we translated our research findings to the users, managers, policy makers and the general audience. A mid-term report was prepared in year 3 and already included many of our most important findings. The final report of the CICI project examined the relationship between creative business centres and innovation, answering our research question. It sets out the conditions and catalysts of innovation which were found in the research, and what factors can limit or obstruct innovation. It focused on a number of themes, including: the specificity of creative entrepreneurship, the sources of innovation, the reputation of the building, social interactions, the needs of entre­ preneurs, the role of managers and intermediaries, relationships with education and governments. The project also reported specific feedback to locations, targeted at managers of the participating locations. These reports for each location offered a concise reporting of results of interviews and surveys of the entrepreneurs, specifying the characteristics of and programmes within the CBC that were appreciated, which thresholds were experienced by entrepreneurs and which improvements could be made. Where possible, we also included statements and evidence on the contribu­ tion of the CBC to innovation. Of course, the anonymity of respondents was guar­ anteed and results could not be traced back to individual renters. Overall, throughout the five-year project, we have actively collected and shared our acquired knowledge about creative entrepreneurs and the innovative effects of their co-location with professionals in the creative industry. The research has had

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 185

an important role in demonstrating the added value of creative co-location, and in that way contributed to the legitimation of fostering – and publicly supporting – breeding places for emerging creative entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Conclusions and Discussion As we have argued elsewhere (Wijngaarden et al., 2016), innovation is best understood by taking a holistic view, including its conditions and outcomes. It is a process or a by-product of one that is more than creativity or successful imple­ mentations of novel ideas or products. Innovation as a process is about openness to the environment and utilising or creating new methods that increase or deliver high-quality outputs. Our perspective places less emphasis on the market and societal acceptance. In our view, innovation should be considered a field-specific process that has value in specific contexts and locations and takes different shapes in different locations. This allows an introspective view on the creative industries, and thereby a better way of understanding innovation in this particular context. Moreover, it shows that many innovations are produced out of the motivations to make beautiful, meaningful and useful products and services, but also that these innovations are shaped and created by their localities (Wijngaarden et al., 2016, p. 10). This way the project fits within the media clusters research available in media management literature. In terms of the SIVC models of Van der Burgwal et al. (2018), in the early and preparatory stages of our research, we carefully assessed the needs of the sector and subsequently in close relationship to our partners, articulated the demands for research. The identified demands were translated into the objectives for our research, based, among other things, upon the necessity of new knowledge devel­ opment versus the availability of already developed knowledge. The assessment of needs and the articulation of demands took place within the research agenda-set­ ting of the government-funded Topsector Creative Industry and the CI Next Business Innovation Network. For the analysis of subsequent stages of our research, the SIVC model is less useful as it takes a different route of knowledge transfer towards commercial development and market deployment. For us, knowledge dissemination and utilisation were central to our concerns. While our results address the effectiveness of and challenges to co-located busi­ ness centres, the question remains to what extent and in what way entrepreneurs, managers and policymakers can make use of the results. Landry et al. (2001) con­ vincingly argue that knowledge dissemination efforts and adaptation of research products have positive effects on knowledge utilisation. They depend on the interaction between researchers and users as well as the linkage mechanisms that they have invested resources in. However, factors regarding the users’ context are contingent to the particular situations of the users and, as a consequence, are diffi­ cult to include in a generalised theory of knowledge utilisation. Our experiences corroborate these statements. Our interactions with our partner locations and

186 Erik Hitters

DCRN have been very important in the way that the results of our research have been taken up in the daily practice of the location managers. The dissemination activities that we have organised and our participation in meetings have had vary­ ing degrees of effects on the uptake of the research results. Not all users were similarly interested in these results, as some had to prioritise more pressing issues concerning the management and financial situation of their location. Interestingly, we also clearly observed the non-linearity of this process. Utilisation of knowledge did not have to wait until the research was finished, even more so, it started almost immediately as we initiated our research on these locations. The mere fact that we were doing our research, talking to the managers and entrepreneurs and focusing their attention on their role as intermediaries, raised their awareness of the practice of innovation, the social and relational nature of it and the dependency on the proximity of codified and tacit knowledge.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) under file number 314-99-110, and is made possible with the cooperation of the Dutch Creative Residency Network. Many thanks to Pawan Bhansing, Sven-Ove Horst and Yosha Wijngaarden for their contributions to this chapter.

References Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. The Jour­ nal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18–26. Bathelt, H. & Cohendet, P. (2014). The creation of knowledge: Local building, global accessing and economic development – towards an agenda. Journal of Economic Geo­ graphy, 14 (5), 869–882. Bhansing, P. V., Hitters, E. & Wijngaarden, Y. (2018). Passion inspires: Motivations of creative entrepreneurs in creative business centres in the Netherlands. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 27(1), 1–24. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cunningham, S. (2013). Hidden innovation: Policy, industry and the creative sector. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Currid, E. (2007). How art and culture happen in New York: Implications for urban economic development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 454–467. Davis, C. H., Creutzberg, T. & Arthurs, D. (2009). Applying an innovation cluster fra­ mework to a creative industry: The case of screen-based media in Ontario. Innovation, 11(2), 201–214. De Vaan, M., Stark, D. & Vedres, B. (2015). Game changer: The topology of creativity. American Journal of Sociology, 120(4), 1144–1194. Department of Culture, Media and Sport. (2011). Creative industries economic estimates: Full statistical release. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

Co-Located and Clustered Industries 187

Ibrus, I. (Ed.). (2019). Emergence of cross-innovation systems: Audiovisual industries co-innovating with education, health care and tourism. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Karlsson, C. & Picard, R. G. (Eds.). (2013). Media clusters: Spatial agglomeration and content capabilities. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Komorowski, M. (2017). A novel typology of media clusters. European Planning Studies, 25(8), 1334–1356. Landry, R., Amara, N. & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30(2), 333–349. Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313. NWO. (2012). Creative industries top sector creative industries NeXt: Creative business innovation. Appendix to call for projects. Retrieved from: www.nwo.nl/binaries/con tent/documents/nwo-en/common/documentation/application/nwo/top-grants-socia l-sciences – -creative-industies-bussiness-innovations. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34. Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J. & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: A new definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32(3), 167–185. Pratt, A. C. (2008). Cultural commodity chains, cultural clusters, or cultural production chains? Growth and Change, 39(1), 95–103. Pratt, A. C. & Jeffcutt, P. (2009). Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy: Snake oil for the twenty-first century. In A. C. Pratt & P. Jeffcutt (Eds.), Creativity, innovation, and the cultural economy (pp. 3–19). London: Routledge. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. N. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Van de Burgwal, L., van der Waal, M. & Claassen, E. (2018). Leveraging academic knowledge in the innovation ecosystem. Rotterdam: SMO. Van den Nieuwboer, M., Van De Burgwal, L. H. M. & Claassen, E. (2016). A quantitative key-opinion-leader analysis of innovation barriers in probiotic research and develop­ ment: Valorisation and improving the tech transfer cycle. PharmaNutrition, 4(1), 9–18. Van Geenhuizen, M. (2010). Valorisation of knowledge: preliminary results on valorization paths and obstacles in bringing university knowledge to market. Presented at the Eighteenth annual high technology small firms conference, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, 27–28 May 2010. Virta, S. & Lowe, G. F. (2017). Integrating media clusters and value networks: Insights for management theory and research from a case study of Mediapolis in Finland. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(1), 2–21. Wijngaarden, Y., Hitters, E. & Bhansing, P. V. (2016). ‘Innovation is a dirty word’: Contesting innovation in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(2), 1–14. Wijngaarden Y., E. Hitters & Bhansing P. V.. (2019). Close to the local cool: Creative place reputation in Dutch ‘ordinary cities’. Creative Industries Journal, 12(1), 86–104.

12

EYES ON TECH! MEDIA ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE RELEVANCE OF TECHNOLOGY IN BUSINESS MODELS Andreas Will, Britta Gossel and Julian Windscheid TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT ILMENAU

Introduction Digital change is confronting the media industry with major challenges. Traditional media companies are struggling to survive (just think of traditional newspaper pub­ lishers) while facing new media environments and markets. A central role is being played by the development of emerging (media) technologies, such as intelligent automation, virtual reality (VR) and data analytics. So far, the specific influence of emerging technologies on media business models has not been sufficiently taken into account in media management research. For example, the chapter on media entre­ preneurship in the latest issue of the Handbook of Media Management and Economics mentions technology as one of the sources of entrepreneurial opportunities (Hang, 2018, p. 260) and it attributes the emergence of media start-ups to the development of digital technologies (p. 266). However, the literature overview does not list any works that deal with the influence of specific technologies. Consequently, Hang (2018) places the investigation of the application of advanced technologies, such as VR, on the agenda of future media management research. In this chapter we present a research project in which we investigated the extent to which media start-ups integrate new technologies into their individual business models. The results of this study show that new technologies play an important but differentiated role in the business models of media start-ups. Based on our findings, this chapter is particularly aimed at stakeholder groups in media practice and educa­ tion. In this context, the chapter discusses some of our experiences in interacting with stakeholders. We postulate that awareness of the relevance of business topics and new technologies among the respective stakeholder groups (business thinkers in media organisations, media educators and media students) should be greatly sharpened, the better to prepare future media professionals for constantly changing media markets.

Media Entrepreneurship 189

Literature Overview Media Business Models A business model describes the value a company creates for its customers, the way customer value is turned into revenues and profits for the company, and the resources and processes used in operating the company and creating value and profits (Johnson et al., 2008). While the numerous business model concepts that encapsulate these basic ideas differ in detail (Zott et al., 2011), they share a dual role as a management method (1) in understanding and analysing a company’s current business logic, and (2) in sup­ porting strategic decisions by designing and simulating new business concepts (Burkhart et al., 2011). To describe and explain the business models of media companies – also referred to as ‘media business models’ (McPhillips & Merlo, 2008) – the concept pro­ posed by Wirtz (2011) has gained in popularity and has been widely adopted. Wirtz (2011, 2014) distinguishes six sub-models: from the market model, through the supply chain of the procurement, production of products and services, service offer and distribution models to the capital model of financing and revenue generation. Overall, these submodels describe the architecture and activities of a business on an abstract level. They thus provide orientation that depicts the important and critical elements of a business and the interplay of these elements, such that the respective specifics of competitive advantage and value creation become visible. In descriptions and explanations of media business models, the focus is often on investigating the particular media-specific role of the market and of the revenue model, including the network effects between the user and the advertising market and the two corresponding revenue sources: copy and advertising (e.g. von Rim­ scha, 2016). This goes hand in hand with the traditional conception of media business models as focusing on the ‘ability to balance the needs of consumers and advertisers’ (McPhillips & Merlo, 2008, p. 238). In contrast, the term ‘technology’ does not appear explicitly in Wirtz’s (2011) business model concept. By reviewing analyses of business models based on Wirtz’s (2011) framework concept – e.g. the comparison of social media with legacy media (von Rimscha, 2016) – the outstanding importance of technology for media business models becomes implicitly clear. For instance, in the course of describing the six submodels, von Rimscha (2016) mentions the activities of providing an ‘IT infra­ structure’, ‘generating’ recommendations, ‘programming’ software, ‘automating’, improving ‘usability’, having an ‘algorithm’ or ‘monitoring’ behaviour. While this makes it very clear how (information) technology pervades the business models of media, the concept of technology remains vague and indeterminate. It remains open whether the mastery and application of concrete technologies could be a core com­ petence within a certain business model and for innovating existing business models. This indicates that even though the deep effects of digitisation and interconnected­ ness on media business models are generally well understood (Lawson-Borders, 2010; Evens, 2018), for specific technologies such as data analysis or augmented reality (AR),

190 Andreas Will et al.

for example, the specific use within and the influence on media business models is still little researched. (For emerging technologies motivating new waves of cross-innova­ tion, see Ibrus & Rajahonka, 2019, p. 106). We will therefore try to clarify the role of technology in media business models using Wirtz’s (2011) sub-models.

Emerging Technology ‘Emerging technologies’ are frequently discussed in various areas of academic research. Varying approaches and definitions can be found; for example, in the philosophy of science, in the engineering sciences, in the humanities and in the social sciences (Schatzberg & Mitcham, 2009, p. 41). Due to the differing tech­ nological approaches, there are many definitions of emerging technologies. Fol­ lowing Rotolo et al. (2015), we define an emerging technology as a radically novel and relatively fast-growing technology, characterized by a degree of coherence that persists over time and has the potential to exert a significant influence on the socio-economic domain(s) observed in terms of the composition of actors, institutions and patterns of interaction between them and the knowledge production processes associated with them. Its most prominent effect, however, lies in the future, and so is still somewhat uncer­ tain and ambiguous in the development phase. (Rotolo et al., 2015, p. 4) Media economics and media management are closely linked to the development of new technologies (e.g. history of field descriptions; Wirtz, 2011). Küng (2016) points out that media industries are facing extreme change. This is reflected in the high number (over 20%) of published media management theories that refer to technology, innovation, and creativity theories (Mierzejewska & Hollifield, 2006). Accordingly, technology is a crucial part of media management research. Picard & Lowe (2016, p. 66) highlight that media management research is shaped by the influence of technologies. Other researchers point out that emerging technologies shape conceptual work and empirical research within the field, regarding as core issues the topics of media companies (Hess, 2014), specific media industries and products (e.g., broadcasting (Murray, 2013); publishing (Blankfield & Stevenson, 2012); and news (Ottosen & Krumsvik, 2012)), business models (Lawson-Borders, 2010), the value chain (Kehoe & Mateer, 2015) or media branding (Chan-Olmsted, 2011), as well as core methods of research (Murthy, 2008; Gunzerath, 2012). Mierzejewska and Shaver (2014) even talk about ‘tech­ nology-driven key changes’ that affect media management research (p. 47).

(Media) Entrepreneurship Several decades ago, the entrepreneurship research field emerged within the man­ agement research community. By now, it can be described as an established

Media Entrepreneurship 191

academic field which has moved from its roots to become an interdisciplinary field of research (Aldrich, 2012). As a specific niche, media entrepreneurship is about entrepreneurial activity within traditional media (Achtenhagen, 2008) or within new media (Hang & van Weezel, 2007). The discussion has moved from media entrepreneurship as a phenomenon (Achtenhagen, 2008) to its being viewed as an academic field (Achtenhagen, 2017). Even though first definitions of media entrepreneurship exist (Khajeheian, 2017), ‘in what way media entrepreneurship differs from other entrepreneurial activity’ (Achtenhagen, 2017, p. 2) remains to be discussed, as is the case with the role played by advanced digital technologies (Hang, 2018, p. 268). There are also further chal­ lenges in this field; for example, a need for theorising, a need for reflecting context, and a suggestion to move beyond the specific industry context (Achtenhagen, 2017, p. 6; Hang, 2018, p. 268). Media entrepreneurship has to be delimited from other ‘X’ entrepreneurship descriptions such as cultural entrepreneurship, creative entrepre­ neurship, digital entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship or digital technology entrepreneurship. Respecting these other approaches, we assume the specialities of media entrepreneurship to include: (a) a given relation to creative content produc­ tion, distribution, and curation; (b) a given relation to the digitalised world and a close connection to technology development; and (c) embedding in the unique relation­ ship of media and society. Simultaneously, we assume entrepreneurship as being both a narrow and a wide definition (Lackéus, 2015). The field of entrepreneurship research meets the issue of business models in several dimensions. Business models are observed within this research context in innovation form or as an opportunity facilitator (George & Bock, 2011, p. 87). The business model can be observed here as ‘a core building block of the entrepreneurial enactment process’ (George & Bock, 2011, p. 102). Literature reviews within this context conclude that researching business models through the lens of entrepreneurship is still a fragmented field that has not yet developed appropriate definitions or frameworks (George & Bock, 2011; Trimi & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). This is not surprising, since there is a lack of agreement on terminology (Massa et al., 2017) and a lack of construct clarity (Foss & Saebi, 2017), as recently discussed in the context of business model research. In addition, the issues of technology development within the con­ text of business model research are researched from a common perspective. Pateli and Giaglis (2005) explore business model changes induced by technology innova­ tion. In addition, technology development can be seen as an enabler of business model innovation (Schneider & Spieth, 2013, p. 21). Narrowing the view to the field of media entrepreneurship research with a focus on business model research and the role of emerging technologies, we still end up in a research desert where mar­ ginal attention is paid. One corridor for future consideration might be the emerging interest in digital entrepreneurship, as it is closely connected to media entrepreneur­ ship (Achtenhagen, 2017). By writing this chapter, the authors aim to contribute to the filling of this research gap, but even more to assisting the identified stakeholders in praxis. Our idea is to support stakeholders’ agendas of action, by promoting

192 Andreas Will et al.

alertness to the relevance of emerging technologies for media entrepreneurs and for their business models.

Project One basic idea of the project covered in this chapter is that entrepreneurial opportunities are created rather than discovered (Gossel & Will, 2012) and that emerging technologies play a crucial part within those entrepreneurial creation processes. The project began in 2016 with the idea of taking a closer look at the role of emerging technologies in the current media industry. Some preliminary studies were carried out. A comprehensive literature analysis revealed nine tech­ nology trends (data analytics, intelligent automation, virtual reality, augmented reality, real-time graphics photorealism, digital payment, blockchain, chatbots, and wearable tech­ nology), which formed the basis for further research. In a second step, we analysed literature in the field of media management research to structure the core areas along the media enterprise service system (Wirtz, 2011). We applied the method of bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005) to ‘combine readily available elements into new representations’ (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011, p. 281). Within this con­ text, we combined the results of the previous steps with the aim of formulating new research questions for media management research. Then, in a continuation of this work, we used qualitative expert interviews to answer some of these questions. Having carried out various studies with professional groups within and outside the media industry (e.g. marketing experts, technology experts) (Gossel et al., 2018a, 2018b; Windscheid et al., 2018, 2019), we now take a closer look at how media entrepreneurs use emerging technologies to create new value for their business models.

Nature and Origin The present project aims to reflect on the relevance of emerging technologies in the field of media entrepreneurship in order to understand which existing busi­ ness models are broken up to develop innovative new business models. There­ fore, we conducted 39 qualitative interviews (from October to December 2018) with founders of media start-ups from several parts of the world (see Table 12.1). As per Ries (2011), media start-ups were assumed to be start-ups in the context of media entrepreneurship as defined above. In the end, nine cases were elimi­ nated from the analysis as they did not correspond to our definition of media entrepreneurship (see Appendix). The sample was based on a collection of media entrepreneurs who were identified within the context of an international master’s research seminar. Students were asked to identify media start-ups by cold acqui­ sition according to a given profile, one in their home country and one in a country not represented in the course by a student. The idea for a sample that is heterogeneous in every respect is based on the inspiration of abductive analysis

Media Entrepreneurship 193

TABLE 12.1 Sample by Continent/Countries of Origin

Continent

Country of origin

Number

North America South America Europe

USA, Canada Colombia, Peru United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Norway, Spain Pakistan, India, Bangladesh Nigeria, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Kenya

6 3 12

Asia Africa Total

3 6 30

that searches for ‘anomalous and surprising empirical findings’ (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p. 169). The entrepreneurs were initially contacted by e-mail, and the interviews, with an average duration of 17:54 min, were performed mainly via Skype. The only firmly defined selection criteria were: defined to be a media start-up, and their relation to technologies. Table 12.2 shows that most of the start-ups surveyed are five years old or less (N=20), most often with two founders (N=13), have up to 20 employees and an international (N=15) or national and international (N=5) market orientation. In order to get a better overview of the various business areas of the media start-ups, we have divided them into five categories, according to their corporate purposes (see Table 12.3). The analysis of the interviews was based on the business model concept of Wirtz (2011). The aim was to find out which technologies were used by the start-ups and which areas of their business model were affected by those technologies. For this purpose, each interview was transcribed and examined in terms of the six submodels.

Results In this section, we summarise some of the core results of our empirical investi­ gation. The suggested categories are the outcome of a qualitative analysis.

Emerging Technologies Are a Crucial Part of Media Entrepreneurs’ Business Models A key result of the analysis is that emerging technologies feature greatly in media entrepreneurship. In only two of the examined cases (4, 18) were none of the defined emerging technologies mentioned, not even as a supporting component of the business model. This suggests that emerging technologies play an important role for media entrepreneurs and their business models. Very often, emerging technologies for the production of media products and services were described. At the

TABLE 12.2 Description of Sample

Founding year

Number

Before 2003 2004–2008 (up to 15 years old) 2009–2013 (up to 10 years old 2014–2018 (up to 5 years old) Number of founders

1 3 6 20

1 2 3 >4 Number of employees

8 13 6 3

0 1–5 6–10 11–20 21–50 > 50 Market orientation

3 5 4 10 5 1

National International National and international

10 15 5

Note: in two cases we have no information about the number of employees

TABLE 12.3 Case Description

Company purpose

Case number

Content production (text, AV, AR, VR, mixed media environments, video games)

Technology-based services for media industries (app for radio stations, support for YouTuber or influencer)

Media-based services for other industries (media tracking, mood tracking, audience reach, SEO agency) Media platforms / apps for specific target groups (e.g. livestock media platform, book platform, media sharing)

Broker / advertising / social media marketing

1, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 27, 29, 39

13, 18

3, 11, 19, 23, 24, 31, 37, 40,

41

4, 10, 16, 26, 30, 38

2, 9, 17, 32, 33

Media Entrepreneurship 195

same time, the diversity of the various technologies used became apparent. This is particularly evident in the wide range of applications for artificial intelligence, intelligent automation, and data analytics in the production of media products and services (see Table 12.4). Even though no truly innovative technological solutions were described, many entrepreneurs have integrated digital payment methods (e. g. PayPal) into their capital models. Data analytics appeared to be another crucial part of the distribution model: it supports distribution services, e.g. to analyse target groups, for search engine optimisation (SEO) as a service, to support the own pro­ duct and production process, or to produce an own revenue source (selling data). In this sample, little evidence was found of the embedding of technologies in terms of improvement or innovation in the market model or in the procurement model.

A Continuum from Weakly to Strongly Technology-Tied Business Models It was noticeable that the companies differed widely with regard to their inter­ weaving of emerging technologies with their business models. In some cases – we call them strongly technology-tied business models – a multitude of elements of Wirtz’s (2011) business model concept were shaped by using or by applying at least one of the nine defined emerging technologies. In other cases – we call them weakly technology-tied business models – only single elements were shaped. We illustrate this observation by two representative cases. Case 2 can be observed as weakly technology-tied, since a single simple technology (PayPal) is embedded in one part of its business model (capital model), while everything else is based on established tech­ nologies. Case 13 is what we call strongly technology-tied. By developing its own intelligent software for a new market, case 13 shows a technology-driven exploration of new market opportunities. In addition, within this start-up, a strong integration of new technologies for production and services was observed, since its model for pro­ duction of goods and services is grounded in data analytics. Finally, the service offer model in this case embeds intelligent automation as a crucial part of its platform, and in addition, its capital model employs automated invoice processing. Even though this short introduction to the two endpoints of the continuum is illustrative in character, we observe this as having the potential for further development towards generating a typology of technology interwovenness in media business models.

New Markets for Media Entrepreneurs We have found that technological improvements, through the deployment of new technologies, offer many opportunities to positively influence business challenges or issues. This includes technology-based improvements to business model prac­ tices in existing markets (relative to existing standards), and also includes the opening up of completely new markets through the strategic deployment of new technologies. Essentially, we found two different groups of entrepreneurs. One

TABLE 12.4 Emerging Technologies as a Crucial Part of Business Models

Technology Market Artificial intelligence Data analytics

Applications

Case number

- technology-driven new market exploration - technology-driven new market exploration

15 13, 15, 38

Production of media products and services Artificial intelligence

- core product development - media tracking - connecting content providers and consumers - data management - storytelling - content production - chatbots

Intelligent automation

-

Data analytics

Augmented reality Virtual reality Real-time photorealism

animation development smart interaction (for clients) mood detection optimisation of content creation service creation product development target group analysis SEO (as a service) support own product support production process data selling create scenarios and contexts for clients content creation content creation production process

11, 16, 19, 30, 31, 41 3 10 30 39 32 19, 31, 41 5 8 11 12 23, 40 26, 27, 31, 37 13, 24 40 16, 41 37 38 8 1,27, 32, 37 1,12, 27, 37 39

Service offer Artificial intelligence Intelligent automation

- service offer of advertising business - connecting content providers and consumers - connecting brands, advertisers and influencers

17 10 13

-

9, 10, 26 29 12 12 32

Distribution Data analytics Intelligent automation

target group analysis media tracking media tracking optimise distribution to audiences customer service

(Continued)

Media Entrepreneurship 197 TABLE 12.4 (Cont)

Technology

Applications

Case number

Blockchain

- contract generation - media tracking - customer service

30 30 32

- transfer fees - dealing with invoices

2 13

Chatbots Capital Digital payment Intelligent automation

Note: procurement model did not occur

example (case 13) illustrates the development of new emerging technology-based services for media industries. These entrepreneurs began with the idea of explaining new technology and media developments to traditional media organisations and finally developed a new emerging technology-based service for media producers and for the advertising market. Other examples illustrate how they developed new mediabased services to provide services to other industries. Examples are the use of artificial intelligence for media tracking (case 3) or mood tracking (case 11) as new services for customers outside the media industries. Other examples are new technologybased developed products to connect companies more efficiently with their audi­ ences (cases 19 and 31). Again, these examples are illustrative. However, they have the potential to stimulate discussion about the boundaries and crosslines of the media industries, as suggested in Will et al. (2013), for example.

Critical Evaluation At its beginning, this research project was guided by pure interest in knowledge; it did not arise from an immediate or specific practical problem, or even from a commission or a contract. Nevertheless, our academic work as social researchers is not related only to phenomena of the real world, but ideally is inseparably con­ nected with them. We are also convinced that social research should have an impact on the real world. Our experience with media practice includes our work as media educators and with media students, as well as our individual discourses with prac­ titioners from the media industry. In this section we illustrate our experiences with the respective stakeholder groups and compare those experiences with the research results in order to demonstrate their benefits for the stakeholder groups. First, while the work of media managers has already been intensively investi­ gated in our research community, the work of entrepreneurial thinkers in existing media organisations is still little researched. It is our assumption that entrepre­ neurial thinkers are related to a wide definition of entrepreneurship in terms of ‘being entrepreneurial’ (Lackéus, 2015). We assume them to be equipped with an entrepreneurial mind-set that does not include necessarily a technology roadmap.

198 Andreas Will et al.

Entrepreneurial thinkers can be in any position within or adjacent to media companies; we see them as media producers (e.g., entrepreneurial journalists), media managers or members of an entrepreneurial environment (e.g., start-ups in corporate accelerators). Since existing media companies are still struggling with the rapid changes associated with digitisation, the results of our study can show entrepreneurial thinkers in existing companies that this change can be shaped and can clarify what role the emerging technologies are able to play in transforming media companies’ business models for future success. Entrepreneurial thinking is about creating new ends with given means, and emerging technologies constantly change the given means. The results show that media entrepreneurs today embed emerging technologies into their business models to various extents. Entrepre­ neurial thinkers thus have the opportunity to challenge existing business models and lift them into new dimensions in entrepreneurial terms, for example by seeing emerging technologies as constantly changing the given means. Entrepre­ neurial thinkers could use the continuum from weakly to strongly technologytied business models to think about how the media organisation wants to position itself in the future. Finally, with the results and based on their entrepreneurial mind-set, media entrepreneurs can shape or even create the future markets of the respective media organisation. In dialogue with young journalists (Gossel & Konyen, 2019), we learned that they have a strong interest in entrepreneurial and technology competences. They see that they need both for their future work. Our dialogue with entrepreneurial thinkers from a large media company (media organisation’s accelerator) has shown that the organisation is currently working on business model innovations yet sees its innovations as being too far away from technology development. Second, very often the work of media educators in higher education is not con­ nected with the experiences of entrepreneurial education in research and in practice. This means that too many curricula used to train future media professionals are still unrelated to aspects of entrepreneurship education (see Baumann & Rohn, 2018), and when these areas are linked, the formats are often unrelated to the specific working conditions of media professionals and industries. The results of our study take this aspect into a new dimension: one aspect of narrowed approaches on media entrepreneurship education is to focus on emerging technologies as an issue (what kinds of emerging technologies exist and are relevant for media industries?) and as a means (how can emerging technologies affect opportunity creation?). The cases show the potential for new technologies to play an important role in creating business models for media. Educators can illustrate and anchor the relevance of technologies for a variety of entre­ preneurial course units (e.g. technology-based business ideas, market research in emer­ ging markets). To enable the work with emerging technologies, it is urgently necessary for educators of media entrepreneurs to be open to technology development and to find potential new solutions which include this issue in the curricula of entrepreneur­ ship education. It is not enough to master the canon of business planning (which would in any case not be sufficient for a sustainable media entrepreneurship education).

Media Entrepreneurship 199

Third, on the other side of media education are the students; the future media professionals. The benefits to them of our research can be observed in two dimensions. First, if they gain not only a deep knowledge of media industries, media management, and the special conditions (economic, social, ethical) of the media but also an overview and application knowledge about technology devel­ opment, this will be a relevant dimension for future media professionals. The second dimension is to develop entrepreneurial thinking and an acting person able to create opportunities for the implementation of value creation processes (economic, social, cultural) based on this knowledge. In combining the two dimensions, media students will have better chances of being employable in the media industry of the future. Secondly, as observed in this study, media entre­ preneurs can be role models and can provide examples of media careers. If stu­ dents realise that their career choices are not only those of journalist or media manager but also entrepreneurial media professional, this could offer them a positive option for their future professional identity. In the end, media educators are responsible for providing a holistic, ethical and entrepreneurial media educa­ tion, within the curriculum and beyond it. Finally, it is a challenge to create awareness of the relevance of entrepreneurial issues and emerging technologies among the respective stakeholders (entrepre­ neurial thinkers in media organisations, media educators and media students), especially in educational settings. In our project ‘Entrepreneurship Education Monitor for STEM degree programs’ (Gossel et al., 2018), we did not assume the project to be finished by summarising the results in a final report, but included lively strategic communication. Reports were sent to the principals’ offices of all German universities and to other stakeholders (e.g. professional associations), and reports were presented at network events and promoted via social media and media relations. Overall, the report was mentioned in more than 20 newspapers all over the country and was followed up by invitations to stakeholders’ praxis events. Since this strategy is a successful way to interact with stakeholders, it appears to provide a sustainable method of reaching the respective stakeholder groups for this project.

Discussion Our project has shown that emerging technologies play an important but differ­ entiated role in the investigated media start-ups. We find the most prominent emerging technologies to be artificial intelligence, intelligent automation, data analytics, and augmented and virtual reality in the area of media production, and data analytics in the area of distribution. We were able to distinguish between weakly and strongly technology-tied business models. Finally, in addition to technology-based improvements in existing markets, our study also found busi­ ness models which had opened up new technology-driven markets, namely ori­ ginal media markets and media services for other industries.

200 Andreas Will et al.

The example of journalism training clearly shows that current curricula do not adequately prepare students for such business practice, and that young graduates in journalism lacked both technological and entrepreneurial content in their curricula (Gossel & Konyen, 2019). Furthermore, the international context calls for the integration of entrepreneurial aspects into media and jour­ nalism course curricula (Gossel, 2018; Harnischmacher, 2019). Media educators, who often have little connection with entrepreneurial thinking and acting, are mostly aware of the importance of technology for the media industry, but do not provide a sound education to their students in this field. In this respect, we hope that the connections between the media industry, entrepreneurship, and emerging technologies that have been highlighted in this project can be helpful in providing stakeholders with useful recommendations and supporting arguments for their stra­ tegic decisions. Furthermore, this chapter should serve as a strong incentive to address the needs and problems of stakeholders in the future and to try to close gaps between science and practice. Of course, this study is not free of limitations. The randomly-built sample is neither representative nor theoretically constructed, but it is genuinely international and covers various niches and sectors of the media industry. The interviews were very short, lim­ iting the substance of the results. The international composition of the sample and the varying social, economic and political conditions associated with it may have affected the results. Regardless of its constraints, we are convinced that this work is a step in the right direction, which is to move even closer to the interests of stakeholders and their future needs through academic research in the field of media management. However, academic research should not be seen as the ‘henchman’ of practice. Scientific-theoretical and methodological development is essential for successful work on both sides. Especially in new areas, academic research must develop clear definitions that enable future-oriented, goal-oriented and successful work on all sides. A constant and intensive exchange between science and practice is therefore of great importance and promotes progress on both sides equally.

Appendix After data collection, nine of the 39 cases were removed from the analyses because they did not fit the chosen definition of media entrepreneurship. Even though on first impression those ventures had the appearance of media ventures, detailed analysis of their business models brought to light their unsuitability to the study requirements. They comprised three ventures providing IT services (cases 6, 14, and 20), one non-media related consulting agency (case 07), two non-media related hardware manufacturers (cases 25 and 36), one real estate start-up (case 28), one platform for non-media related services (case 34), and one NGO (case 35). Even though the NGO was active in the field of media, this case was removed because of the legal form of the business.

Media Entrepreneurship 201

References Achtenhagen, L. (2008). Understanding entrepreneurship in traditional media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 5(1), 123–142. Achtenhagen, L. (2017). Media entrepreneurship: Taking stock and moving forward. International Journal on Media Management, 19(1), 1–10. Aldrich, H. E. (2012). The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 41(7), 1240–1248. Baker, T. & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. Baumann, S. & Rohn, U. (2018). Media management study programmes. Retrieved from: www.media-management.eu/wp-content/uploads/Emma-booklet-A4_web-Final.pdf. Blankfield, S. & Stevenson, I. (2012). Towards a digital spine: The technological methods that UK and US publishers are using to tackle the growing challenge of e-book piracy. Public Research Quarterly, 28(2), 79–92. Boxenbaum, E. & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 272–296. Burkhart, T., Werth, D., Krumeich, J. & Loos, P. (2011). Analysing the business model concept – a comprehensive classification of literature. Paper presented at the Thirtysecond international conference on information systems, Shanghai, 2011. Retrieved from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=icis2011. Chan-Olmsted, S. (2011). Media branding in a changing world: Challenges and opportu­ nities 2.0. International Journal on Media Management, 13(1), 3–19. Clemons, E. K. (2009). Business models for monetizing Internet applications and web sites: Experience, theory and predictions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 15–41. Evens, T. (2018). Media economics and transformation in a digital Europe. In L. d’Hae­ nens, H. Sousa & J. Trappel (Eds.), Comparative media policy, regulation and governance in Europe: Unpacking the policy cycle (pp. 41–54). Bristol: Intellect. Foss, N. J. & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227. George, G. & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111. Gossel, B. M. (2018). Entrepreneurial journalism. Chance für die journalistische Freiheit? Reflexion des Freiheitsbegriffs und Konsequenzen für die Journalistenausbildung. In A. Czepek, M. Hellwig, B. Illg, & E. Nowak (Eds.), Freiheit und Journalismus (pp. 79–96). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Gossel, B. M., & Konyen, K. (2019) (Eds). Quo Vadis Journalistenausbildung? Befunde und Konzepte für eine zeitgemäße Ausbildung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Gossel, B. M. & Will, A. (2012). Neue Medien–neue Wertschöpfung–neue Unterneh­ men? Eine theoretische Betrachtung medialer Potenziale für den EntrepreneurshipProzess. In C. Kolo, T. Döbler, & L. Rademacher (Eds.), Wertschöpfung durch Medien im Wandel (pp. 321–336). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Gossel, B. M., Will, A., Schleicher, K., Solf, A., Krauß, M. & Weber, C. (2018). Entre­ preneurship Education Monitor 2018 für MINT-Studiengänge in Ostdeutschland. Retrieved from: www.db-thueringen.de/receive/dbt_mods_00034957. Gossel, B. M., Will, A. & Windscheid, J. (2018a). The influence of technology trends on business models and value chains of media companies. Paper presented at the Annual emma conference, Warsaw, 2018.

202 Andreas Will et al.

Gossel, B. M., Will, A. & Windscheid, J. (2018b). Capturing the future! An empirical investigation on trends in technology and a deduction of consequences for media man­ agement research. Paper presented at World media economics and management con­ ference, Cape Town, 2018. Gunzerath, D. (2012). Current trends in U.S. media measurement methods. International Journal on Media Management, 14(2), 99–106. Hang, M. (2018). Media entrepreneurship. In A. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (2nd ed.) (pp. 259–272). New York: Routledge. Hang, M. & van Weezel, A. (2007). Media and entrepreneurship: What do we know and where should we go? Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(1), 51–70. Harnischmacher, M. (2019). Internationale Perspektive. In B. M. Gossel & K. Konyen (Eds.), Quo Vadis Journalistenausbildung? Befunde und Konzepte für eine zeitgemäße Ausbil­ dung (pp. 81–89). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Hess, T. (2014). What is a media company? A reconceptualization for the online world. International Journal on Media Management, 16(1), 3–8. Hollifield, C., LeBlanc Wicks, J. & Sylvie, G. (2015). Media management: A casebook approach (5th ed.). New York: Routledge. Ibrus, I. & Rajahonka, M. (2019). Conclusions: cross-innovations between audiovisual and education sectors.In I. Indrus (Ed.), Emergence of cross-innovation systems: Audiovisual indus­ tries co-innovating with education, health care and tourism (pp. 105–114). Bingley: Emerald. Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, December 2008, 57–67. Kehoe, K. & Mateer, J. (2015). The impact of digital technology on the distribution value chain model of independent feature films in the UK. International Journal on Media Management, 17(2), 93–108. Khajeheian, D. (2017). Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition. AD-Minister, 30, 91–113. Küng, L. (2008). Strategic management in the media: Theory to practice. London: SAGE. Küng, L. (2016). Why is media management research so difficult – and what can scholars do to overcome the field’s intrinsic challenges? Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(4), 276–282. Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. Background Paper. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from: www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship -in-Education.pdf. Lawson-Borders, G. (2010). More than a mouse trap: Effective business models in a digital world. International Journal on Media Management, 12(1), 41–45. Massa, L., Tucci, C. L. & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104. McPhillips, S. & Merlo, O. (2008). Media convergence and the evolving media business model: an overview and strategic opportunities. Marketing Review, 8(3), 237–253. Mierzejewska, B., & Hollifield C. A. (2006). Theoretical approaches in media management research. In A. Albarran, S. Chan-Olmsted, & M. O. Wirth (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 37–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mierzejewska, B. & Shaver, D. (2014). Key changes impacting media management research. International Journal on Media Management, 16(2), 47–54. Murray, A. M. (2013). Rationalizing creativity – rationalizing public service: Is scheduling management fit for the digital era? International Journal on Media Management, 15(2), 119–136. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837–855.

Media Entrepreneurship 203

Ottosen, R. & Krumsvik, A. H. (2012). Digital challenges on the Norwegian media scene. Nordicom Review, 33(2), 43–55. Pateli, A. G. & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: A contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 167–183. Picard, R. G. (2011). The economics and financing of media companies. New York: Fordham University Press. Picard, R. G. & Lowe, G. F. (2016). Questioning media management scholarship: Four parables about how to better develop the field. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(2), 61–72. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business. Rotolo, D., Hicks, D. & Martin, B. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843. Schatzberg, E. & Mitcham, C. (2009). Defining technology and the engineering sciences. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 27–64). Amster­ dam: Elsevier. Schneider, S. & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1). Shepherd, D. A. (2016). The aspiring entrepreneurship scholar: Strategies and advice for a successful academic career. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Timmermans, S. & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological theory, 30(3), 167–186. Trimi, S. & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). Business model innovation in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(4), 449–465. von Rimscha, M. B. & Siegert, G. (2015). Medienökonomie: Eine problemorientierte Einfüh­ rung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. von Rimscha, M. B. (2016). Business models of media industries: Describing and pro­ moting commodification. In G. F. Lowe & C. Brown (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries: What’s so special about media management? (pp. 207–222). Cham: Springer. Will, A., Gossel, B. M. & Brüntje, D. (2013). Breaking off common assumptions on media markets: Theoretical consequences from digital transformation. Paper presented at Annual emma conference, Bournemouth, 2013. Windscheid, J., Gossel, B. M. & Will, A. (2018). Let’s talk about tech! Konsequenzen von Technologietrends für die Medienmanagementforschung. Paper presented at DGPuK FG Medienökonomie annual conference, Paderborn, 2018. Windscheid, J., Gossel, B. M. & Will, A. (2019). Media entrepreneurship: The role of emerging technologies for media business models. Paper presented at Annual emma conference, Limassol, 2019. Wirtz, B. W. (2011). Business model management: Design – instruments – success factors. Wies­ baden: Gabler. Wirtz, B. W. (2014). Business models, value chains and competencies in media markets: A service system perspective. Palabra Clave, 17(4), 1041–1065. Zott, C., Amit, R. & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

13

MANAGING DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION The Case of the Finnish Broadcasting Company Päivi Maijanen LUT UNIVERSITY

Introduction In recent years, digital transformation has disrupted the media industry in an unpredictable way. Media companies have been undergoing profound strategic changes that embrace all dimensions of organisational life from strategic thinking to daily actions. This research project deals with digital transformation at the Finnish Broadcasting Company (Yle), a public broadcaster with a strong market dom­ inance in the Finnish media. The purpose of this chapter is to present the main idea of the research project and evaluate its practical execution and value for the industry. At the end, the chapter will highlight some of the core lessons and pro­ vide guidelines for making the research matter. The longitudinal research project at Yle is based on a research agreement between LUT School of Business and Yle. On the part of the university, I was the main initiator and responsible researcher for the study. It was also my doctoral dissertation study (Maijanen-Kyläheiko, 2014). The personal interest and original idea came from my years of work experience at Yle as a journalist and manager. Especially during my years as a manager, I came to know the many challenges of managing change. This management requires the continuous pursuit, struggle, and balance of the past, present and future. This stimulated my curiosity about the nature of this challenge: why is it so hard to manage change? In addition to my own experience, Yle was an excellent case to study change management and organisational renewal because, at the time of the research, Yle was undertaking a large-scale digital transformation process. This study can be framed as a study of strategic media management. It applies con­ cepts of strategic management to analyse the core question of strategy research: how can a media company sustain its competitive advantage in a volatile media

Managing Digital Transformation 205

environment? The main theoretical concepts applied are dynamic capabilities (Helfat et al., 2007; Teece, 2014; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) and managerial and organisational cognition (Kaplan, 2011; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). Dynamic capabilities are capabilities that organisations build and use to implement strategic change. Studies of managerial and organisational cognition explore how strategic thinking – that is, how managers and organisations frame and define their busi­ nesses – affects organisational renewal processes. From managerial and organisa­ tional cognition research, this study applies the concept of dominant logic, which refers to how managers define their approach to the business (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). In times of disruptive change, strategic renewal requires transformation from the old to the new dominant logic. In the case of Yle, it was a question of a shift from the traditional broadcasting towards the digital dominant logic. Theoretically, this study contributes to media management by providing a fresh approach that combines the two key concepts. Although there are some studies on dynamic capabilities in the media context (Hasenpusch & Baumann, 2017; Maijanen & Virta, 2017; Naldi, Wikström, & von Rimscha, 2014; Oliver, 2018), it is still an emerging field within the domain of media management. Respec­ tively, the use of the concept of managerial cognition is very much in its early stage in media management (see articles on cognition based on the research pro­ ject with Yle, Maijanen, 2015a, 2015b). It seems that this combined approach provides a promising frame to explore the media industry in which rapid changes require the constant renewal of both strategic thinking and capabilities (see article based on the research project with Yle, Maijanen & Jantunen, 2014). In addition to the theoretical contributions, one of the core targets of the research project was to provide practical insights and solutions for media managers to better cope with change. This is often undermined but is, in fact and inevitably, a highly relevant target when conducting a research project in collaboration with the industry. I think this is especially relevant for the media managers because the ability to manage change is the fundamental question in today’s media industry, which is changing faster than most other industries. Therefore, the researcher is required to provide short-term solutions and practical tools for media managers in addition to the theoretical long-term contributions to the media management research. As explained later in this chapter, this twofold target setting is a challen­ ging – but not impossible – task to fulfil.

Theoretical Background The theoretical frame is based on the dynamic capability view and managerial and organisational cognition. As for the latter, the special focus is on the concept of dominant logic. In the following, I will launch the key concepts and the general model of the study. In addition, I will reflect on some of the challenges of change management in public media in comparison to private media.

206 Päivi Maijanen

Dynamic Capabilities According to the dynamic capability view, organisations build and use dynamic capabilities to implement strategic change and sustain a competitive advantage in times of change (Teece, 2014; Teece et al., 1997). Firms need dynamic capabilities to alter and transform their resource base – competences, assets and processes – to address the new demands in the changing business environment. As stated by Helfat et al. (2007, p. 4), ‘A dynamic capability is the capacity of an organisation to purposefully create, extend, or modify its resource base.’ In the capability hier­ archy, they are so-called higher order capabilities in contrast to the operational capabilities that firms use on an everyday basis to sustain the current business model (Helfat & Winter, 2011; Teece, 2014). This study applies the widely used process view of dynamic capabilities (Schilke, Hu, & Helfat, 2018), which divides the capabilities into three categories of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring. According to the model introduced by Teece (2007), sensing refers to the sensing and interpreting of threats and new business opportu­ nities; seizing means the ability to seize the opportunities by, for example, making investment or resource allocation decisions; and reconfiguring denotes the ability to continuously renew and orchestrate the resource base (competences, processes, routines etc.) in a way that the opportunities are addressed. The role of dynamic capabilities is to learn and integrate new ideas into organisational practices and processes. The process view of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring brings the analysis onto the micro-foundational level, thus providing a more practical lens through which to look at change on the capability level. The dynamic capability view emphasises the role of managers and their entre­ preneurial pursuits and strategic visions (Helfat et al., 2007; Teece, 2007) as well as their cognitive capabilities (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015). Dynamic capabilities cannot be acquired from the markets but have to be built up within the firm in order to change towards the specific strategic targets. Therefore, it is important that man­ agers know their strategies. This is the necessary requirement for creating the right kind of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2014).

Dominant Logic The concept of dominant logic refers to the way managers define their business – that is, it is a shared mental model of managers regarding the core values and mission. The concept was launched by Prahalad and Bettis (1986), who define it as ‘the way in which managers conceptualize the business and make critical resource allocation decisions – be it in technologies, product development, dis­ tribution, advertising, or in human resource management’ (p. 490). For managers, it serves as ‘an information filter’ (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995) to detect the relevant information and facilitate decision-making (Bettis et al., 2011; Oblój, Weinstein, & Zhang, 2013).

Managing Digital Transformation 207

The concept of dominant logic is grounded in the research tradition of man­ agerial and organisational cognition (Kaplan, 2011). In this tradition, cognition is defined as a ‘mental template that individuals impose on an information environ­ ment to give it form and meaning’ (Walsh, 1995, p. 281). In the strategy research, managerial cognition has received more and more attention in recent decades (Kaplan, 2011). There is a growing body of research that shows how managerial cognition affects a company’s ability to address the changing business environment. In the worst case, the managers’ strategic framing or dominant logic may serve as a blinder (Bettis et al., 2011; Prahalad, 2004), keeping the managers – and the whole firm or industry – stuck in the old way of thinking (e.g. Jones, 2005; Porac et al., 1989; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). On the other hand, there are examples that show how managers with proactive and clear strategic visions and shared mental models manage to promote a firm’s competitive advantage (e.g. Nadkarni & Barr, 2008; Raffaelli, Glynn, & Tushman, 2019). The core idea of dominant logic is that the shared managerial-level under­ standing of the business becomes gradually embedded in the behaviour of the whole organisation – in its mind-sets, routines, capabilities, processes, etc. (Bettis et al., 2011; Oblój et al., 2013). Following the evolutionary view of organisations (Nelson & Winter, 1982), dominant design evolves path-dependently through experiences of success and failure and gradually becomes a constituent element of the organisational memory. Therefore, it is difficult to change the existing domi­ nant design, which in turn becomes a severe challenge in times of disruptive changes (Bettis et al., 2011). The prevailing dominant logic may prevent managers from sensing the weak signals and changes in the environment. Even if the man­ agers understand the need for change, it takes time before the new dominant logic is implemented in the organisational routines and competences through organisa­ tional learning. Transformation from the old to the new dominant logic creates a challenging situation where the old and new logic coexist for some time. As stu­ died in the ambidexterity literature (e.g. O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013), this requires constant balancing between the old and new logic, which may give rise to tensions, as in times of disruptive changes the logics may be based on very different – or even contradictory – demands (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009).

The Role of Being a Public Institution The study with Yle also addresses the important question of the management of public service media (Lowe & Maijanen, 2019; Nissen, 2013, 2014). Based on the studies of public management, the role of a public institution tends to challenge change management in a special way in comparison to the private companies (Andrews et al., 2011; Bozeman 1987; Piening, 2013). Public service media are typical public organisations characterised by public (political) control, public ownership, and public funding (Maijanen, 2017). For accountability reasons, managers need to take into account the many expectations and interests of outside

208 Päivi Maijanen

stakeholders, such as politicians and regulatory agencies (Picard, 2012). The need to constantly cope with these – sometimes contradictory and often short-term – expectations and target settings tends to reduce the managers’ own independence and opportunity to take radical actions (Andrews et al., 2011; Maijanen, 2017). Consequently, the pressures imposed externally may slow down or hamper the change and even enforce the already existing organisational rigidities, which are typically strong in incumbent organisations such as public service media.

The General Model Figure 13.1 presents the general model applied in the study. It illustrates the core ideas according to which cognition and capabilities – the way managers and organisations think and behave – are closely interlinked with each other and that they both affect the organisational change and change management. Because dynamic capabilities are built and exploited to enhance change towards the desired strategic goals (Teece, 2014), it is important that managers define their companies’ new visions and targets. Only after knowing their new targets, based on the redefined dominant logic, can firms start changing themselves and creating the right kind of dynamic capabilities that support change and learning. Accord­ ing to the evolutionary view of organisational change (Nelson & Winter, 1982), the organisational context is relevant because every firm and organisation creates its own visions and dynamic capabilities.

Research Project on Change Management with LUT and Yle Nature and Origin of the Research Project The research project was initiated by the LUT School of Business. Originally, the idea for the study came from my own interest and background based on my long work experience as a journalist and manager at Yle. Especially during my years as a manager, I became interested in change management. From the beginning of the

FIGURE 13.1

General Model of the Research Project (Maijanen-Kyläheiko, 2014)

Managing Digital Transformation 209

research project, it was also meant to be my doctoral dissertation project. In prac­ tice, I took care of the concrete negotiations for the research agreement between the LUT School of Business and Yle. Based on the agreement, Yle did not pay for the research, but it guaranteed full access to all data that would be required for the study. In return, Yle expected to have the results of the data analysis for its use. Yle’s interest was to receive new knowledge and understanding about it as an organisation and, specifically, such knowledge that it would not collect otherwise. For the School of Business and me personally, the study provided comprehensive data to analyse managerial and organisational behaviour during strategic change. Ultimately, our aim was to have interesting, impactful and high-quality scientific publications. In addition, the study provided important experience and lessons about conducting a case study. Yle was an excellent case for designing a case study (Yin, 2014) to explore change management and the strategic organisational renewal process because, at the time of the research project, Yle was implementing an extensive transformation reform from broadcasting to digital logic. This required profound changes in its strategies, processes, competences and structures. More concretely, Yle aimed, for example, for a better reach among young people, more innovative digital content production, and organisational flexibility and efficiency. As for the structures, Yle launched changes whose target was to remove earlier boundaries between TV, radio and Internet. As a result of the structural reform, Yle established six new units. Some of them, such as the News and Current Affairs unit, remained more or less the same as before, but it also pursued change to its processes with the focus on the content instead of the distribution channels. The other five units were the Media unit (strategic planning), the Creative Content unit (documents, series, entertainment), Swedish Yle (content in the Swedish language), the Operations unit (technological infrastructure), and the Joint Operations unit (a matrix unit for the coordination of internal resources). The collaboration with Yle was based on openness and mutual trust. Table 13.1 shows the diverse data sources. I was responsible for the data collection, and I had no problem getting any data I wanted. During the research project, I conducted two surveys for the whole company, one at the beginning (2011) and the other at the end of the project (2014). The surveys covered issues related to feelings and attitudes about the change and the dynamic capabilities of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring. The surveys also covered questions about dominant logic, such as the mission of Yle, customer relationships, etc. As for the respondents, we used demographic variables such as age, gender, organisational level, work experience and unit. The items of the first survey were repeated in the second survey but, in addition, the second survey included items about the changes and achievements of the past years. Both surveys also included open questions. In addition to the quantitative surveys, I interviewed 21 top- and strategy-level managers from dif­ ferent units. I asked managers about their perceptions of the changes, such as challenges, successes and emerging tensions. These semi-structured interviews were

210 Päivi Maijanen

TABLE 13.1 Data Collection

Data source

—

Survey 2011 (response rate 39.4, N = 1,379) Survey 2014 (response rate 32.1, N = 1,134) Yle’s annual reports 1976–2012

Questions about motivation, attitudes, strategic framing, dynamic capabilities, and performance Repetition of Survey 2011; in addition, questions about changes that had been carried out after 2011 Content analysis on the changes in Yle’s dominant logic 1976–2012 Interviews with managers 2013 Questions about challenges, managerial practices and accomplishments, and strategic targets Informal discussions Discussion about feelings and opinions about the changes, etc. Strategic documents 2010–2014 Strategic documents such as company and unitlevel strategies to analyse the changes in strategies Intranet and other company material Company’s internal written material to track the (audience and user figures, analyses events that took place during the change process, e.g., of the media environment, etc.) decisions on content, incentive systems, and channel profiles

conducted in an open and relaxed atmosphere; they were recorded, and they lasted from one to one-and-a-half hours. I also collected archival and strategic material and spent a great deal of time talking with people informally. In addition, I reg­ ularly met with the head of strategy, who provided me with more detailed infor­ mation on current and upcoming strategic issues. The surveys were analysed by means of multivariate analysis methods, such as comparison tests, cluster analysis, a chi-square test of independence, and linear regression models. Transcribed interviews were analysed by a thematic coding method (Patton, 2002).

Project Results As for the results, the study shows that an organisation does not change as one coherent unit, but becomes dispersed into smaller groups with different mind-sets of change (Maijanen, 2015a). Some parts of the organisation were more for the old dominant logic (broadcasting) than others. There were clear differences between the units; for example, the News and Current Affairs unit was more change- and competi­ tion-oriented than the other units were. In addition, employees with over 20 years of work experience were less change-oriented than employees with less than five years of work experience. Logically, managers were more change-oriented and less satisfied with the current situation than non-managers were. Furthermore, the mind-set seemed to correlate with the capabilities (Maijanen & Jantunen, 2014). The units with higher levels of change orientation received

Managing Digital Transformation 211

better scores in their dynamic capabilities. The differences between units can be explained at least partly by the different histories and functions of the units. For example, in the case of the News and Current Affairs unit, it had learned to operate in the competitive and rapidly changing news world. Interestingly, the study shows that, during the transformation, managers as decision-makers had problems in coping with two logics simultaneously. Some of the managers found it difficult to change their decision-making rules and prac­ tices. On the other hand, some of the upper middle managers in particular seemed frustrated by the slow changes in decision-making among top managers. In general, managers felt challenged by the overall organisational rigidities, and some of the interviewees described it as a characteristic feature of Yle’s culture. The study additionally highlights how structural changes gave rise to powerrelated tensions. Some managers perceived that they had lost power in compar­ ison to other managers or in comparison to the situation before the changes. There were also tensions between different units as the unit-level interests and sub-strategies collided. The study also confirmed the managerial challenges related to managing change in a publicly controlled and funded institution. The interviewed Yle managers emphasised the challenges faced by the expectations of external stake­ holders, especially politicians and tax-paying customers. Many of the managers felt constrained by the multiple and sometimes contradictory expectations. This became more evident as the new funding model based on the Yle tax was laun­ ched to replace the TV licence fee in 2013. In the new funding model, the Yle tax was collected from individuals and companies in connection with other taxes. Managers perceived that the Yle tax especially made the older customers more demanding, and their demands were more in line with the old broadcasting logic. Despite all the challenges related to inside rigidities or external demands, the study provides evidence that incumbent media organisations can also change. I was impressed that even if it sometimes – especially at the beginning of the change process – seemed chaotic, with feelings of frustration and uncertainty, the company managed to progress, gradually learn new competences, and implement, for example, new structures, managerial practices and incentive systems.

Communication of the Results I aimed to communicate about the research project and results regularly during the project. I delivered the results of both surveys through the company’s intranet. The summaries of the results covered all the issues of the surveys, including open answers. The results were presented in PowerPoint slides with figures and tables. The most interesting results were underlined and described in detail. I was also interviewed twice for Yle’s intranet: in the beginning of the project to acti­ vate and encourage people to answer the survey, and at the end of the project to summarise the results. I was also invited to present the results in two seminars for

212 Päivi Maijanen

managers. The first presentation was for the steering group of the News and Current Affairs unit, and the second presentation was given in a yearly strategy day seminar for Yle’s managers (60 people). In addition, Yle published one of my conference papers to hand out to its stakeholders or other public media compa­ nies – for example, in the events of the EBU (European Broadcasting Union). The company also ordered my dissertation to give to its stakeholders, such as Yle’s board members. Beyond the official presentations and publications, I engaged in a large number of informal discussions with employees from different units and organisational levels, and during these discussions we talked about the research project and its results. I have been able to use the research material not only for the company and its stakeholders but also in my teaching for business-school students at my home university and in lectures for my Erasmus teaching exchange visits. At my home university, I have used it as an illustrative example in my courses on strategy research. As for Erasmus visits, during which I mainly teach students of media or communication studies, my study on Yle has provided excellent material to inspire, for example, group discussions on digital transformation and change management.

Evaluation of the Project Concerning my original expectations, I believe the research project with Yle pro­ vided valuable and rich data that is still useful for my current research in several ways. I am still going through the data and writing new articles. The data has not lost its value, since media companies are continuously experiencing enormous changes because of market turbulence and technological advancements. The insights gained from the Yle project can be applied to other comparable change processes. My research addresses the many questions that I had when working at Yle, but the project also proved to be an important learning process on a personal level. I have used the many lessons in my later research in which I have used a similar theoretical frame as in the Yle case. I still have good contacts with Yle, and it is one of the company collaborators in my current research plans. Where this aspect is concerned, I am very pleased with the open and easy-going collaboration with Yle. My academic freedom was never questioned and controlled, and I received all the support I needed. My personal background at Yle was definitely an asset, which made the collaboration with Yle so easy. The fact that I had worked at Yle seemed to open doors. When visiting Yle during the project, I was able to spontaneously initiate discussions with people, and they were eager and willing to share their thoughts and feelings. I could always find people when I needed help, for example, in pretesting my surveys, acquiring research material, or getting the contact information of the personnel. There are some aspects that I would now do differently if I could conduct the project again. First, I would collect more qualitative data. I would, for example, conduct more semi-structured interviews right at the beginning of the process.

Managing Digital Transformation 213

This would deepen the process view of the changes. I also feel I should have tried to share my results more actively than I did. Sharing the results more often and more actively would have made the study more impactful and meaningful for the organisation and would have provided important feedback in terms of the prac­ tical relevance of the study. The feedback could also have given me ideas for the further development of the study. As for the expectations of Yle, I believe they were at least partly fulfilled. Naturally, it is hard to measure the concrete gains, but based on the feedback during the seminar presentations, discussions and interviews, I feel assured that the project contributed at least on the mind-set level. I also believe that I managed to provide Yle with some new understanding of itself through the research results and especially through the many discussions I was able to have with employees during the research project. Yle’s management seemed to find the study impor­ tant from the stakeholder point of view. This type of research collaboration with universities could be seen as one way to practice public service. Yle’s willingness to deliver my publication and dissertation to its stakeholders indicates that the company’s management valued the study. This study made me think of the challenge of providing both short-term practical impact and long-term theoretical knowledge. This is especially the case in studies conducted in collaboration with the industry – like my case study with Yle. A ‘pure’ researcher is expected to analyse the phenomenon objectively and to generate abstract knowledge that contributes to the academic discussion. It takes a long time between the data collection and the final research publication. The practical impact must be achieved almost right away, and in doing so, the researcher is often expected to take a more subjective stance, sometimes even the company perspective. Because of the short-term expectations, there is a risk that the results the researcher delivers will remain quite swallow and descriptive. This is a dilemma. I think it is easier to cope with this dilemma when the researcher knows and understands the context well, which makes it easier to provide such data and results that the company finds useful and interesting. I had this situation – and yet, even in my case, I believe that sharing the results at an earlier point would have helped in making the project matter in practice. There is no single solution to this problem. I think it is, to some extent, also caused by the academic demands and practices. It seems that in academia, the practical impact is valued in principle, but in reality, it is dependent on the researcher’s own approach and activity.

Discussion In general, the research project with Yle was a rewarding process. I learned a lot about organisational change and change management, and my research addressed many of the questions that I had before starting the project. Importantly, I gained many insights about designing and conducting a longitudinal case study. In addi­ tion, the data collected during the project is still valuable for many new research

214 Päivi Maijanen

papers to come and, importantly, the case of Yle can be used as an illustrative example of strategic change. As for the practical impact, I realised that the theoretical concepts, such as dynamic capabilities, are in fact quite comprehensible for practitioners. In parti­ cular, the categories of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring seem to attract interest when I talk about the study and its results. It seems to be easy for managers to start analysing, for example, what kind of sensing or seizing capabilities they have and whether they are good, for example, in seizing the sensed opportunities. Even though I was able to share and interpret my results, at least to a certain extent, I am aware of the limitations in this regard. I could have developed the results further in terms of practical usefulness, and I could have been more active and interactive in sharing the results within the company. Based on my experience, I would like to share some of my learning and pro­ vide some simple and practical guidelines that I find important when conducting a research project in close collaboration with a company. These guidelines are to ensure that the project delivers a win-win situation: the researcher is not doing the research only for him- or herself but also so the company can profit from it. My guidelines are as follows: 1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

Plan the project in close collaboration with the company and make sure you know your own expectations as well as the expectations of the company. Design the project so that the expectations will be addressed. Have good personal contacts with key people in the company. This helps you to create trust and conduct your research in practice. Meet people face-to-face. I am convinced that meeting and talking with people on a face-to-face basis builds trust and openness, and it provides more insights than can be obtained via the phone or online video chat applications, such as Skype. Be active and share the results during the research project, not only at the end of it. Sharing the results during the project will provide useful feedback that helps the researcher(s) to evaluate the practical impact and contribu­ tions, as well as to make corrections to the research if necessary. Look for other ways to share the results beyond just presentations and PowerPoint slides, such as facilitated workshops and group discussions. The more interactive situations you create, the more you and the company learn from the results.

In academic research projects, there often tends be a deep gap between theo­ retical and practical aspirations. I realised during this project that the gap is not that deep after all, at least in studies of (strategic) media management. This is perhaps because the media management research asks questions and uses concepts that are also relevant in the media business. The studies – as well as the study presented in this chapter – ask such questions as how to keep a company

Managing Digital Transformation 215

successful in times of change, how to beat the challenges, or how to sustain innovation and creativity. These are relevant managerial and organisation-related questions for both academics and practitioners. I think the main challenge is in being able to interpret the concepts and results from the manager’s perspective. I am convinced that the interpretations are easier to make if the researcher colla­ borates actively and pursues a thorough understanding of the case and context under study.

References Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A. & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research, 21(Suppl. 3), 301–319. Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organi­ zational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5–14. Bettis, R., Wong, S. & Blettner, D. (2011). Dominant logic, knowledge creation, and managerial choice. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 369–381). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hasenpusch, T. C. & Baumann, S. (2017). Strategic media venturing: Corporate venture capital approaches of TIME incumbents. International Journal on Media Management, 19(1), 77–100. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh H., Teece, D. J. & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Helfat, C. E. & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850. Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243–1250. Jones, C. (2005). From technology to content: The shift in dominant logic in the early American film industry. In T. Lant, J. Lampel & J. Shamsie (Eds.), The business in culture: Strategic perspectives on entertainment and media (pp. 195–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaplan, S. (2011). Research in cognition and strategy: Reflections on two decades of progress and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 48(3), 665–695. Lowe, F. G., & Maijanen, P. (2019). Making sense of the public service mission: Youth audiences, competition, and strategic management. Journal of Media Business Studies, 16(1), 1–18. Maijanen, P. (2015a). Cognition as a driver and barrier of strategic renewal: The case of the Finnish Broadcasting Company. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 9(3), 351–374. Maijanen, P. (2015b). The evolution of dominant logic: Forty years of strategic framing in the Finnish Broadcasting Company. Journal of Media Business Studies, 12(3), 168–184.

216 Päivi Maijanen

Maijanen, P. (2017). The blessing and curse of being public: Managing change in public ser­ vice media in Finland. In M. Glowacki & A. Jaskiernia (Eds.), Public service media renewal: Adaptation to digital network challenges (pp. 193–212). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Maijanen, P. & Jantunen, A. (2014). Centripetal and centrifugal forces of strategic renewal: The case of the Finnish Broadcasting Company. International Journal on Media Manage­ ment, 16(3–4), 139–159. Maijanen, P. & Virta, S. (2017). Managing exploration and exploitation in a media orga­ nisation: A capability-based approach to ambidexterity. Journal of Media Business Studies, 12(4), 146–165. Maijanen-Kyläheiko, P. (2014). Pursuit of change versus organizational inertia: A study on strategic renewal in the Finnish Broadcasting Company (Doctoral dissertation). Lap­ peenranta University of Technology. Retrieved from: https://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/ 10024/102199. Nadkarni, S. & Barr, P. S. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and stra­ tegic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1395–1427. Naldi, L., Wikström, P. & von Rimscha, M. B. (2014). Dynamic capabilities and perfor­ mance: An empirical study on audio-visual producers in Europe . International Studies on Management & Organization, 44(4), 64–82. Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nissen, C. S. (2013). What is so special about public media management? International Journal on Media Management, 15(2), 69–75. Nissen, C. S. (2014). Organisational culture and structures in public media management – in search of a model for the digital era? In M. Glowacki & L. Jackson (Eds.), Public media management for the twenty-first century: Creativity, innovation, and interaction (pp. 81–102). New York and London: Routledge. Oblój, K., Weinstein, M. & Zhang, S. (2013). Self-limiting dominant logic: An exploratory study of Chinese entrepreneurial firms. Journal of East-West Business, 29(4), 291–316. Oliver, J. (2018). Strategic transformations in the media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(2), 1–22. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Picard, R. G. (2012). The changing nature of political casemaking for public service broadcasters. In G. F. Lowe & J. Steemers (Eds.), Regaining the initiative for public service media, RIPE@2011 (pp. 27–44). Gothenburg: Nordicom. Piening, E. P. (2013). Dynamic capabilities in public organizations: A literature review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 15(2), 209–245. Porac, J., Thomas, H. & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive com­ munities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26 (4), 397–416. Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 171–179. Prahalad, C. K. & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501. Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M. A. & Tushman, M. (2019). Frame flexibility: The role of cogni­ tive and emotional framing in innovation by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal, Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3011.

Managing Digital Transformation 217

Schilke, O., Hu, S. & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis dynamic capabilities? A contentanalytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage­ ment. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Tripsas, M. & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11),1147–1161. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down Memory Lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

14

SHEDDING LIGHT ON AUDIOVISUAL CONSUMPTION PREFERENCES A Case Study from Spain Mercedes Medina UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA

Introduction In recent years, the degree of competition in the Spanish audiovisual market has increased because of the emergence of new television services and the proliferation of video-on-demand (VOD) platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky and HBO. According to the 2017 Digital Film and Series Platforms in Spain report (Findanygame, 2017), Spain’s VOD market is one of the largest in Europe. Embraced by a growing proportion of the Spanish audience, video streaming services are becoming a real alternative to the traditional pay-TV options operated by Telefónica and other local companies. Although the number of households subscribing to video streaming is increasing (CNMC, 2018), the overall consumption market remains traditional in the sense that most viewers tune into free-to-air broadcast programmes only. How­ ever, as consumer preferences continue to change (albeit slowly), the Spanish audiovisual market is in flux. Against this backdrop, the Media Companies and Markets Research Group (GIMEC), affiliated to the School of Communication of the University of Navarra, initiated a research project that sought to identify the reasons behind Spanish viewers’ choice of audiovisual content. Funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, the project supports the National Science and Technology Strategy (2013–2020), which aims to advance science, technology and innovation in order to improve Spain’s posi­ tion in the global economy (Spanish Government, 2012). In addition to serving the need for policymakers to stimulate digital innovation and research in the Spanish economy, the project is a response to a call from the various players in the audiovisual market – both new entrants and incumbents – who are developing their programming strategies (producing, commissioning, scheduling, etc.) in a context of ever-increasing competition. Although media

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 219

organisations have access to large databases of quantitative behavioural data on content consumption (in terms of how much time and how many users) provided by research companies such as Kantarmedia and ComScore, what they lack is deeper insight into what content media consumers prefer, why exactly they prefer this content, and how they evaluate what they watch. Indeed, external databases predominantly focus on demographics as well as time and frequency of consump­ tion, whereas media organisations also need to understand what factors cause viewer satisfaction and how audiences perceive the quality of programming. The title of the project was ‘Reasons to consume fiction and entertainment audiovisual content in the Spanish market’, and one of the aims was to provide proposals for legacy broadcasting companies for adapting their contents to suit audience tastes in order to compete with the new digital streaming companies. From 2012 to 2018, average daily television consumption fell by 30 minutes, from 246 to 216 minutes (CNMC, 2018). According to our survey, almost 65% of users recognised that they watched less conventional television because of the time they spent on online viewing (Guerrero et al., 2017). The research attemp­ ted to provide data and reflections that could help audiovisual companies under­ stand audiences’ consumption on online platforms and their level of satisfaction with their audiovisual diet, and to help them face the uncertainty arising from the bursting onto the scene of technological giants in the audiovisual sector such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon.

Literature Review The media industry is at a digital crossroads, characterised by the emergence of a new market for the distribution of entertainment content (Internet and new screens) and a new profile of consumers (digital natives) who select what, when, where and how they want to view such content (Chan-Olmsted & Xiao, 2018; Webster, 2014). Previously, despite its criticisms and shortcomings (Bourdon & Méadel, 2011; Hulks, 2001), audience television research using people meters was seen as a reli­ able measurement system: it provided information on which to make decisions on a daily basis and allowed the effectiveness of advertising slots in television programmes to be assessed (Napoli, 2012; Nelson & Webster, 2016; Phalen & Ducey, 2012). However, in the new, multi-platform, era, new systems for measuring audiences using different devices are needed. Online consumption provides data that are complementary to those provided by traditional ratings. For example, in the year 2000 Netflix presented its famous personalised movie recommendation system. Even with constant improvements to the processes, the system uses the ratings that subscribers give to the titles they view and their consumption patterns to predict content options that each user will like (Arnold, 2016; Roettgers, 2017). The great challenge for the audiovisual industry is to take advantage of the data that social media and online consumption generate by turning it into useful knowledge

220 Mercedes Medina

and joining it to their expertise to make decisions (Buzzard, 2012; Havens, 2014; Napoli & Roepnack, 2018; Portilla, 2015; Portilla & Medina, 2016). At this crossroads of change, the tastes and preferences of viewers remain somehow uncertain. Content is creative goods, subject to uncertainty, whose success depends on talent and stories that move, that are close to the public, and with which audiences identify. Thanks to the personalisation that new technolo­ gies allow in the dissemination of content, the tastes and interests of the public can be tagged and segmented. Variables that influence viewers’ perceptions and acceptance of audiovisual content have been analysed from various perspectives. Some analyses have focused mainly on the emotional effects, that is the attitudes, feelings and emotions that the content generates in audiences. Thus, the enjoyment and entertainment experi­ enced during viewing, or the improvement of mood afterwards, are part of the cathartic effect of identifying with the characters and wanting to be a better person (Packer, 1989). This explains why people enjoy dramas even when they suffer watching them and their mood becomes negative after viewing (Oliver, 2003). Other authors, like Igartua and Muñiz (2008) and Soto-Sanfiel et al. (2010) con­ sidered the effect of identification with the characters on audiences’ enjoyment of films. The memories or so-called emotional memory (Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1989) that come to mind through identifying with characters, through such per­ sonal resonance (Vorderer et al., 2004), also play a fundamental role in audiences’ enjoyment. Finally, cultural closeness to the story and the characters has also been found to affect viewers’ satisfaction (Larsen & Laszlo, 1990). Previous audience studies were also reviewed to understand current consump­ tion and to inform questions about the quality of content. The review encom­ passed other research traditions, such as the theory of uses and gratifications (Bartsch et al., 2008), motivations for watching TV and differences between gen­ erations (Bondad-Brown, 2012; Tapscott, 2009), and the rationale behind audi­ ence engagement (Haven, 2007; IAB, 2014; Lowenstein, 2014). There are other crucial concepts that can be applied to understanding the entertainment economy and constructing an appropriate questionnaire to learn more about audience pre­ ferences. They include prior knowledge and perceived realism (Green, 2004), pleasure and meaning (Oliver & Raney, 2011), moral ambiguity (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012), emotional and cognitive predictors (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004; Nabi et al., 2006), the attention economy (Perse, 1992), and audience satisfaction (Fergu­ son & Perse, 2004). While Shamir (2007) argued that viewers are not very good at discerning gra­ dations of production value in different programmes and genres, Mir et al. (2008) developed a quality index that took into account the complexity of the term and the opinions not only of scholars but also of viewers and the industry itself. Conversely, Pujadas (2013) examined the reasons behind there being no common meaning of TV quality. They found that both the subjective dimension to per­ ceived quality and the economic risks complicate the willingness of the industry

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 221

to produce high-quality programmes. Elsewhere, Manero et al. (2013) explored the relationship between quality and audience satisfaction and concluded that ‘the capacity of a program to be interesting, to suit the audience’s taste, to entertain or to inform viewers and to appeal positively to the audience’s emotions while watching a program constitutes a valuable tool for adapting a program to viewers’ demands’ (p. 153). In summary, academic research on why audiences choose certain media con­ tent and what they get from consuming it has increased in recent years. However, there is still a gap between academic research and media production activity: sci­ entific insights do not yet meet industry demand. We believe that the academic literature should help media companies to develop an ‘architecture of listening’ that will allow them to produce content that is emotionally engaging for viewers.

Aims, Objectives and Methodology Technology has changed the media industry’s relationships with its audiences. Today, consumers play a fundamental role in the value chain of media businesses and, as such, their demands can influence the type of content that is produced and how it is delivered. Prior to the twenty-first century, media outlets were accustomed to considering their audiences as massive and passive recipients of content. Today, any media outlet still applying that same model will disappear from the market. Content must excite, involve and challenge specific audiences. Hence, we are in an exciting period for developing creativity and listening skills. A better understanding of the interests and preferences of media users, their perceptions of value, the reasons for their media choices and their satisfaction with their media diet, will be the basis of the best audience research in the years to come. What is needed is a holistic analysis of audience behaviour based on diverse data sources; an analysis that transcends the dynamics of reach, volume and frequency that have dominated previous research. At the same time, a better synthesis of all this information into a specific and standardised format that allows comparisons across media, distribution platforms, types of content and peculiarities of use is also necessary. As Webster (2017, p. 358) pointed out, in the marketplace of attention ‘the most far-reaching questions will point back to the user preferences question: Where do our media preferences come from?’ Media practitioners and researchers must truly understand the answers to that question and apply them to their media management and economic decisions. The current research project was designed to gain a better understanding of media consumption patterns as part of the transformation of the audiovisual market. As mentioned earlier, our goal was to help legacy audiovisual companies to understand what factors give rise to viewer satisfaction, how audiences perceive the quality of content, and how media companies can implement this knowledge in order to design strategies for the future. In order to examine audience satisfaction

222 Mercedes Medina

and the reasons behind their choice of certain content, we developed questions on how much audiences like what they consume. The answers to these questions are one of the keys to understanding how media companies can satisfy audiences’ tastes. In the new, hyper-competitive, market, the offer is too abundant. Therefore, understanding audiences’ reasons for choosing certain content over others is essential if media companies are to succeed. Audiences are willing to pay for content if it satisfies their entertainment needs; if it does not, companies will go bankrupt. To restrict the scope of study we focused on fiction and entertainment programmes in Spain, over the last ten years and in particular since new online video platforms entered the market. We used a variety of methodologies, including a review of industry reports, interviews with media practitioners and two surveys – one, a general telephone survey; the other, an online questionnaire for Internet users. First, we looked at current market trends, including new competitors’ business models, general consumption patterns and the impact of foreign fiction on the production of domestic content. Industry reports compiled by specialist compa­ nies such as Kantar Media, the National Observatory of Telecommunications and the Information Society (Ontsi), the National Market and Competition Com­ mission (CNMC), the National Institute of Statistics, and The Cocktail Analysis served to give an overview of the market. For comparison purposes, we also contacted media company executives for their insights on how the market had changed. From Telefónica, interviews were con­ ducted with the Head of TV Products in the Global Video Unit, the Innovation & Big Data of Business Intelligence Manager and the Video Delivery Technology and Devices Development Manager. Their insights were key to understanding the competitive advantage of Telefónica over the new OTT entrants. Inputs from the Digital Marketing and Analytics Manager, Strategic Manager and Digital Manager of one of the biggest Spanish audiovisual companies, Atresmedia, helped to expand our knowledge of the digital transformation of the company. Finally, the Interna­ tional Executive Producer of BBC Worldwide and the General Manager of the production company Boomerang TV were interviewed to identify new produc­ tion demands. A survey of the population was also carried out, to identify the trends defining the evolution of audiovisual consumption. Our sample of 1,000 individuals was representative of audiovisual consumers in Spain, our target population being all residents in Spain aged 14 year and above (37,910,000 inhabitants). The data were collected between April and May over an eight-year period from 2008 to 2016. The questionnaire included questions about respondents’ likes, their assessment of the quality of TV content, and their satisfaction with it. Two further, online, surveys were carried out to examine online consumption and distributed to Internet users. One was administered in May 2012, the other in December 2016. The sample comprised Spanish Internet users, who are defined by AIMC (Spanish Media Research Association) as being individuals between the ages of 14 and 65 years who have accessed the Internet at least once in the last month.

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 223

Currently, 78.6% of this age group are Internet users (AIMC, 2017), amounting to approximately 28 million people in Spain according to the Spanish Statistics Institute (INE). Both surveys generated high response rates, the sample size for both being 1,200 individuals each. Questions here related to devices used, time spent, payment and recommendation tools, among other things.

Results and Output In the following section, an overview of the results of the research and the aca­ demic output is presented.

Results Analysis of the data revealed a number of trends relating to consumption patterns. On-demand audiovisual services were found to compete directly with linear tel­ evision for audiences’ time. We found a generation gap in the consumption of audiovisual content: specifically, there has been a flight of younger audiences from linear television to other, more customisable and interactive, audiovisual platforms. Furthermore, the younger the audience, the fewer minutes consumed. For example, in 2018 ‘millennials’ watched almost an hour and a half less a day of linear television than the general population watched (134 minutes). In addition, almost 75% of this younger group recognised that they watched less television compared with the time they spent on online viewing. Indeed, among the youngest audience (14–24 years) almost 98% reported that they usually watched online content (Guerrero, 2018). We also found that audiences in 2016 were more willing to pay for content than they were years ago. The pay-per-view television model has grown – as subscrip­ tions have decreased – outstripping free-to-air television in revenues. This explains why traditional television companies have started to launch apps for accessing pay­ per-view content (Medina & Herrero, 2015; Medina et al., 2016; Portilla & Medina, 2016). Nevertheless, advertising remains the largest revenue stream. There are also new devices on which to watch audiovisual content. Fiction emerged as the most watched online content, the computer as the device most used to watch it, followed by the smartphone. According to the results of our online questionnaire, around 90% of online viewers used a computer to view online content, and almost 74% used a smartphone. Almost 60% of online respondents admitted to using smart TVs as traditional TV sets, i.e. without taking advantage of the Internet connection (Guerrero et al., 2017). The factor above all others on which audience gratification depended was the quality of the content offered. Audiences’ perceptions of quality were very much to do with the entertainment power of the content. However, the perception was that the quality of television has not substantially improved in recent years, despite the growth in supply and technological improvements. The perceived

224 Mercedes Medina

quality of television fell in Spain, from 3.32 out of 5 in 2008 to 3.17 in 2016. The figures vary depending on the education level and age of the audience. In 2016, the perceived quality was 3.35 out of 5 for those who had received only primary education, but this dropped to 3.14 for those who had received second­ ary education, to 2.92 among those with a diploma, and to 2.82 for those with a university degree. That same year, those over 65 years or overrated television quality as being 3.34 out of 5, while those aged between 25 and 44 years – the least satisfied age group – gave it a score of just 2.86 (Bayo et al., 2018). With regard to fictional content, the aspects that most influenced the percep­ tion of quality were the dialogue, the plots, the characters and the actors. In the case of entertainment programmes, the presenters and the sets particularly stood out. In the case of both fiction and entertainment, the actors and stars of the shows occupied a decisive place in audiences’ perceptions of quality, revealing the existence of a certain ‘star’ rating system in Spanish television. Artificial intelli­ gence and big data are the key to improving the personalisation of media services, the user experience and accessibility of the content. However, users still do not perceive automated recommendations to be fully satisfactory and instead put greater faith in personal recommendations (Herrero et al., 2018). Audiovisual companies are immersed in a process of strategically redefining their offer, their business model and their identity. However, in spite of the revolution that the sector is experiencing, television retains a prominent position and influence in the media landscape, and continues to be the benchmark in the multiscreen audiovisual offer of which it is a part (Medina & Herrero, 2015).

Academic Output Being academic research, the main results of this study were presented at con­ ferences and published in journals and books. The book Current and Emerging Issues in the Audiovisual Industry (2017) recalls some of the research findings, such as the threat posed by the new OTT to the pay-TV market, the resistance of legacy TV channels, the public service heritage, the battle for audiences, the quality of content, the transition from attention to engagement, the challenges of monetising digital content, and how to implement innovation. Furthermore, three doctoral theses relating to the project have been defended in recent years: ‘Development and validation of three scales to measure the quality of television products’ (Kimber, 2019), ‘Engagement with OTT: The Netflix case’ (Urgellés, 2017), and ‘Transcultural remakes of scripted television formats’ (García, 2016). However, we scholars were conscious that these publications would not reach media practitioners because journal articles are somewhat long and complex for the industry. That it is why we decided to produce an executive report contain­ ing the main conclusions and to present it to industry practitioners. The report was broken down into ten sections to make it simpler and easier to read, and adopted a very practical approach.

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 225

Presentation to Stakeholders The data collected, and the conclusions drawn from them, were considered to be of interest to scholars, media practitioners, policymakers and society in general. This section focuses first on how media practitioners were reached; second, the report’s impact on policy; and finally, how some of the results were disseminated to the general public.

Presentation and Feedback to the Industry An executive report, called Ten Keys to Understanding the Consumption of Audio­ visual Content in Spain, was distributed to media representatives in the audiovisual market. It was sent via email to more than 80 practitioners who had registered during a presentation event. Its conclusions were then debated in a roundtable discussion between members of the research group and representatives of the most active players in the industry: the CEO of Atresmedia; the Executive Director of the production company, Boomerang TV Entertainment; the Regional Director of Kantarmedia for South Europe; and the Market Develop­ ment Director of Sky. This meeting took place at the University of Navarra Madrid campus, after the project had finished. It was tweeted with the hashtag #consumoAV from the Media Management Master (MEGEC) account, which has more than 1,000 followers. The speakers supplemented the conclusions with their own views. For exam­ ple, the CEO of Atresmedia presented nine arguments refuting the views of the scholars. His first criticism concerned the lack of updated data. The last data in the research had been collected in 2016, making them, in his opinion, obsolete. At that time, Netflix had not have arrived in Spain and the millennials then were not the millennials of today. Thus, he added, to follow the conclusions of the research project would lead the industry to make many mistakes. He then used other data to refute some of the report’s conclusions on online consumption. Television, he argued, was still the largest coverage medium. Yes, TV consumption had decreased, but audience ratings remained very high. Fur­ thermore, according to him, legacy television remained the authentic specialist in terms of knowing the tastes of the Spanish population. In February 2019, his company had 450 million inputs on what viewers do day by day, minute by minute. According to his data, although Google had 32 million users in just one month, Atresmedia achieved the same number of viewers in just four days. Moreover, time and attention given to watching TV, he informed those at the event, was higher than that for digital content. For example, all the content on YouTube accumulated 36,000 million minutes of consumption in January 2019, while consumption of Atresmedia’s content for the same month was 90,000 million minutes.

226 Mercedes Medina

He further argued that legacy television was also the most efficient advertising medium because of its coverage and the confidence advertisers have in it. Again, according to his data, in February 2019 5 million millennials spent four hours a day watching television, while 7 million spent time every day on Atresmedia television channels. Moreover, this TV audience rating measure was much more reliable than the online users, at least at the present time. Another example that he gave on the reliability of TV content was that of Disney and Nestlé, who withdrew their YouTube commercials because they were shown in videos linked to paedophile content. According to him, this kind of thing does not happen on TV because the broadcasting regulations are too strict. He went on to endorse Atresmedia’s ‘liquid’ content, which can be watched on any device. For example, the music talent show La Voz became the most watched TV programme in 2018, at the same time accumulating 55 million videos and 140 million minutes consumed in one month on YouTube. He also said that Atresmedia produced influential, local and relevant content and that as a digital company they were already exploring the pay-TV market. He concluded his speech by arguing that high-quality programmes can be popular and broadcast on free-to-air television. According to a Personality Media (2018) survey con­ ducted in 2018, the top TV channels of his media group were the most enter­ taining and the highest quality, having the most varied programming and the best news channels. Although this seems like harsh criticism of the research, it was actually very enlightening for us, opening up a genuine dialogue between the university and the industry, as was the purpose of the event. In spite of putting forward an opposing point of view and defending his own managerial decisions in his TV company, he drew similar conclusions to ours on the role of TV companies in the current environment and the need to innovate technologically in order to understand audiences better. The other participants’ ideas were pertinent too. For the producer executive, the current market was full of opportunities for content production, but the challenge was to target the tastes of viewers. According to the manager of Kan­ tarmedia, technology has extended video consumption to other times of the day: there is no decline in audiovisual consumption; rather, how it takes place is dif­ ferent. He also talked about ‘addressable advertising’, that is the ability to show different advertisements to different households while they are watching the same programme. Under this system, advertisers can move beyond large-scale tradi­ tional TV ad buys, to focus on relevance and impact. According to him, Kan­ tarmedia is also ready to measure consumption, including time shift, on different devices and even other platforms such as YouTube. Finally, the manager of Sky outlined three keys to success in the market: focusing on the user, listening to the user and being flexible and adapting products to suit different forms of consumption.

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 227

Presentation to Policymakers Directly influencing policymaking is not an easy task for the university. However, collaborating with various lobbyists is another way to bring this about. In this vein, a number of actions were pursued. One was the production and publication of the chapter ‘Commercial television. Advertising support. Risks and challenges’ in a report coordinated by the Spanish Official College of Telecommunications Engineers (COIT), about adding value to the social function of the digital terrestrial television (DTT) (Medina, 2017). The COIT is in charge of lobbying to influence the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to ensure the conditions with respect to the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum in favour of the DTT in 2020 and 2030. In order to have a larger impact, the report was presented to the Spanish Secretary for Tele­ communications and Information Society. A number of members of the research group collaborated in advising on and analysing content applying the criteria of the Audiovisual Trust Label (ATL), designed and developed by iCmedia. iCmedia is the Federation of Consumers and Media Users Association in Spain and its fundamental purpose is to promote initiatives that favour the quality of content in audiovisual media. The ATL certi­ fies compliance with current regulations, transparency and good practice in content delivery. Finally, some members of the research group acted as consultants in preparing the public consultation draft on the modification of the General Law of Audio­ visual Communication 7/2010. The group, coordinated by Francisco Campos, Professor of Journalism at the University of Santiago de Compostela, was made up of eight professors from Spanish universities and an external consultant. Some of the suggestions included creating an independent authority for the audiovisual market to guarantee high-quality programming, enforcing higher fines for non­ compliance of the law, allocating money to producers of local content, supporting independent public service broadcasting and forcing the OTT companies to meet European production quotas.

Presentation to the General Public Media outlets are an excellent channel for disseminating knowledge to the general public and society at large. Following the event where we presented our conclu­ sions, a number of journalists were interested in interviewing members of the university research group. Thanks to those interviews a report on how the business battle for digital production and distribution is revolutionising the audiovisual scene was published in a generalist magazine. Moreover, members of the team were interviewed about different media. The journalist Fidalgo interviewed Medina for the article ‘HBO arrives in Spain during highest rise of subscriptions to pay television’ on November 2016, while

228 Mercedes Medina

the journalist Toca also interviewed her for the report ‘Facing the end of televi­ sion’ in Cambio 16 magazine on February 2017.

Critical Evaluation of the Project From our perspective as researchers, this project has been of tremendous value for various reasons. First, our level of understanding of the industry has grown, not only as a consequence of observing and reflecting on the changes but also because it allowed us personally to meet some of the actors who play critical roles in the Spanish audiovisual market. Not only did we meet some of them during the research period, but those whom we contacted but were unable to attend the event, such as the Netflix Vice-President Business Development in Spain, María Ferreras, indicated that they would be open to future meetings. As well as enhancing our academic CVs thanks to attending international conferences and publishing journal articles and book chapters, we also developed expertise through organising such events where we shared insights with media industry participants. In this sense, the joint venture with the Media Management Master of the University of Navarra was an excellent help in attracting a larger number of people interested in the conclusions concerning changes in audiovisual consumption. Although we did not develop a tool to measure the usefulness of these encounters, the level of discussion and knowledge exchange that took place was very enlightening for both sides. Second, the insights gained also served academic purposes. They helped us to critically evaluate some of our results and to better understand the problems that media managers face when making decisions. In addition, we were given access to expensive databases that would otherwise have been unaffordable on a university research budget and were able to secure agreements for future research – for exam­ ple, the use of Thomson Reuters’ Mergers and Acquisitions Database from Atres­ media for a study that has been published in 2020 (Medina et al., 2020). Furthermore, the collaboration with iCmedia allowed the group to participate in the Erasmus+ project funded by the European Commission, ‘Trust Label: combating Fake News in the digital era’, with other European partners and practitioners.

Discussion Universities should serve the societies in which they are located. Therefore, to consider and heed audiences as an important part of the society should be con­ sidered an important mission of this university. For that reason, audience research should be enhanced under the umbrella of media management. Certainly, at the present time there is no wealth of audience studies in this field; only a handful of scholars, such as Napoli, Phalen, Coffey, Webster and Chan-Olmsted, have focused their research on audience studies from a media economics perspective. In contrast, audience research at the academic level from a critical studies perspective

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 229

is more abundant. Moreover, it tends mainly to stress the negative effects of media on audiences. Therefore, from a media management and media economics per­ spective, critical, in-depth studies are needed to extend our knowledge of the unsatisfied needs of audiences. To bring research to the industry, authors need to form conclusions that are understandable to the general public and relevant for the practitioners making decisions. To achieve this, it may be necessary to disseminate such findings through non-academic social media networks, possibly in the form of ‘good practice’ or ‘key questions’. Discussions in workshops between academics and practitioners might be best practice for aligning research with the real-life problems of media companies. In the collaboration with industry reported in this paper, the most important conclusion to emerge was that the pace of companies is faster than the pace of academia. It takes a great deal of time from a university securing funding to conduct a survey until the data are published. Data from a year ago is outdated and therefore useless to the industry. Online questionnaires are a cheaper option, but by being limited to online users this audience is not representative of the overall population. It is likely that using other kinds of methodologies, such as in-depth interviews or qualitative studies, would elicit more enlightening responses than those to questionnaires. Qualitative studies would help us to understand the subjective motivations and perceptions of viewers, not only revealing how many people are watching. In order to contribute to building a better society, and to getting to know how audiences evaluate what they choose, what they learn from the con­ tent, and what they expect from media output it is also necessary to return to the media industry its public mission. In order to serve the industry, universities need to design surveys in colla­ boration with media practitioners. Sometimes what university researchers do is not useful for industry because it is removed from their interests. When academics work with consultants and agencies, industry practitioners feel that they are better understood because, among others, they have access to bigger samples than those the universities can reach. Finally, another difficulty that researchers face is the need to be original. The number of media economics and management researchers in Spain is relatively large, so many similar papers are being published in journals. Contact with the industry may help them to design original research, but the strength of academic research is to bring forward and to question theories. Hence, university scholars need to learn to study reality in a different way. The Spanish Academic Quality Assessment Agency (ANECA) started in 2019 to take into account the applic­ ability of results to industry and society in terms of promoting the professional careers of scholars and their research projects. However, according to a panel of media experts universities should bring knowledge and certainties, rather than data. Serene reflection and time are the two

230 Mercedes Medina

variables that are abundant in the university arena and scarce in industry. There­ fore, universities must serve industry by looking towards the future and instructing the new generations that fill their classrooms in how the world will be.

References AIMC. (2017). Marco general de los medios en España 2016. Madrid: AIMC. Retrieved from: www.aimc.es/a1mc-c0nt3nt/uploads/2017/01/marco17.pdf. Arnold, S. (2016). Netflix and the myth of choice/participation/autonomy. In K. McDo­ nald & D. Smith-Rowsey (Eds.), The Netflix effect: Technology and entertainment in the 21st century (pp. 49–62). New York: Bloomsbury. Bartsch, A., Vorderer, P., Mangold, R. & Reinhold, V. (2008). Appraisal of emotions in media use: Toward a process model of meta-emotion and emotion regulation. Media Psychology, 11(1), 7–27. Bayo-Moriones, A., Etayo, C. & Sánchez-Tabernero, A. (2018). Revisiting quality televi­ sion: Audience perceptions. International Journal on Media Management, 20(3), 193–215. Bondad-Brown, B. (2012). Influences on TV viewing and online user-shared video use: Demographics, generations, contextual age, media use, motivations and audience activ­ ity. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 471–493. Bourdon, J. & Méadel, C. (2011). Inside television audience measurement: Deconstructing the ratings machine. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5), 791–800. Buzzard, K. (2012). Tracking the audience: The ratings industry from analog to digital. New York: Routledge. Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & Xiao, M. (2018). Multiplatform. A consumption perspective. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (2nd ed.) (pp. 317–332). New York: Routledge. CNMC. (2018). Informe annual. Retrieved from: http://data.cnmc.es/datagraph/jsp/inf_ anual.jsp. Ferguson, D. & Perse, E. (2004). Audience satisfaction among TiVO and ReplayTV users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 4(2), 1–8. Findanygame. (2017). Digital film and series platforms in Spain. Retrieved from: www.audio visual451.com/wp-content/uploads/PlataformasdigitalesdecineyseriesenEspana2017.pdf. García, I. (2016). Transcultural remakes of scripted television formats (PhD Dissertation). Uni­ versidad de Navara. Retrieved from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=176820. Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 247–266. Guerrero, E. (2018). Millennials’ abandonment of linear television. Revista Latina de Comunica­ ción Social, 73, 1231–1246. Guerrero, E., Diego, P. & Kimber, D. (2017). Hooked on lit screens. Enganchados a las pantallas. El profesional de la información, 26(6), 1108–1117. Haven, B. (2007). Marketing’s new key metric: Engagement marketers must measure involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence. Retrieved from: http://snproject. pbworks.com/f/NewMetric_Engagement.pdf. Havens, T. (2014). Media programming in an era of big data. Media Industries Journal, 1(2), 4–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mij.15031809.0001.202. Herrero, M., Medina, M. & Urgellés, A. (2018). Online recommendation systems in the Spanish audiovisual market: Comparative analysis between Atresmedia, Movistar+ and Netflix. UCJC Business & Society Review, 15(4), 54–89.

Audiovisual Consumption Preferences 231

Hulks, B. (2001). It can’t go on like this much longer. Admap, 26–28 February. IAB. (2014). Defining and measuring digital ad engagement in a cross-platform world. International advertising bureau. Retrieved from: www.iab.net/media/file/Ad_ Enga gement_Spectrum2014_FINAL2–5-2014-EB.PDF. Igartua, J. J. & Muñiz, C. (2008). Identificación con los personajes y disfrute ante largo­ metrajes de ficción. Una investigación empírica. Communication & Society, 21(1), 25–52. Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Oatley, K. (1989). The language of emotions: An analysis of a semantic field. Cognition and Emotion, 3(2), 81–123. Kantarmedia. (2018). Anuario de audiencias de televisión. Retrieved from: https://anuario. kantarmedia.es/2017/presentacion.html. Kimber, D. (2019). Desarrollo y validación de tres escalas para medir la calidad de los productos televisivos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. Krakowiak, K. M. & Oliver, M. B. (2012). When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 117–135. Larsen, S. F. & Laszlo, J. (1990). Cultural-historical knowledge and personal experience in appreciation of literature. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 425–440. Lowenstein, F. (2014). Why you should pay attention to upworthy measuring engagement in ‘attention minutes’. Retrieved from: www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/upworthy_ attention_minutes.php. Manero, C. B., Uceda, E. G. & Serrano, V. O. (2013). Understanding the consumption of television programming: Development and validation of a structural model for quality, satisfaction and audience behaviour. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(1), 142–156. Medina, M. (2017). La televisión privada nacional. In E. Gutiérrez (Ed.), Televisión abierta. Situación actual y tendencias de futuro de la TDT (pp. 39–59). Madrid: Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros de Telecomunicaciones. Medina, M. & Herrero, M. (2015). Television channels and the Internet: Opportunities for the identity and the future of broadcasters. In P. Faustino, E. Noam, C. Scholz & J. Lavine (Eds.), Media industry dynamics: Management, concentration, policies, convergence and competition (pp. 329–346). Lisbon: Media XXI. Medina, M., Herrero, M. & Etayo, C. (2016). The impact of DTT in the willingness to pay for TV in Spain. The International Journal of Digital Television, 7(1), 83–98. Medina, M., Herrero, M. & Urgellés, A. (2017). Current and emerging issues in the audiovisual industry. London: ISTE-Wiley. Medina, M., Sánchez-Tabernero, A. & Larrainzar, A. (2020). Growth strategies of media companies: Efficiency analysis. Palabra Clave, 23(1): e2317. https://doi.org/10.5294/ pacla.2020.23.1.7 Mir, A., Errázuriz, I., Kimber, D. & Santa María, I. (2008). Quality index in Chilean open television. Journal of Spanish Language Media, 1, 44–67. Nabi, R. L. & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: Impli­ cations for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14, 288–310. Nabi, R. L., Stitt, C. R., Halford, J. & Finnerty, K. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media Psychology, 8(4), 421–447. Napoli, P. M. (2012). Audience evolution and the future of audience research. International Journal on Media Management, 14(2), 79–97. Napoli, P. M. & Roepnack, A. (2018). Big data and media management. In A. Albarran, B. I. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (2nd ed.) (pp. 410–422). London: Routledge.

232 Mercedes Medina

Nelson, J. L. &. Webster, J. G. (2016). Audience currencies in the age of big data. Inter­ national Journal on Media Management, 18(1), 9–24. Oliver, M. B. (2003). Mood management and selective exposure. In J. Bryant, D. RoskosEwolsen & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillman (pp. 85–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oliver, M. B. & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. Packer, M. (1989). Dissolving the paradox of tragedy. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Cri­ ticism, 47(3), 211–219. Perse, E. M. (1992). Predicting attention to local television news: Need for cognition and motives for viewing. Communication Reports, 5(1), 40–49. Personality Media. (2018). Análisis de imagen cadenas de television. Madrid. Retrieved from: www.personalitymedia.es/sitio/index.php/es/noticias/notas-de-prensa/item/183-informe­ de-imagen-2018-principales-cadenas-y-programas-de-tv. Phalen, P. F. & Ducey, R. V. (2012). Audience behavior in the multi-screen ‘video-verse’. International Journal on Media Management, 14(2), 141–156. Portilla, I. (2015). Television audience measurement: Proposals of the industry in the era of digitalization. Trípodos, 36, 75–92. Portilla, I. & Medina, M. (2016). Monetization strategies and audience data for online video. The case of Atresmedia. Quaderns del CAC, 19(42), 27–36. Pujadas, E. (2013). La calidad televisiva más allá de un concepto políticamente correcto. Contenidos y perspectivas involucradas. Matrizes, 2(7), 1–18. Roettgers, J. (2017, 18 March). How Netflix wants to rule the world: A behind-the-scenes look at a global TV network. Retrieved from: https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/ netflix-lab-day-behind-the-scenes-1202011105/. Shamir, J. (2007). Quality assessment of television programs in Israel: Can viewers recog­ nize production value? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 320–341. Soto-Sanfiel, M., Aymerich-Franch, L. & Ribes Guardia, F. X. (2010). Impacto de la inter­ actividad en la identificación con los personajes de ficciones. Psicothema, 22(4), 822–827. Spanish Government. (2012). Science and technology strategy (2013– 2020). Retrieved from: www.ciencia.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Investigacion/FICHEROS/Estrategia_espanola_cien cia_tecnologia_Innovacion.pdf. Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing up digital: How the net generation is changing the world. New York: McGraw-Hill. Urgellés, A. (2017). Engagement on OTT. The Netflix case (PhD Dissertation). Uni­ versidad de Navarra. Retrieved from: www.educacion.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref= 440547. Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C. & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388–408. Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Webster, J. G. (2017). Three myths of digital media. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 1–10.

15

DIGITAL PRIVACY AND NEW MEDIA Reflecting on Lessons for Policy and Practice Conor O’Kane BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY

Introduction In July 2019, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Facebook $5 billion after deciding the company had violated a pledge not to misuse customer data (Roberts, 2019). The violation relates to the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica having ‘improperly obtained’ the personal information of more than 50 million Facebook users. The fine brings into sharp focus the risks to new media firms who do not comply with the relevant data protection rules in the jurisdic­ tions in which their firms operate. Issues around data protection and privacy have received limited attention among academic scholars researching in media economics and media management. Managerial decision-making in media firms is increasingly dependent on analysis of large quantities of personal data and it is important to acknowledge the privacy implications this raises (Napoli & Roepnack, 2018). Media management scholar Rohn (2018) suggests that research should focus on media firms that produce content as well as those who operate platforms that distribute content, including user-generated content. This means that new media firms like YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Google and Apple have become just as important to media management researchers as traditional mass media firms. Technological growth is the key driver of a rapid expansion in the global ‘new media’ industry in recent years and the economic success of media firms now depends primarily on their ability to successfully adapt and capitalise on technological advances (Doyle, 2013). As such, personal data is the currency that underpins digital business models (Picard, 2002; Libert & Pickard, 2015; Evens & Van Damme, 2016). In 2017 an Economist editorial declared data as the new oil (Economist, 2017). The emergence of ‘Web 2.0’ technologies in the form of social media, blogs, micro-blogging and online social networks has seen individuals change from

234 Conor O’Kane

consumers of information to producers of often highly personal data (Acquisti et al., 2016). The availability of personal data has fuelled the growth of an online behavioural advertising (OBA) industry. Many advertisers see OBA as the key to communicating with targeted audiences (Boerman et al., 2017). However, these developments have attracted criticism from privacy campaigners who claim that some online new media services promote a culture of disclosure (Privacy International, 2007). Campaigners argue that advertising incomes are generated as a result of disclosure of users’ personal information, and this constitutes an invasion of privacy. Despite the range of media services offered by Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent company), it is their AdWords product, essentially a sophisticated OBA tool, that allows advertisers to target users based on their online activities, which generates a staggering 90% of its total annual revenue (Alphabet Investor Relations, 2018). In the EU, the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) represents a comprehensive overhaul of data protection provisions for all firms that operate within the EU jurisdiction. Although the GDPR is a wide-ranging directive, article 100 states, ‘In order to enhance transparency and compliance with this Regulation, the establishment of certification mechanisms and data protection seals and marks should be encouraged, allowing data subjects to quickly assess the level of data protection of relevant products and services’ (Regulation, 2016, p. 19). It is envisaged that firms could display privacy seals to reassure consumers of their compliance with relevant data protection regulations. While privacy seals have been used in the past, it is the third-party verified nature of what the GDPR proposes that makes it unique. Not only privacy campaigners and regulators have privacy concerns in relation to new media services. Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, declared privacy to be one of the most important issues of the twenty-first century. In a 2018 interview, Cook said, ‘I’m not a pro-regulation kind of person. I believe in the free market deeply [but] when the free market doesn’t produce a result that’s great for society, you have to ask yourself: What do we need to do? And I think some level of government regulation is important’. (Thornhill, 2018). Cook describes how the trade in digital data has ‘exploded’ into what he calls a ‘data industrial complex’. He describes how our personal data is being aggregated and ‘weaponized’ against us. ‘We shouldn’t sugarcoat the consequences. This is surveillance’, Cook adds (Lomas, 2018). There are concerns that individuals may be negatively impacted by a lack of data protection. Risks to consumers include tangible costs such as identity theft and price discrimination, as well as less tangible risks such as psychological discomfort and/or anxiety (Stone & Stone, 1990; Feri et al., 2016). A research gap exists within the media economics and media management scholarship in relation to how privacy concerns impact on new media consumers’ decision-making when engaging with these services. What steps can media firms take to reassure con­ sumers that their personal data is safe with them?

Digital Privacy and New Media 235

The purpose of this research is to examine what impact the display of a thirdparty accredited privacy seal has on personal information disclosure. The thirdparty accredited element is unique to this research. Existing research in this area saw privacy seals deployed to demonstrate compliance with firms’ stated privacy policy and not the relevant laws for a jurisdiction. The findings here suggest that the display of privacy seals does not reduce personal information disclosure. The findings have important implications for media firms as it suggests they may be able to use privacy seals to demonstrate regulatory compliance, and this could be a source of competitive advantage. The privacy seal provision in the GDPR prompted us to investigate the impact(s) of privacy seals on sensitive personal information disclosure in online environments and question whether privacy seals have a role in providing media consumers with reassurances that their personal data is being protected from potential misuse. The findings are considered in terms of what they mean for media firms. Can media firms use privacy assurances as a source of strategic competitive advantage?

Literature Review The founding principles of data protection regulations are drawn from a range of academic disciplines including media law, political science, sociology, economics and media economics.

A Culture of Disclosure? While the $5 billion fine imposed on Facebook by the FTC is eye-catching in terms of its size, Facebook is no stranger to such controversy in relation to privacy. In 2007, its ad-serving Beacon technology was found to have failed to inform users on how it shared their details with other services. The controversy resulted in a class action lawsuit and a $19 million fine. In 2017, Facebook was fined €110 million for ‘misleading the European Commission during its 2014 takeover of WhatsApp’ (Murgia, 2017). Facebook was also separately fined by French and Italian regulators over the way it tracked and made users’ web-browsing informa­ tion available to advertisers. This was again in breach of EU data protection laws. The following provides a useful example of how Facebook can perhaps be seen as facilitating a culture of disclosure. Voncom is just one of a multitude of firms that provide interactive content including quizzes and ‘top 10’ lists, etc., on the social network. In 2015, Voncom launched an interactive service that allowed Facebook users to create an ‘info-graphic’ or ‘word cloud’ based on the words they had used most often on Facebook. Users were shown a message to say that the app would need to access their Facebook data in order to create the ‘word cloud’ image. It was a popular app used by an estimated 17+ million users. As it transpired, the ‘infograph’ application accessed the name, profile picture, age, gender, birthday, entire friend list, all timeline posts, all the user’s photos,

236 Conor O’Kane

hometown, education history and everything the user had ever ‘liked’ on Facebook (Wakefield, 2015). Would 17 million people have used the app had they had explicitly known how much personal information about themselves they were disclosing?

Defining Privacy Although notions of privacy have existed for many centuries, the experiences of World War II are the driving force behind European data protection laws (Loring, 2002). Elaborate population registers in Holland, compiled primarily for public policy and state planning purposes, were used by the invading Germans to identify individuals for deportation, many to concentration camps. While the information itself was not harmful, it serves as an example of where personal information freely supplied today for one reason may be looked upon and treated in a very different way in the future (Lloyd, 2011). In what is widely regarded as the seminal article in relation to privacy, the 1890 Harvard Law Journal paper entitled ‘The Right to Privacy’ quoted Judge Thomas Cooley’s claim for an individual’s ‘right to be let alone’ (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, p. 193). Lawyer Charles Fried later provides a similarly concise definition of privacy as ‘control over knowledge about oneself’ (Fried, 1968, p. 483). Research conducted by social scientist Irwin Altman in the 1970s examined a range of cultures (including the cultures of apparently minimal privacy like the Mehinacu tribe in Brazil and the Pygmies of Zaire) and found privacy to be a culturally universal phenomenon. Altman argues that privacy is fundamental to both individual and wider cultural survival (Altman, 1977). Political scientist Alan Westin’s definition of privacy reflects the new media, or ‘internet era’. ‘The claim of an individual to determine what information about himself or herself should be known to others … This, also, involves when such information will be obtained and what uses will be made of it by others’ (Westin, 2003, p. 7). This definition captures the two key objectives of the landmark EU 95/46/EC Data Protection Directive (the precursor to the GDPR): first, respect for an individual’s right to privacy (i.e. the claim of an individual to determine what information about himself or herself should be known to others); and second, how this information is obtained and used by third parties as well as how media businesses manage this ‘free flow’ of information. Both ‘control’ and ‘transparency’ are founding principles of EU data protection provisions (Directive 1995) captured in the landmark 95/46/EC Directive (and later incorporated in the 2018 GDPR). The 95/46/EC Directive became effective on 25 October 1998 and established information privacy as a basic human right. The key objective of the directive was to promote the internal market (Murray, 1997). This was achieved by balancing two principal objectives: (1) the protection of the fundamental rights of an individual’s right to privacy; and (2) the prevention of obstacles to the free flow of information among Member States (Maxeiner,

Digital Privacy and New Media 237

1995). The founding principles reveal the key tension at the heart of EU data protection regulations; that is, the protection of the individual’s fundamental right to privacy versus the promotion of trade and growth by allowing the free flow of information.

Economics of Privacy There is a body of literature that examines privacy from an economics perspec­ tive; that is, privacy economics. Key neoliberal/neoclassical economists like Stig­ ler (1980) and Posner (1981) disliked formal regulation and favour self-regulation of markets. The free market approach views the formal EU style, regulatorydriven approach to data protection as problematic. Apart from the ‘transactional costs’ argument (i.e. compliance with regulation adds cost and this impacts on prices and competitiveness), they also argue that the length of time it takes gov­ ernments to formulate and enact legislation (for a particular technology) means the ‘new’ technology itself is often outdated or superseded in the meantime (Beck, 2001). There are also concerns that efforts to rein in technology through regulation will force firms to move to less privacy-restrictive jurisdictions, and this in turn will hurt jobs and economic growth. Beck (2001) further argues that any attempt to control technologies will force developers to design more complex systems that are more difficult to monitor. Broadly speaking, critics of the EU style regulatory framework often favour a more free market approach/solution. However, the free market approach also attracts criticism from privacy cam­ paigners (McLaughlan, 2017). Those who favour a regulatory approach to specific industries cite that regulation can be used ‘to promote activities or results bene­ ficial to the public good, to limit or halt activities or results harmful to the public good’ (Picard, 2002, p. 70). Early approaches to privacy economics from the late 1970s (Posner, 1978; Stigler, 1980; Posner, 1981) viewed consumers as rational agents who made decisions on their privacy based on a trade or transactional approach (Acquisti, 2009). Acting with perfect information, users ‘trade’ their personal information in return for the ‘utility’ gained from the product or service they consume. For example, when applied to a new media service like Facebook, people who use the social network are, in fact, trading their personal information in return for functionality that allows them to connect with friends and share comments, photos and ‘likes’, etc. Both sides of the trade are rational actors and making their decisions with full knowledge. The granting of privacy rights through regulation is considered to distort the free market. Any costs associated with adhering to regulation lead to inefficiencies (i.e. inflated prices) and, ultimately, lower eco­ nomic growth on a macro level (Posner, 1981). From the 1990s, privacy economics literature incorporated more complex concepts like bounded rationality, where framing and heuristics are considered to influence decision-making (Acquisti, 2009). Rapid technological advances created

238 Conor O’Kane

‘information asymmetry’, where individuals could not understand/consider all potential uses/sharing of their personal data when making personal information disclosure decisions (i.e. they lacked full knowledge/transparency). This repre­ sented a major departure from the existing rational choice theory/approach. From approximately 2000, the emergence of the Internet and related technol­ ogies saw the rapid growth of new media firms. Many of these firms provided the majority – if not all – of their services for ‘free’, relying on advertising income for revenue. Data protection regulators recognise the complex trade-offs consumers face when making information disclosure decisions and believe that data subjects (i.e. consumers) must be given greater control and transparency of their personal information in order to reduce information asymmetry (Regulation, 2016).

The Privacy Paradox A number of research outputs have identified a so-called ‘privacy paradox’ with respect to online personal information disclosure. The term was first coined by Barnes (2006) and refers to the apparent disconnect between our stated privacy preferences and actual behaviour in online environments. When people consume online media services, they effectively ‘trade’ personal information (including ‘likes’, images, hob­ bies, location, interests, etc.) for access to services. Researchers have attempted to gain a deeper understanding of how data subjects make these privacy trade-off decisions. Empirical research outputs demonstrate inconsistent and, at times, counter-intuitive findings (Acquisti, 2004; Acquisti & Grossklags 2005; Tsai et al., 2011). Although users express a stated desire for privacy, their actual behaviours contradict this (i.e. the ‘privacy paradox’). Furthermore, privacy-enhancing features designed to improve transparency (i.e. reduce information asymmetry) can result in data subjects revealing more personal information in situations where they are more at risk of unwanted disclosure. Further research is needed to improve models of user behaviour and to ascertain the most appropriate policy mechanisms to protect consumer privacy expectation. The privacy paradox creates complexities for regulators who are aware that a failure to meet the privacy challenges that arise from new technologies may, in fact, damage commerce and economic growth going forward (Cate, 2011).

Regulating Privacy: ‘Control’ and ‘Transparency’ In the EU, the GDPR sets out to address the perceived failings in the existing regulatory provisions. Consistent with academic definitions of privacy, regulators identify transparency and control as key to protecting individuals’ privacy. For­ mally, information transparency can be defined as ‘the degree of visibility and accessibility of information’ (Zhu, 2002, p. 93). Features that promote informa­ tion transparency give individuals access to the information that a firm has col­ lected about them, as well as how that information may or indeed will be used in the future (Awad & Krishnan, 2006).

Digital Privacy and New Media 239

This very much echoes the view of Rohn (2018), who identifies trust and authority as a key issue for twenty-first-century media scholars. As well as pro­ viding clear definitions of key terms like ‘personal data’, EU and US regulators identify the importance of giving media consumers greater ‘control’ and ‘trans­ parency’ over their personal data to help engender trust between the two parties. Research from media scholars Evens and Van Damme (2016), who looked at online newspaper services, reinforces the importance of transparency to media consumers. Findings show that while most consumers are generally comfortable sharing basic demographic data (i.e. gender, date of birth, interests, etc.) with media firms, they are more reluctant to share personal data relating to contact details and financial information. Media firms must provide full transparency in relation to the possible uses of personal data in order to engender trust with consumers. Trust is an important factor, as consumers are more likely to share personal data with platforms they consider trustworthy (Chellappa & Sin, 2005). While transparency is clearly important, the complexity around how this is communicated to users (i.e. through privacy policies and/or terms and conditions) is a major area of concern for regulators (Granados et al., 2006). The complexity of privacy polices generally means that they are not read by users (Jensen et al., 2005; Reidenberg et al., 2015; Vila et al., 2004). Will the presence of an accredited privacy seal on a firm’s website help promote the transparency and control assurances that regulators believe are missing? The research outlined here empirically tests how use of iconography in the form of privacy seals impacts on personal information disclosure in online environments. The relatively limited existing empirical research in relation to the use of privacy seals shows inconsistent/inconclusive findings. Two studies from the United States (John et al., 2010; Brandimarte et al., 2013) suggest that data sub­ jects can behave in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways in relation to priv­ acy seals/icons/prompts; i.e. the so-called ‘privacy paradox’. Will the use of privacy seals as envisaged in the GDPR result in a ‘Peltzman effect’, where data subjects effectively behave more recklessly and disclose more personal informa­ tion? There is also evidence that explicit assurances of anonymity can, contrary to their intended purpose, trigger data subjects’ privacy concerns. This can result in less information being shared in circumstances where the risk of personal infor­ mation disclosure is lower (Acquisti & Grossklags, 2012). This has important implications for media managers. Why would a firm participate in a third-party accredited privacy seal scheme if it triggers privacy concerns and leads to reduced information disclosure?

Project My research set out to empirically examine the impact third-party accredited privacy seals as envisaged in the GDPR have on personal information disclosure.

240 Conor O’Kane

The overarching research question examined was: What impact(s) do privacy seals have on sensitive personal information disclosure in online environments? The GDPR identifies ‘sensitive data’ categories as ‘personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited’ (Regulation 2016, Article 9(1)).

Method A series of surveys and experiments was conducted. Participants for the surveys and experiments were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). All MTurk ‘workers’ were required to meet two core criteria in order to maintain the external validity of the data. These were: (a) ‘HIT Approval Rate’ greater than 95; and (b) their ‘Number of HITS completed greater than 100’. MTurk recruits were paid for their participation; the fee was approximately $0.80 per survey/experiment. The funds for this came from Bournemouth University in the UK, where I was studying for my PhD. The EU-based sensitive data survey had 225 respondents, while the EU-based experiment had 337 responses. The USbased sensitive data survey had 201 respondents, while the US-based experiment had 312 responses. In the process of designing the experiments, I sought and received permission to use two ‘privacy seals’ that are commercially in use. The company ePrivacy operates one such privacy seal accreditation scheme in the EU. Anyone who wants to display their seal must undertake an in-depth audit of their products. The privacy seal is awarded as testament to ‘a product’s compliance with the list of ePrivacyseal EU criteria, which reflects the requirements imposed by EU data protection legislation. This includes the principles of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (applicable from May 2018), as well as those of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC’ (ePrivacy 2018). The company EuroPriSe operates a similar accreditation scheme. Their website states, ‘The EuroPriSe website privacy certification is awarded to websites that are compliant with EU data protection law and that meet all of EuroPriSe’s highquality data protection requirements’ (EuroPriSe, 2017).

Key Findings Survey participants were correctly able to differentiate between categories of per­ sonal data considered ‘sensitive’ in the GDPR from those categories not considered sensitive. However, significant numbers of respondents thought that personal information that indicated their ‘home address details’, ‘mobile telephone number’ and ‘email address’ was given additional ‘sensitive personal data’ protection, even

Digital Privacy and New Media 241

though it is not afforded this protection in law. The results also show that a sig­ nificant percentage of respondents wrongly believed that some categories of data are afforded additional protection under data protection regulations when they are not. These data categories can be used/shared to target advertising messages by data controllers whose users have disclosed their personal data to. Participants were also asked what categories of personal data they thought should be categorised as sensitive under data protection regulations. The most striking findings here are how both EU and US survey findings reveal the same top four categories of personal data with the highest percentages of respondents indicating that the category should be classified as ‘sensitive’ personal data. They are ‘heath or medical data’, ‘physical location or movement’, ‘personal income details’ and ‘home address or postcode’. The fact that these are not all classified as ‘sensitive’ personal data shows there is a mismatch between the regulations and consumer expectations. A series of randomised experiments was conducted to examine what impact, if any, the presence of a privacy seal has on categories of personal data that we know both EU and US respondents regard as ‘sensitive’ personal data. Overall, the experiment results show that the presence of a privacy seal ‘treatment’ does not result in a statistically significant level of information disclosure compared to the ‘control’ group where no privacy seal was presented.

Extending Existing Research The results of this experiment extend existing research findings in a number of areas. Consistent with the findings from Rifon et al. (2005), the presence of a privacy seal in our experiments did not influence personal information disclosure either positively or negatively. On the core issue of privacy seals not impacting the amount of personal information disclosed, the findings are indeed consistent. Existing research has also examined the role contextual clues (i.e. a privacy seal or icon) play in personal information disclosure. Findings from John et al. (2010) showed that the display of text warnings about potential privacy violations trig­ gered privacy concerns resulting in users ‘clamming up’, which reduced infor­ mation disclosure. In my experiment findings, the presence of a contextual clue in the form of a privacy seal did not lead to any statistically significant difference in personal information disclosure. Therefore, we can say that the presence of the privacy seal did not have any positive or negative ‘contextual clue’ causal impact on personal information disclosure. These findings have potentially very important implications for new media service providers and, indeed, for media managers. The findings here offer no evidence that the display of privacy seals ‘trigger privacy concerns’ that, in turn, lead to a reduction in personal information disclosure. This is an important find­ ing for new media firms. Displaying a privacy seal that reduces personal infor­ mation disclosure would effectively act as a disincentive for firms to participate in

242 Conor O’Kane

such an accreditation scheme. However, these findings provide empirical evi­ dence that privacy seals do not lead to less personal information disclosure. Media firms who are rigorous in complying with data protection rules can use privacy seals to communicate this compliance and differentiate themselves in the crowded new media services markets. It may be a source of competitive advantage. As new media consumers become increasingly aware of how their personal information is being used to sell and/or influence their purchasing and indeed voting beha­ viours, they may well seek out trusted service providers who offer additional, externally validated assurances. Media firms that fail to meet consumers’ expec­ tations in terms of protecting their personal data risk damaging their brand. Tim Cook’s comments echo this view. Additionally, due to the so-called ‘Peltzman effect’ as applied to personal information disclosure, we would expect the display of a privacy seal (or other privacy-enhancing technologies) to result in more ‘reckless’ personal information disclosure, exposing individuals to greater risk of identity theft, fraud, etc. The results of the experiments conducted do not show any evidence of the presence of any such ‘Peltzman effect’. Similarly, there is no evidence of the ‘unintended consequences’ observed by Carolan and Castillo-Mayen (2014), where mechanisms designed to empower data subjects with more control are not observable in any predictable manner. The evidence from the experiments conducted here suggests that a privacy policy independently verifying compliance with data protection regulations has no sta­ tistically significant impact (i.e. higher or lower level of disclosure) on personal information disclosure. These findings add further evidence to the existence of a ‘privacy paradox’. Although both US and EU respondents identified categories of data as ‘sensitive personal data’, the experiments showed that many were willing to disclose this personal information for a relatively small financial reward; i.e. $0.80. This is an example of where stated privacy concerns do not match actual behaviours (Tad­ dicken, 2014).

From Theory to Practice – Reflections While conducting this research in 2018, Christopher Wylie, a data scientist and former employee of Cambridge Analytica turned whistle-blower, gave evidence to the UK House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that personal data collected from Facebook was used to target voters and may even have influenced elections. This was a major international story at the time. I was contacted by the managing editor of the Trinity Mirror Group (now called Reach) and asked to write a 1,500-word article for their publication, the Daily Mirror. The newspaper had a print circulation of approximately 600,000 in April 2018. The article explained how the ‘personality quiz’ application had been distributed on Facebook by a researcher at Cambridge University and had collected

Digital Privacy and New Media 243

personal details on approximately 87 million Facebook members. In the article, I discussed how the data was harvested from Facebook and how this kind of personal data collection challenged the core principles of data privacy; i.e. control and transparency (O’Kane, 2018). The article appeared on page 7 of the print edition and online on 6 April 2018. A link to the article was tweeted by a UK journalist and author with over 600,000 followers. A week later, I was asked to write a shorter follow-up piece on the GDPR and what tech firms needed to do to regain the trust of consumers. It was here I was able to argue that some form of external validation of the privacy practices for all firms that deal with personal data was needed and that a privacy seal type scheme as envisaged in the GDPR could be a useful way forward. It was great to have had an opportunity to bring my research interests to a wider network and mainstream audience. As Oliver (2017) states, ‘early career academics will be looking at the opportunities that digital technology can offer them to develop their profile, access new networks and extend the reach and impact of their research outputs’. It was somewhat challenging to write in a non­ academic style, where you cannot assume the reader has any significant knowl­ edge of the topic you are writing about. It is certainly true that my personal and professional networks had helped extend the reach of my research. For me, the data industrial complex sees new media and tech firms facilitate a lucrative OBA industry, where personal data is weaponized for commercial and political reasons. This represents a serious threat that requires a national/interna­ tional campaign to inform and mitigate against the most serious consequences. This should be considered an issue of national health and, as such, a national public information campaign approach should be adopted to inform the public about the potential risks and how to take steps to avoid those risks. Personalised and targeted advertising is seen as the future of advertising (Kumar & Gupta, 2016; Schultz, 2016; Rust, 2016). Third-party accredited privacy seals have a role to play in highlighting to data subjects new media services that have been independently verified as complying with the relevant regulations. It may also assist them in avoiding services that may use their data in a way that is not permitted under that law. While privacy seals are not the sole ‘solution’, they have a role to play in maintaining the confidence of new media consumers. In the light of regulatory fines in relation to privacy breeches, new media firms need to manage both the requirements of regulators and the expectations of their consumers while maintaining revenues/profits. Failure to comply with regulations may result in significant financial penalties. However, as consumers become more aware of the potential harm resulting from the misuse of their personal data, it is likely that some consumers will seek services that guarantee greater protections for their data. There is an opportunity to gain the trust of new media consumers in relation to how the privacy of their personal data is managed. As Evens and Van Damme (2016) note, the willingness of users to share personal data is essential in order for media organisations to establish intimate relationships

244 Conor O’Kane

with consumers. Transparency in terms of how data is collected, shared and used is an important component of this relationship. If you already comply with the rele­ vant data protection regulations, then why not get this independently verified by a third party and give consumers that assurance and engender trust? New media service providers who choose to ignore the warnings from the likes of Tim Cook risk reputational damage that will impact on revenues and profits. While service providers must adhere to the relevant data protection laws, it is also likely that OBA will become more and more sophisticated. It is time for the industry to engage with tools that can build trust with media consumers. New media researchers have a role to play in researching initiatives and functionality that helps inform media managers on how to develop their services to meet all stakeholders needs.

References Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 21–29). ACM. Retrieved from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/988772.988777. Acquisti, A. (2009). Nudging privacy: The behavioral economics of personal information. IEEE Security & Privacy, 7(6), 82–85. Acquisti, A. & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy, 3(1), 26–33. Acquisti, A. & Grossklags, J. (2012). An online survey experiment on ambiguity and privacy. Communications & Strategies, 88(4), 19–39. Acquisti, A., Taylor, C. & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Eco­ nomic Literature, 54(2), 442–492. Alphabet Investor Relations. (2018). Alphabet announces fourth quarter and fiscal year 2017 results. Alphabet Investor Relations. Retrieved from: https://abc.xyz/investor/sta tic/pdf/2017Q4_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf?cache=33ec3b1. Altman, I. (1977). Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 66–84. Awad, N. F. & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 13–28. Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394. Beck, J. C. (2001). Get a grip! Regulating cyberspace won’t be easy. Business Law Today, 14–19. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23291469?seq=1. Boerman, S. C., Kruikemeier, S. & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2017). Online behavioral advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 363–376. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A. & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340–347. Carolan, E. & Castillo-Mayen, M. R. (2014). Why more user control does not mean more user privacy: An empirical (and counter-intuitive) assessment of European e-privacy laws. Va. JL & Tech.,19, 324. Cate, F. H. (2011). A transatlantic convergence on privacy? IEEE Security & Privacy, 9(1), 76–79.

Digital Privacy and New Media 245

Chellappa, R. K. & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus privacy: An empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 6(2–3), 181–202. Doyle, G. (2013). Understanding media economics. London: Sage. Economist. (2017, 6 May). The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. Retrieved from: www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable­ resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data. ePrivacy. (2018). E-privacyseal. ePrivacy. Retrieved from: www.eprivacy.eu/en/priva cy-seals/eprivacyseal/. EU Directive. (1995). 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the EC, 23(6). EuroPriSe. (2017). Website privacy certification. EuroPriSe. Retrieved from: www.europ ean-privacy-seal.eu/EPS-en/website-privacy-certification-overview. Evens, T. & Van Damme, K. (2016). Consumers’ willingness to share personal data: Implications for newspapers’ business models. International Journal on Media Management, 18(1), 25–41. Feri, F., Giannetti, C. & Jentzsch, N. (2016). Disclosure of personal information under risk of privacy shocks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 123(1), 138–148. Fried, C. (1968). The value of life. Harvard Law Review, 82(7), 1415–1437. Granados, N. F., Gupta, A. & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). The impact of IT on market information and transparency: A unified theoretical framework. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(3), 148–178. Jensen, C., Potts, C. & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1–2), 203–227. John, L. K., Acquisti, A. & Loewenstein, G. (2010). Strangers on a plane: Context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 858–873. Kumar, V. & Gupta, S. (2016). Conceptualizing the evolution and future of advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 302–317. Libert, T. & Pickard, V. (2015). Think you’re reading the news for free? New research shows you’re likely paying with your privacy. The Conversation, 6. Retrieved from: http s://theconversation.com/think-youre-reading-the-news-for-free-new-research-shows­ youre-likely-paying-with-your-privacy-49694. Lloyd, I. J. (2011). Information technology law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lomas, N. (2018, 22 October). Apple’s Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the ‘data indus­ trial complex’. Techcrunch. Retrieved from: https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/24/app les-tim-cook-makes-blistering-attack-on-the-data-industrial-complex/. Loring, T. B. (2002). An analysis of the informational privacy protection afforded by the European Union and the United States. Texas International Law Journal, 37, 423–460. McLaughlan, M. (2017). Personal data for sale on ‘huge scale’ warns consumer group. The Scotsman. Retrieved from: www.scotsman.com/news/uk/personal-data-for-sale-on-hu ge-scale-warns-consumer-group-1-4344881. Maxeiner, J. R. (1995). Freedom of Information and the EU Data protection Directive. Federal Communications Law Journal, 48, 93–104. Murgia, M. (2017, 18 May). Facebook fined €110 by European Commission over WhatsApp deal. Financial Times. Retrieved from: www.ft.com/content/a2dadc48-3bb1-11e7-821a -6027b8a20f.23?mhq5j=e1. Murray, P. J. (1997). The adequacy standard under Directive 95/46/EC: Does US data protection meet this standard? Fordham International Law Journal, 21, 932–1018.

246 Conor O’Kane

Napoli, P. M. & Roepnack, A. (2018). Big data and media management. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 410–421). New York: Routledge. O’Kane, C. P. (2018, 6 April). As Facebook admits grabbing personal data of 87m users, it’s time we switched off these i-spies. Daily Mirror. Retrieved from: www.mirror.co.uk/ news/uk-news/facebook-admits-grabbing-personal-data-12312131. Oliver, J. J. (2017). Developing a distinctive digital research profile and network. In N. Kucirkova & O. Quinlan (Eds.), The digitally agile researcher (pp. 80–87). London: Open University Press/ McGraw-Hill Education. Picard, R. G. (2002). US newspaper ad revenue shows consistent growth. Newspaper Research Journal, 23(4), 21–33. Posner, R. A. (1978). Economic theory of privacy. Regulation, 2, 19–26. Posner, R. A. (1981). The economics of privacy. The American Economic Review, 71(2), 405–409. Privacy International. (2007). A race to the bottom: Privacy ranking of Internet service companies. Retrieved from: https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/ 2017-12/A_Race_bottom.pdf. Privacy Regulation. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Regulation (EU), 679, 2016. Reidenberg, J. R., Breaux, T., Cranor, L. F., French, B., Grannis, A., Graves, J. T., … & Ramanath, R. (2015). Disagreeable privacy policies: Mismatches between meaning and users’ understanding. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(1), 39–88. Rifon, N. J., LaRose, R. & Choi, S. M. (2005). Your privacy is sealed: Effects of web privacy seals on trust and personal disclosures. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 339–362. Roberts, J. (2019, 22 July). How Facebook’s $5 billon fine should be spent. Fortune. Retrieved from: https://fortune.com/2019/07/20/facebook-5-billion-ftc/. Rohn, U. (2018). Media management research in the twenty-first century. In A. B. Albarran, B. Mierzejewska & J. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of media management and economics (pp. 425–441). New York: Routledge. Rust, R. T. (2016). Comment: Is advertising a zombie? Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 346–347. Schultz, D. (2016). The future of advertising or whatever we’re going to call it. Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 276–285. Stigler, G. J. (1980). An introduction to privacy in economics and politics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 9(4), 623–644. Stone, E. F. and Stone, D. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Manage­ ment, 8, 349–411. Taddicken, M. (2014). The ‘privacy paradox’ in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248–273. Thornhill, J. (2018, 9 October). Silicon Valley needs to earthquake-proof its businesses. FT. com. Retrieved from: www.ft.com/content/29c162a2-cb19-11e8-b276-b9069bde0956. Tsai, J. Y., Egelman, S., Cranor, L. & Acquisti, A. (2011). The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: An experimental study. Information Systems Research, 22(2), 254–268. Vila, T., Greenstadt, R. & Molnar, D. (2004). Why we can’t be bothered to read privacy policies. In L. J. Camp & S. Lewis (Eds.), Economics of information security (pp. 143–153). Boston, MA: Springer.

Digital Privacy and New Media 247

Wakefield, J. (2015, 26 November). Facebook quizzes: What happens to your data. BBC News. Retrieved from: www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34922029. Warren, S. D. & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). Right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220. Westin, A. F. (2003). Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59 (2), 431–453. Zhu, K. (2002). Information transparency in electronic marketplaces: Why data transpar­ ency may hinder the adoption of B2B exchanges. Electronic markets, 12(2), 92–99.

CONTRIBUTORS

Editors Ulrike Rohn is Professor of Media Economics and Management at Tallinn University, Estonia, where she works at the Baltic Film, Media, Arts, and Communication School (BFM) and the Centre of Excellence in Media Innovation and Digital Culture (MEDIT). She served as President of the European Media Management Association (emma, 2016–2020), and is co-Editor of the Springer Series in Media Industries and Associate Editor of the Journal of Media Business Studies. Ulrike’s research interests include, among others, audiovisual policies, media business models, and international media strategies. Latter research interest has led to her book publication Cultural Barriers to the Success of Foreign Media Content: Western Media in China, India, and Japan (2010). Tom Evens is an Assistant Professor at research group for Media, Innovation and Communication Technologies (imec-mict-UGent) at the Department of Commu­ nication Sciences at Ghent University, Belgium. He specialises in the economics and policies of media and technology industries, and has published widely on the media business. He is the lead author of The Political Economy of Television Sports Rights (2013) and Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Television Markets (2018). He is a member of several editorial boards and has been consulting several governments and media organisations on strategy and public policy issues.

Chapter Authors Sylvia Chan-Olmsted is the Director of Media Consumer Research at the Uni­ versity of Florida. She teaches brand management and media management. Her research expertise includes digital/mobile media consumption, branding and strategic

Contributors 249

management in emerging media industries. Her current studies involve audience engagement and media brand trust conceptualisation/measurement, emerging media audience behaviour and branded content. Dr Chan-Olmsted has conducted con­ sumer research for the U.S. National Association of Broadcasters, the Cable Center, Nielsen, Google, Huffington Post, Bertelsmann (G+J), Association of Top German Sport Sponsors (S20 group) and various industry partners. She holds the Al and Effie Flanagan Professorship at UF. Clare Cook is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, UK. She researches digital journalism revenue models specifically those operating on the edge of media systems such as hyperlocals, exiled or politically pressured media. As co-founder of the Media Innovation Studio her work includes industry analysis, such as Sustainable Business Models for Journalism (submojour.net), with Nesta and the World Association of Newspapers and Publishers. She is principal investi­ gator on prototype projects with industry partners including Google Digital News Initiative. She is also a business mentor and her work feeds into policy on jour­ nalism sustainability. Annika Ehlers is a PhD candidate at the Media, Management and Transformation Center (MMTC) at Jönköping International Business School, Sweden. Additionally, she is affiliated with the chair of communication management at Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences, Germany for an EU-funded research project on the role of location-based services for regional media communication. With a background both in business administration and communication, she is interested in (media) entre­ preneurship, digital communication and online communities. Britta Gossel is a research associate at the Media and Communication Management research group at Technische Universität Ilmenau (Germany) with a research focus on media entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education. She has been active in research and teaching in Germany and abroad (Jönköping International Business School (Sweden), Leeds Beckett University (UK), Tallinn University (Estonia), Cork Institute of Technology (Ireland), De Montfort University (UK)). Currently she is a fellow of the Hans Weisser Stipendium (2019–2020), which supports her in doing research about entrepreneurship education in STEM and Media in higher education in five countries. In 2018, Britta Gossel received the Mathijs Hammer Award of the European Council of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Prior to her current activity, she was among others active as spokeswomen for an MEP in the European Parliament (Brussels and Straßbourg). Mikko Grönlund is a Research Manager in the Brahea Centre at the University of Turku. He has extensive experience in the field of development of media industries and businesses, their structure, operations and markets. Among his research interests are also news media business models, and the digital

250 Contributors

transformation in the media. His research has been published in academic journals, such as Journalism Studies, European Journal of Communication, Digital Journalism, Jour­ nal of Media Business Studies, and Nordicom Review. Erik Hitters is an Associate Professor at the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication of Erasmus University Rotterdam. He has co-founded and is the managing director of ERMeCC, the Erasmus Research Centre for Media, Com­ munication and Culture. He lectures for the MA programme in Media Studies and IBCoM, the International Bachelor in Communication and Media. Erik’s research interests lie in the broad field of transformations in the media and cultural industries. He leads several large research projects, supported by the Dutch Research Council NWO on the cultural and creative industries. Sven-Ove Horst is a Senior Assistant Professor for Media and Creative Indus­ tries at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He has held previous positions at Bauhaus University Weimar and Aalto University School of Business. His research centres on strategic media management, media entrepreneurship, and organisation theory, and has been published in media management journals. Sven also serves as associate editor of the Journal of Media Management and Entrepreneurship. He gen­ erally likes exploring emergent phenomena, such as strategy, identity work, and entrepreneurial branding during times of digitisation. He is interested in con­ necting theory with practice through leadership development workshops, net­ working activities and consulting. Katja Lehtisaari is an Adjunct Professor in Media and Communication Studies at the University of Helsinki. She has coordinated projects on researching business models of journalism and specialises in analysis of media business, media policy, and journalism, often in an international, comparative setting. She has been a visiting scholar in both the University of Oxford and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Washington DC) and is editor-in-chief of Idäntutkimus, a Fin­ nish review of Russian and East European Studies. Carl-Gustav Lindén is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Finland, University Lecturer at the Södertörn University in Stockholm and Affiliated Researcher at Nordicom, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He has a PhD in media and journalism studies. His research interests include augmented journalism, especially news automation, media business models and local journalism. Lindén was a business journalist in Finland and Sweden for more than 25 years before moving into academia. He has also worked as a communications consultant for the United Nations University. Gregory Ferrell Lowe is Professor and Director of the Communication Program at Northwestern University in Qatar (since 2018). He founded and managed Finland’s

Contributors 251

first graduate studies programme in media management and economics at Tampere University (2008–2017) and worked for ten years as Senior Advisor for Corporate Strategy and Development in the Finnish national broadcasting company Yleisradio (1997–2007). He served two terms as President of the European Media Management Association (emma, from 2012 to 2016) and will complete a two-year period of service as Chair of the World Media Economics and Management Conference (WMEMC). Päivi Maijanen is a post-doctoral researcher at the School of Business and Management at the LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland. As for her research interests, she focuses on strategic management and organisational renewal in the media, and in particular, on questions related to digitalisation and changes in managerial and organisational practices and culture. Maijanen has experience from longitudinal case studies and fieldwork in media compa­ nies. Her media expertise is based on both academic and professional experi­ ence. Before academia, she was a journalist and manager at the Finnish Broadcasting Company. Mercedes Medina is an Associate Professor at the School of Communication, Marketing and Media Management Department at the University of Navarra, Spain. Among others, she is the author of European Television Production: Pluralism and Con­ centration (2004), Globalization and Pluralism: Reshaping Public TV in Europe (2010) and Current and Emerging Issues in the Audiovisual Industry (2017), more than 40 journal articles and 45 chapters in books. Her teaching and research focus on media eco­ nomics and media audience research. She is the editor of Communication and Society and a member of the editorial board of Palabra Clave, Journalism and Mass Commu­ nication Quarterly and Innovative Marketing. Conor O’Kane is a lecturer in economics at the Business School of Bourne­ mouth University. He achieved his PhD at the same university in 2019. His research interests focus on the impact new media technologies have on indivi­ duals’ privacy with emphasis on the role data protection regulation has in improving information transparency. John J. Oliver is an Associate Professor of Media Management at Bournemouth University who has published in international media and business journals. His research has made a demonstrable impact on UK communication regulatory decisions and influenced the public policy debate on future Internet regulation. His research has also created financial benefits for several world-class management consultancies and resulted in multi-million-pound investments made by FTSE 100 firms. The reach and sig­ nificance of his research has also extended outside the UK with a number of Middle East government agencies changing their strategy practices, operational structures and capacity building capabilities in strategic communications.

252 Contributors

Robert G. Picard is a Senior Research Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and a Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale University Law School. His scholarship focuses on economic of media and communications sys­ tems and public policy. He has taught at both the University of Oxford and Har­ vard University, is the author and editor of 33 books, and has been editor of the Journal of Media Business Studies and the Journal of Media Economics. Tim Raats is a Professor at the Department of Communication Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He holds a PhD in media and communication studies at the same university. Tim is head of the Media Economics and Policy Unit at imec-SMIT-VUB (Studies on Media, Innovation and Technology). He specialises in public service media policy and sustainability of TV produc­ tion in small markets. Tim coordinated several research projects for industry and policy stakeholders. He has published widely in edited volumes and peerreviewed journals. Since 2018, he has also been a board member of the Flan­ ders Audiovisual Fund (VAF). Harald Rau is Professor of Communication Management at Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter, Germany. For 25 years he worked in media produc­ tion and management, as a TV presenter, author and reporter. He has directed hundreds of business movie projects and invented the first business-TV magazine ever controlled by state media authority. He graduated in business administration (FU Hagen), has a doctorate in journalism research (TU Dortmund) and habilitated in media and communication sciences (U Leipzig). His research concentrates on PSB media and on the economy of journalism. He has published eight monographs and several articles, is the research representative of the faculty and coordinates the grad­ uate’s programme for communication management. Mikko Villi is a Professor of Journalism in the Department of Language and Communication Studies at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. An emphasis in his work is on the contemporary context for journalism and media work. Among his research interests are media management, media consumption, media plat­ forms, news media business models, and the digital transition in the media. He has published in a wide variety of academic journals, such as Journalism, Journalism Studies, Digital Journalism, the International Journal on Media Management, and Journal of Media Business Studies. Steve Wildman is a Senior Fellow at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is Emeritus Professor and J.H. Quello Chair of Telecommunication Studies at Michigan State University. He holds a PhD in Economics from Stanford University and a BA in Economics from Wabash College. During his penultimate year as Director of the Quello Center, Steve served a one-year stint as Chief Economist to the Federal

Contributors 253

Communications Commission, reflecting the focus of his economics research on tele­ communication industries and services. He is the author and editor of eight books, and contributed numerous book chapters and journal articles. Andreas Will is a Professor for Media and Communication Management at the Technische Universität Ilmenau (Germany). His research interest comprises media management, (business models for) digital media offerings, project management, and utilisation of novel media technologies for business and social applications. Andreas Will studied Industrial Engineering at the University of Karlsruhe. He holds a Dr.rer. pol. and a habilitation in Business Administration and Information Systems, both from the University of Augsburg (Germany). Prior to his current assignment, he held aca­ demic positions at the universities of Dresden, Gießen, Augsburg and Magdeburg and worked as a project manager for software projects for Deutsche Bank Group. Andreas Will is a founding member of the European Media Management Association. Julian Windscheid is a research associate at the Media and Communication Management research group at Technische Universität Ilmenau (Germany). Since July 2016 he has been involved in various research projects. His research interests focus on digital communication, media innovation research, media reception and effects, as well as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Previously, he worked as a research assistant at the Chair of Computer-mediated Communication at the University of Passau (Germany). Julian studied Media Production and Media Technology (B.Eng.) at the HAW Amberg/Weiden (Germany) and Media and Communication (MA) at the University of Passau. Lisa-Charlotte Wolter is Head of the Brand & Consumer Research Depart­ ment and NeuroLab at Hamburg Media School and courtesy Assistant Professor at the University of Florida. Her research focus is on consumer engagement, media effectiveness measurement and the impact of emotions. She holds an MBA from University of Hamburg and also studied at the Copenhagen Business School and University of Technology Sydney. As a PhD she won a scholarship from Hubert Burda Media and focused her research on digital brand equity strategies. Having attained her PhD in Economics at the University of Hamburg in 2014, she is now responsible for several media and consumer engagement research projects with industry partners such as Google, Twitter, DIE ZEIT or S20.

INDEX

Aalto University 78 abduction 192–3 abstraction 17–18 academia 2–4, 6–7, 10, 13–14, 18–24; academic associations 12; academic incentive system 19; academic independence 10, 24–6, 30; and action research 98, 102, 104; and ad blocker industry 108–9, 117–19; and audiovisual consumption 221, 224, 228–9; and differing priorities 130; and digital privacy 238, 243, 233; and digital transformation 213–15; and ethnography 77–8, 84–5; and industry collaboration 33–4, 40, 42–3; and location based services 122; and news media 157; and practice-led research 59, 71–2; and research for innovation 173–5, 177–80, 183; and small television ecosystems 139, 145–7, 149, 151; and societal impact 166–7, 169–70; and technology 191, 197, 200 Academy of Management (AOM) 21 accreditation schemes 8, 240, 242–3 Achtenhagen, L. 3 action learning 95 action research 5, 23, 71–2, 93–106 actionable knowledge 1–2, 4–5, 15, 18–19, 22, 24, 59–74 Adblock Report 113 AdBlocker Day 117 administrators 29, 32, 133, 180, 182–3

advertising 5, 9–10, 49, 51–2, 55–6; ad blocker industry 5, 107–20, 138–42, 145–7, 151; and audiovisual consumption 219, 226–7; and digital journalism 93–4, 98; and digital privacy 234–5, 238, 241, 243–4; and digital transformation 206; and location-based services 122; and news media 156, 163; and practice-led research 69; and research for innovation 173, 176; and small television ecosystems 145; and societal impact 163; targeted advertising 111, 113, 144, 243; and technology 189, 194, 197 AdWords 234 Africa 13, 93 Ahva, L. 96 Albarran, A.B. 3 algorithms 12, 54, 189 Alibaba 13 Alphabet Inc 234 Altman, I. 236 Alvesson, M. 80, 82 Amazon 13, 54, 140, 218–19, 240 Anderson, S.P. 56 anonymity 98, 100–2, 184, 239 app development 121, 123–4, 127–8, 131–2, 145, 176, 194, 223, 235–6 Appelgren, E. 96 Apple 219, 233 Argentina 94 Argyris, C. 59, 61, 71

Index 255

artificial intelligence (AI) 17, 195–6, 199, 224 Asia 13, 93, 125 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) 35 Astrazeneca 67 Atlas.ti 177 Atresmedia 222, 225–6, 228 Audiovisual Trust Label (ATL) 227 audiovisual viewing patterns 7, 138, 140–1, 144, 151, 218–32 augmented reality (AR) 189, 192, 194, 196, 199 Australia 51, 96 auto-ethnography 5, 77, 81, 84–5 autonomy 6, 25, 146–7, 151 Azerbaijan 98 bandwidth 55 Barnes, S.B. 238 barriers 32–5, 52, 71, 97, 99, 103, 127, 180 Bathelt, H. 174 Bauman, Z. 83 Beacon 127, 235 Belarus 98 Belgium 3, 138, 141 Bell Pottinger 67, 70 best practices 15, 125, 131, 167, 169, 174, 227, 229 Bettis, R.A. 206 bias 12–13, 23–4, 37, 39, 147, 151 Bieber, J. 162 big data 16, 222, 224 Bilodeau, B. 70 blockchain 192, 197 blogs 41, 233 Boomerang TV 222, 225 Bournemouth University 240 Bowman, E.H. 68 Boyer, E.L. 17 branding 161–2, 174, 176–7, 190, 242 Brandstetter, B. 165 Braunschweiger Zeitung 126 Brazil 94, 236 Brexit 32 bricolage 192 Britbox 149 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) 222 broadband 53, 55, 67, 157 broadcasting 13, 50, 52–7, 98, 127; and audiovisual consumption 218–19, 226–7; and co-location 173; and digital

transformation 204–5, 209–12; and entrepreneurship 190; and managing digital transformation 204–17; and small television ecosystems 138–45, 148–9, 151; and societal impact 157 Brown, C. 2 Bruneel, J. 32 Brynjolfsson, E. 48 budgets 6, 48, 51–2, 71, 98, 109, 133, 139–44, 147–9, 160, 168, 228 business 5, 9–10, 13–17, 32, 34; and action research 102–3; and ad blocker industry 117; and audiovisual consumption 221, 227; and digital transformation 207; and ethnography 87; and location-based services 126, 130; and news media 157–8, 161; and practice-led research 59–60, 62, 65–9, 71; and research for innovation 173–5, 181, 183–4; and societal impact 167; and university collaboration 36–9, 42–3 business centres 174, 176–7, 181–2, 184 Business Finland 160 business models 7, 13, 16, 52, 54–6; and ad blocker industry 108, 117; and audiovisual consumption 224; and digital privacy 233; and digital transformation 206; and location-based services 123; and news media 155–6, 160–6; and practice-led research 68; and research for innovation 180; and revenue 93–106; and small television ecosystems 138; and societal impact 161, 164–5, 167–8, 171; and technology 188–203 Cambridge Analytica 233, 242 Cambridge University 242 Campos, F. 227 Canada 51, 55 capitalism 102 Carolan, E. 242 case studies 4, 59–74, 93, 209, 215, 218–32 Castillo-Mayen, M.R. 242 catharsis 220 censors 50 Central Europe 32 Chan-Olmsted, S. 5, 107–20, 228 change management 7, 78, 204–5, 207–13 chatbots 192, 196–7 Chatham House Rule 101 China 13, 51 citations 19 cloud services 82

256 Index

clusters 6, 173–87 co-construction 82, 85–8, 96 co-located industries 6, 88, 173–87 The Cocktail Analysis 222 cognitive avoidance 113, 115–16 Cohendet, P. 174 collaboration 1–7, 15, 21–5, 29–45, 179; and academics 46–58; and action research 103–4; and ad blocker industry 108–10, 117–18; and advertising avoidance consumers 107–20; and audiovisual consumption 227–9; and digital journalism 94–6, 98–101; and digital transformation 212–15; and ethnography 79, 82, 87; growth of need to collaborate 46–58; and location-based services 124, 126; and news media 156, 159–60; perks of 145–6; and policymakers 46–58; and research for innovation 174, 180–3; and small television ecosystems 139, 149, 152; and societal impact 162–5, 167–8, 170; types of 34 collegiality 102, 182 Colombia 94 commercialism 11, 24, 33, 57, 178 communication studies 12, 18, 157, 212 competitive advantage 11, 33, 63, 68, 189, 204, 206–7, 222, 235, 242 ComScore 219 conferences 5–6, 21–3, 38, 72, 109, 117–19, 125, 166, 170, 183, 212 consent 101 consortia 30, 94, 157, 159–61, 163, 168–9, 179 consulting 4–5, 21, 37–8, 41–2, 57; and audiovisual consumption 227, 229; and digital journalism 94; and digital privacy 233; and ethnography 75, 77–83, 86; and practice-led research 67, 69, 71; and small television ecosystems 139, 141, 145, 148, 150, 152; and societal impact 159, 164 consumers/consumption 5, 12, 19–20, 46–9, 51–3; advertising avoidance consumers 107–20; audiovisual consumption preferences 218–32; and co-location 173; and digital privacy 234–5, 237–9, 241–4; and engaged scholarship 25; and entrepreneurship 189, 196; and location-based services 122, 124; and small television ecosystems 142, 147; and societal impact 155, 158, 160 Cook, C. 5, 93–106

Cook, T. 234, 242, 244 Cooley, T. 236 copyright 17, 101 Corbin, J.N. 177 CORDIS database 31 corporate social responsibility 16, 26, 76 Council for Mass Media 160 creative business centres (CBCs) 174, 176–7, 181–2, 184 Creative Factory 183 creative industries 6, 12–14, 62, 64–5, 139, 173–7, 179–85 critical studies 30, 88, 104, 228–9 crowdfunding 94 cultural studies 12, 30 culture 33, 43, 46, 50, 52–4; and audiovisual consumption 220; and digital transformation 211; of disclosure 234–6; and engaged scholarship 11–13, 16, 19, 25; and entrepreneurship 199; and research for innovation 173 Cultures of Innovation in the Creative Industries (CICI) 173, 176–7, 180, 182–4 Cunningham, J.A. 31 curation 173, 191 Current and Emerging Issues in the Audiovisual Industry 224 customisation 112, 132, 223 Cyprus 32 Daily Mirror 242–3 data analysis/analytics 16, 65, 81, 100, 104, 109, 150, 188–9, 192, 195–6, 199, 209 data brokers 10 data collection 5, 16, 26, 29, 34; and ad blocker industry 108–10, 113, 117–18; and audiovisual consumption 219, 221–2, 225, 229; and digital journalism 97–8, 100; and digital privacy 238–44; and digital transformation 209–10, 212–13; and ethnography 75, 78, 80–1, 83, 86–7; and news media 163; and research for innovation 176–7, 181–3; and small television ecosystems 141, 144, 146, 149, 152; and societal impact 159, 165, 168–70; and technology 200 data industrial complex 234, 243 data protection 8, 11, 158, 233–8, 240–2, 244 Data Protection Directive 236, 240 databases 31, 123, 125, 127, 142, 219, 228 DCR Network 176

Index 257

De Kroon Rotterdam 184

De Wit, B. 63

deadlines 6, 19–20, 149

deduction 61

delayed viewing 140, 144

democracy 11, 50, 53–4, 155, 157

Denmark 51, 139, 142, 159, 161–2

Department of Culture, Youth and Media

(DCYM) 139, 141–2, 147

Despotakis, S. 111

developing countries 93–4 Dewey, J. 61, 96

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Committee 242

Digital Film and Series Platforms in Spain 218

Digital News Report 162

digitisation/digitalisation 15, 61–2, 65–7,

76, 124; digital journalism revenue

models 93–106; digital natives 219;

digital payment 192, 195, 197, 223–4,

226–7; and entrepreneurship 189, 191,

198; managing digital transformation

204–17

disinformation 11

divestment 64–6 Dixon, S. 63

dominant logic 32, 34, 205–11

donors 93, 96–8, 104

dot.com boom 65

DPG Media 141, 145

drama 138–44, 220

Dutch Creative Residency Network

(DCRN) 174, 180, 182–4, 186

Dynamic Capabilities Theory 61–8, 205–6,

208–9, 211, 214

early career researchers (ECRs) 35,

40–1, 43

economics 10–11, 13, 17–18, 25, 29–31;

and ad blocker industry 111; and

audiovisual consumption 218, 220–1,

228–9; and collaboration 35–6, 43,

46–8, 51, 54–7; and digital journalism

97, 103; and digital privacy 233–4,

237–8; and location-based services 128,

130, 134; and news media 156–7; and

practice-led research 59, 65–7, 71; and

research for innovation 174–8, 180–2;

and small television ecosystems 145, 147,

152; and technology 190, 199–200

economies of scale 10

Econopolis 139, 141

educators 7, 188, 197–200

Ehlers, A. 5–6, 121–37 Eisenhardt, K.M. 63

elections 54, 168, 242

eMarketer 49

empirical studies/empiricism 60, 62, 78,

108, 122, 130, 177, 181, 190, 193,

238–9, 242

Enberg, J. 51

entrepreneurship 7, 16, 23, 30, 35, 66, 76,

123, 173–7, 179–86, 188–203, 206

‘Entrepreneurship Education Monitor for

STEM degree programs’ 199

epistemology 60

ePrivacy 240

Erasmus+ Project 228

Erasmus University 212

Eschrich, B. 3

ethics 25–6, 50, 84–6, 101, 103, 158, 199

ethnography 5, 75–91 Eurocentrism 30

Europe 30–2, 121, 138, 140, 144, 165,

180, 218, 227–8, 236

European Academy of Management

(EURAM) 21

European Audiovisual Observatory 140

European Broadcasting Union (EBU) 141,

144, 212

European Commission 31, 235

European Communication Research and

Education Association (ECREA) 21, 166

European Fund for Regional Development

(EFRE) 125, 133

European Group for Organisational Studies

(EGOS) 21

European Media Management Association

(emma) 2–3, 12, 21, 35, 166

European Union (EU) 30–2, 122, 133,

234–42

EuroPriSe 240

Evens, T. 1–28, 239, 243

evidence-based policy 25, 139, 145, 147

external involvement/interaction 37–40 extremism 54

Facebook 13, 53–4, 94, 140, 156, 219, 233,

235–7, 242–3

fake news 11, 54, 228

Federal Communications Commission 4

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 233, 235

Federation of Consumers and Media Users

Association in Spain (iCmedia) 227–8

Federation of the Printing Industry in

Finland 164

258 Index

feedback 23, 67, 79, 84–5, 99, 146, 161–2,

167–8, 174, 184, 213–14, 225–6

Ferreras, M. 228

Film Fund 144–6 financial crisis 65

Financial Times 67

Finland 3, 31, 96, 155–60, 162, 165–70,

204–17

Finnish Book Publishers Association 164

Finnish Broadcasting Company (Yle) 204–17 Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority 159–60 Finnish Competition and Consumer

Authority 160

Finnish Media Federation (Finnmedia) 164

Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications 156–7, 159–60, 167–9 Finnish Newspapers Association (FNA) 160–2, 164–6, 168–9 Finnish Periodical Publishers’

Association 164

Flanders 138–54 Flanders Audiovisual Fund (VAF)

141–2, 152

Flanders Media Fund 138–9, 142–4, 148,

151–2

FOJO Media Institute 97

Fordham University 163

framework programmes (FP) 31–2 France 30, 142, 144, 149, 235

fraud 242

free market 94, 234, 237

Freedman, D. 147

Fried, C. 236

FTSE 100 index 65, 67, 71

funding 3–6, 14, 20, 23, 25–6; and ad

blocker industry 109–10, 117; and

audiovisual consumption 228–9; and

collaboration 29–34, 36–7, 40–2, 52, 57;

and digital journalism 93–4, 97; and

digital privacy 240; and digital

transformation 207, 211; and

ethnography 88; and location-based

services 125–6, 129, 133–4, 138–9,

143–4, 146; and news media 160–1; and

practice-led research 59; and research for

innovation 178–80; and small television

ecosystems 138–9, 143–4, 146; and

societal impact 162, 167–8, 170

further research 16–17, 22–4, 29–30, 38–9,

213; and action research 103–5; and ad

blocker industry 108, 118; and

audiovisual consumption 221, 228–30;

and co-location 175, 180; and

collaboration 43, 46–7, 50–1, 55–7; and

digital journalism 94–6, 101; and digital

privacy 234, 238, 244; and

entrepreneurship 188, 191–2, 195,

197–200; and ethnography 76–7, 79;

and location-based services 122–3, 125,

128, 133; and practice-led research 62;

and small television ecosystems 139, 144,

146, 149, 152; and societal impact 166,

169–70

gaming 52, 110, 145, 194

García, I. 224

Garvin, D.A. 68

Gatz, S. 138

gender 36–41, 43, 177, 209, 235, 239

General Data Protection Regulation

(GDPR) 8, 234–6, 238–40, 243

General Law of Audiovisual

Communication 227

generalisability 4, 7, 30, 71, 98, 185

generative impact 82, 86–8 gentrification 184

geo-localisation 121, 124

geopolitics 13

German Commission on Concentration in

the Media (KEK) 127

German Communication Association 125

Germany 3, 30–1, 107–8, 110, 117,

124–31, 144, 160, 165–6, 169, 199, 236

Giaglis, G.M. 191

Gibbons, M. 30

Global Editors Network (GEN) 169

Global South 93

Google 68, 94, 129, 139–40, 156, 219,

225, 233–4

Google Scholar 19

Gossel, B. 7, 188–203 governance 101

government 6, 20, 25, 31, 33; and

co-location 179–80, 184–5; and

collaboration 35, 37, 41, 43, 46–8, 50,

53–4; and digital privacy 234; and

practice-led research 59, 70–1; and small

television ecosystems 141–2, 145–51;

and societal impact 156, 159–60, 166

GPS 121, 124

grant applications 20, 23, 30–1, 40–3

Grant, R.M. 68

Greece 55

Greenwood, D.J. 60–1

Index 259

Grönlund, M. 6, 155–72 gross domestic product (GDP) 48–9,

51, 155

grounded theory 177

Grubenmann, S. 96

Guba, E.G. 60

h-index 19

Hackett Group 67

Hamburg Media School 108–9 Hamburg Publisher Business

Conference 117

Hamel, G. 68

Handbook of Media Management and

Economics 188

Hang, M. 188

Harvard Law Journal 236

Harvard University 59

hashtags 101, 225

Hautakangas, M. 96

HBO 218, 227

Helfat, C.E. 206

hermeneutics 95

higher education strategy 30–2 Hitters, E. 6–7, 173–87 Holland 236

Hollywood 62

Horizon 2020 (H2020) 31

Horst, S.-O. 5, 75–91 House of Commons 242

Huawei 13

Hulu 54, 140

human resources 20, 62, 65, 125,

129–30, 206

human rights 236

humanities and social sciences (HASS) 30–1 hunter-gatherers 46

hyperlocal journalism 122–4, 129

Ibrus, I. 190

Iceland 159

iconology 239

identity 82–4 identity theft 234, 242

ideology 54, 103, 148

Igartua, J.J. 220

imec-SMIT-VUB 139, 141

implemental validity 59–61, 64, 67–8, 71

India 94

induction 61, 95–6 industry 1–7, 9–17, 22–3, 25, 59; and

action research 104–5; ad blocker

industry 107–20; and audiovisual

consumption 219–22, 224–6, 228–30;

clustered industry 173–87; co-located

industry 173–87; and collaboration

29–50, 57, 145–6; and differing priorities

130; and digital journalism 97; and

digital privacy 234, 237, 244; and digital

transformation 204, 207, 213; and

entrepreneurship 188; and ethnography

75–91; and location-based services 122,

125–7, 134; and news media 155–72;

and practice-led research 61–6, 69, 72;

and research for innovation 173–87;

slow diffusion in 131; and small

television ecosystems 139, 145, 149–51;

unclear structures in 131

infographs 235

information asymmetry 238

information technology (IT) 123, 125, 128,

133–4, 189, 200

innovation 6, 14, 29, 31, 33; and ad

blocker industry 108, 110; and

audiovisual consumption 218, 222, 224,

226; and digital journalism 93–106; and

digital transformation 209, 215; and

entrepreneurship 189–92, 195, 198; and

ethnography 78; and location-based

services 121–2, 124, 128–31; and

practice-led research 59, 62–5, 71–2;

research for innovation 173–87; and

societal impact 156–7, 161, 163–6, 170

Instagram 53

instrumental impact 5–6, 11, 59–72, 75–89 intellectual property (IP) 17, 33, 48,

69, 101

intelligent automation 188, 192,

195–7, 199

inter-organisational relationships (IOR)

29, 32

interdisciplinarity 4, 12–14, 21, 25, 123,

134, 191

International Association for Media and

Communication Research (IAMCR) 21

International Communication Association

(ICA) 21, 166

International Journal on Media Management 12

International Media Management

Academic Association (IMMAA) 21, 35

International News Media Association

(INMA) 169

International Symposium on Media

Innovations (ISMI) 166

International Telecommunication Union

(ITU) 227

260 Index

Internet 47, 50–5, 57, 67, 71; and ad

blocker industry 111–12, 115; and

audiovisual consumption 219, 222–3;

and digital privacy 236, 238; and digital

transformation 209; and small television

ecosystems 140; and societal impact

155, 158

Internews Europe 97–8 internships 40, 42

intranets 162, 210–11 Iran 98

Ireland 51

IT-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH

Emsland 126

Italy 30–1, 235

Jääskeläinen, A. 3

Jantunen, A. 3

Japan 31

jargon 18, 23, 103, 117

Jeffcutt, P. 175

John Lewis 67

John, L.K. 241

Jönköping International Business School 3

Jordan 98

Journal of Location-Based Services 123

Journal of Media Business Studies 12

Journal of Media Economics 12

journalism 7, 35, 76, 107, 121–7; and

audiovisual consumption 227–8; and

digital privacy 243; and digital

transformation 204, 208; and

entrepreneurship 198–200; journalism

revenue models 93–106; and

location-based services 129, 133–4;

and societal impact 155–72

journals 4, 6–7, 19, 21–2, 30, 40–2, 72,

117, 119, 224, 228–9, 236

Kairos Future 164

Kantar TNS 156

Kantarmedia 219, 222, 225–6

Kemmis, S. 60–1 Keough, S.M. 69

Keskisuomalainen 162

keynote speakers 37–8, 42–3 Kimber, D. 224

Knowledge Days 183

knowledge production 4, 11, 14, 17–19,

23; and action research 100–1, 103–5;

and ad blocker industry 118; and

audiovisual consumption 219–21, 229;

and collaboration 46, 55–7; and digital

journalism 95, 98; and engaged

scholarship 25; and ethnography 75,

81–2, 87; modes of production 30–1;

and news media 156; and practice-led

research 59, 66–7, 71–2; and research for

innovation 174–5, 177–80, 183, 185;

and societal impact 171

knowledge utilisation 174, 178–9, 183–6 knowledge-based view 64–5 Kolo, C. 165

Küng, L. 18, 22

Kuwait 70

Lampel, J. 62

Landry, R. 179, 185

Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) 3, 204, 208–12 Latin America 13, 93–4 Lazarfeld, P.F. 14

leadership 11, 16, 31, 78, 81, 95, 139,

149, 169

Lehtisaari, K. 6, 155–72 Levesque, L.C. 68

Levin, M. 60–1 Lewin, K. 95, 100

liberationism 98, 101

Liberia 70

Lincoln, Y.S. 60

Lind, F. 33

Lindén, C.-G. 6, 155–72 Link, A.N. 31

lived experiences 5

Location Insider 127, 131

location-based services (LBS) 5, 121–37 London Stock Exchange 65

Lowe, G.F. 1–4, 29–45, 190

McCann, J.E. 68

Macromedia University 165

McTaggart, R. 60–1 Maijanen, P. 3, 7, 204–17 Malaysia 94

Malta 32

malware 113

Management Science 17

managerial cognition 64, 205, 207

Manero, C.B. 221

Marcus, A. 69

marginalisation 5, 30, 98

marketing 33, 51–2, 76, 82, 87; and ad

blocker industry 107–8, 111, 113, 117;

and audiovisual consumption 222; and

co-location 176; and digital journalism

Index 261

94; and entrepreneurship 192, 194; and

location-based services 126, 130

marketisation 30

Martin, J.A. 63

MCIL Multimedia Sdn Bhd 94

Mechanical Turk (MTurk) 240

Media Cabinet 141, 148–9 Media Companies and Markets Research

Group (GIMEC) 218

Media Consumption Forecasts 49

Media Council 143

media firm level 62–6, 96, 103

Media Industry Research Foundation of

Finland 160, 164–5, 168

media management 1–8; and academics

46–58; and action research 93–106; and

advertising avoidance consumers 107–20;

and architecture of listening 221; and

audiovisual viewing patterns 218–32;

between critical and administrative

research 10, 14–15; and business models

188–203; and clustered industry 173–87;

and co-located industry 173–87; and

conflicted logics 32–5; and digital

journalism revenue models 93–106; and

digital privacy 233–47; as engaged

scholarship 9–28; and entrepreneurship

188–203; and ethnography 75–91; and

impact 10, 17, 21–4, 29, 75–91, 155–72;

and location-based services 121–37;

managing digital transformation 204–17;

media firm management 59–74; media

management research 10–14; and need

for growth of collaboration 46–58; new

directions in 12–14; news media 155–72;

and obstacles 10, 18–21; and

policymakers 46–58; and practice-

relevant knowledge 10, 15–17; and

privacy breaches 11, 243; and privacy

paradox 238–9, 242; and privacy seals

8, 234–5, 239–43; public service

management 140, 156, 207–8, 211, 213,

224, 227; regional media communication

121–37; and research for innovation

173–87; and small television ecosystems

138–54; and society 4, 6, 29–31, 42,

155–72; strategic media management

204–5; and technology 188–203;

transmedia management 16; and

university-industry collaboration 29–45

Media Management Master 225

Media Management and Transformation

Centre 3

Media Policy Network 160, 168

media studies 12, 212

Medina, M. 7, 218–32 Medium 53

memberships 94

mentoring 38

mergers and acquisitions 11, 50, 64–6, 228

Mervola, P. 162

Metzgar, E. 123

Mexico 94

Meyer, R. 63

micropayment 123

Middle East 71, 93

Mierzejewska, B. 61, 71, 163, 190

millennials 115, 223, 225–6

Mir, A. 220

mobile devices 51, 115–16, 121–2,

124–5, 140

monetisation 69

monographs 40

monopolies 55, 67

motives 32–5 multi-disciplinarity 30, 62–3, 66, 157,

171, 173

Muñiz, C. 220

Muscio, A. 32

Napoli, P.M. 25, 228

neoliberalism 237

Netflix 13, 52, 54–5, 138–40, 143–5, 149,

151, 218–19, 225, 228, 233

Netherlands 3, 51, 142, 149, 174, 176, 179

Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) 179–80 networking 7, 22–4, 72, 79, 89; and ad

blocker industry 111; and digital

journalism 94, 97; and digital privacy

233, 235, 237, 243; and location-based

services 122; and research for innovation

173–6, 180–1; and small television

ecosystems 146; and societal impact

160, 168

Neu-Ulm University of Applied

Sciences 165

Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung 126

‘New Business Models in the News

Industry in the United States’ 164

New Economic Models in the Digital

Economy 97

New Zealand 51

news media 155–72, 190, 226

newspapers 5, 8, 41, 51–2, 56–7; and ad blocker industry 115–16; and digital

262 Index

journalism 93; and digital privacy 239,

242–3; and entrepreneurship 188, 199;

and location-based services 124, 126–7,

130, 132; and small television ecosystems

142; and societal impact 155–6, 160–5,

168–9

Next Business Innovation Network

180, 185

NLZiet 149

non-government organisations (NGOs) 41,

159–60, 169, 200

Nordic Noir 141

NordMedia 166

North America 125

Northwestern University 3

Norway 51, 159, 161–2, 165–6, 169

Nygren, G. 96

Nyre, L. 124

O’Connor, L. 17

Ofcom 67

O’Kane, C. 8, 233–47 Oliver, J. 4–5, 59–74, 95, 243

OMK Lüneberg 117

Onaran, T. 89

online behavioural advertising (OBA) 234,

243–4

Online Marketing Rockstars 117

ontology 60–1 Open Society Foundations 97–8 organisational cognition 205, 207–8 Oslo 165

Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences 125–6 Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences 125–6 outreach 4

over-the-top (OTT) players 138, 222,

224, 227

Owen, B.M. 55

Oxford University 162–3 PageFair 113

Paid Content and Global Development in the

Media 165

Pakistan 70

participant research 8, 17, 23, 32, 35; and

ad blocker industry 109–10, 115, 118;

and audiovisual consumption 226, 228;

and co-location 181, 183–4, 186; and

collaboration 38, 42, 48; and digital

journalism 94–5, 97–102, 104; and

digital privacy 239–41; and ethnography

76–9, 81, 84, 87; and location-based

services 127–8, 132; and practice-led

research 69; and societal impact 157,

159–60, 162, 164, 166, 169

Pateli, A.G. 191

path dependence 207

PayPal 195

paywalls 94, 165

Pearson Publishing Plc 62, 65–6 pedagogy 78, 95

Peitz, M. 56

Peltzman effect 239, 242

personalisation 122, 220, 224, 243

Personality Media 226

philosophy 60–1, 95, 190, 240

Piano 94

Picard, R.G. 1, 4, 29–45, 157, 163,

169, 190

Pickard, V. 157, 169

Piepponen, A. 3

platform approach 13, 16–17, 48, 56, 69;

and ad blocker industry 108; and

audiovisual consumption 218–19,

221–3, 226; and digital journalism 93,

98; and digital privacy 233; and

entrepreneurship 195; and practice-led

research 72

podcasts 72

Poland 31

policymakers 1–2, 4, 6, 8, 10–11; and

audiovisual consumption 218, 227; and

collaboration with academics 46–58; and

digital privacy 233; and engaged

scholarship 15–17, 22–3, 25; and news

media 155–72; and perks of

collaboration 145–6; policy changes

30–2; and practice-led research 67,

71–2; and research for innovation 173,

179, 183–5; and small television

ecosystems 138–54

political economy 12, 103

politics 46–7, 50, 52–4, 71, 93–4; and

digital journalism 97–8, 101, 103; and

digital privacy 233, 236, 240, 243; and

digital transformation 207–8, 211; and

entrepreneurship 200; and small

television ecosystems 147, 151; and

societal impact 157, 167

Politiken Plus 162

pornography 53

positivism 60–1 Posner, R.A. 237

Pozzela, A. 32

Index 263

PQ Media 51 practice-relevant/practice-led research 2–4, 10, 15–19, 21–2, 24–5, 59–74, 108 pragmatism 60–1, 85, 95, 102–3 Prahalad, C.K. 206 Pratt, A.C. 175 preparatory impact 86–7 presentism 13 privacy 8, 11, 17, 35, 107, 112–13, 116, 128, 233–47 problematisation 83–4, 88, 96–7, 99, 101, 104–5, 130, 132, 237 product reviews 49 profit 30, 33, 53, 55–6, 68, 94, 102, 134, 165, 189, 243–4 promotion 4, 22, 34–5, 38–43, 52 Protogerou, A. 31–2 prototyping 132–3 Proximus 145 psychology 112–13, 175, 234 publications 6, 12, 22, 32–3, 41–2; and ad blocker industry 118; and audiovisual consumption 227; and co-location 184; and digital journalism 101; and digital transformation 212–13; and locationbased services 122; and small television ecosystems 146; and societal impact 167, 169–70; trade publications 50, 52, 64, 72 publishing 5, 18–19, 21, 25, 41; and ad blocker industry 107–8, 110–11, 117; and audiovisual consumption 228–9; and location-based services 126, 130; and news media 155, 164, 169; and practice-led research 65; and research for innovation 173, 176; and revenue models 93–106; and societal impact 161–2, 164–6; and technology 190 Pujadas, E. 220 Puppis, M. 18 Putzke, J. 132 Qatar 3 Qualtrics 35, 109–10, 118 quizzes 235, 242 Raats, T. 6, 138–54 Rajahonka, M. 190 rational choice theory 238 Rau, H. 121–37 Ray, H. 5–6 Reach 242 real-time graphics photorealism 192, 196

‘Reasons to consume fiction and entertainment audiovisual content in the Spanish market’ 219 recommendations 21, 25, 79, 117–18, 126; and audiovisual consumption 219, 223–4; and entrepreneurship 189, 200; and location-based services 134; and small television ecosystems 139, 141–6, 148–52; and societal impact 158 reflexivity 78, 80–6, 88, 102, 104, 229, 233 regional media 5, 121–37, 161 regulations 16–17, 49, 52, 67, 69; and audiovisual consumption 226–7; and digital privacy 234–5, 237–9, 241–4; and news media 159; and practice-led research 71; regulatory agencies 6, 8, 11, 53–4, 208; and small television ecosystems 144, 147, 150; and societal impact 160 reputation 20, 37, 41–2, 175–7, 182, 184, 244 research and development (R&D) 31–3, 104, 165, 180 researchers 1–3, 7, 9, 11, 16; and ad blocker industry 109–10, 117–18; and audiovisual consumption 228–9; and collaboration 46; and digital journalism 95; and digital privacy 233, 238, 242, 244; and engaged scholarship 18–20, 22, 25; and ethnography 76–86, 88; integrative research 23; and location-based services 126, 129–30, 133–4; and news media 155–72; practice-led research 59, 61, 67, 71; research ateliers 5, 97–103; research centres 24, 32, 35–7, 146; research councils 6, 97; research for innovation 174, 176–7, 179–80, 183–5; and small television ecosystems 139, 147–52; and societal impact 166, 168–70; and technology 190, 197 Resource-based View 64–5 Reuters Institute 162 Revans, R.W. 60–1 revenue models 5, 16, 48, 56, 65; and audiovisual consumption 223, 226–7; and digital journalism 93–106; and digital privacy 234, 238, 243–4; and entrepreneurship 189, 195; and practice-led research 69; and small television ecosystems 130, 140–2; and societal impact 161, 165 Ries, E. 192

264 Index

Rifon, N.J. 241

Rigby, D. 70

Roepnack, A. 163

Rogers, T.B. 111

Rohn, U. 1–28, 233, 239

role models 199

Rory Peck Trust 98

Rotolo, D. 190

Russia 51

Rwanda 96

Salazar, N. 3

Salto 149

Saudi Arabia 70

SBS 141

Scandinavia 160–3, 165–6, 169

scenario planning 68–70

Schatsman, G. 3

Schibsted Media Group 165

Schmitz Weiss, A. 124, 127, 131

scholars 1–4, 7–8, 19–24, 26, 29; and

action research 102, 104; and ad blocker

industry 111; and audiovisual

consumption 224–5, 228–9; and

collaboration 34–40, 42–3; and digital

journalism 97; and digital privacy 239;

and location-based services 122; and

news media 161; and practice-led

research 59, 61, 63; and societal

impact 170

scholarship 4, 8, 29–30, 34, 36; and ad

blocker industry 108–9, 119; and

collaboration 42–3, 57; and digital

journalism 101, 104; engaged scholarship

9–28; and ethnography 75–6; and

societal impact 169–71

science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects 7, 30, 199

search engines 48–9, 56, 195–6

security 20, 37, 107, 113

self-referencing theory 111

Selsky, J.W. 68

seminars 23, 37–8, 42, 174

Seyedghorban, Z. 113

Shamir, J. 220

Shamsie, J. 62

Shanahan, K.J. 69

Shaver, D. 190

Silverman, D. 60

Sköldberg, K. 80, 82

Sky Plc 62, 65–6, 71, 218, 225–6

Skype 109, 117, 163, 193, 214

slide-set presentations 150–1

Slovak Republic 94

small and medium-sized firms 138, 173,

175–6, 185

smartphones 53, 116, 121, 124, 127, 223

Snapchat 53

social media 53, 56, 100–1, 123, 128; and

audiovisual consumption 219, 229; and

digital privacy 233, 237; and

entrepreneurship 189, 194, 199; and

small television ecosystems 149

social sciences 17–18, 30, 61, 95, 131, 179,

190, 236

Societal Impact Value Cycle (SIVC) 177,

179–80, 185

society 11–12, 14, 25, 46–9, 54; and

audiovisual consumption 225, 227–9;

and co-location 176; and digital

journalism 95; and ethnography 76; and

practice-led research 59–61; societal

impact 4, 6, 29–31, 42, 155–72, 177–85;

and technology 191, 199–200

software 94, 100–1, 111, 113, 176,

189, 195

Soto-Sanfiel, M. 220

South Africa 70

Spain 3, 218–32 Spanish Academic Quality Assessment

Agency (ANECA) 229

Spanish Media Research Association

(AIMC) 222

Spanish Ministry of Economy and

Competitiveness 218

Spanish National Institute of Statistics 222

Spanish National Market and Competition

Commission (CNMC) 222

Spanish National Observatory of

Telecommunications and the

Information Society (Ontsi) 222

Spanish National Science and Technology

Strategy 218

Spanish Official College of

Telecommunications Engineers

(COIT) 227

Spanish Secretary for Telecommunications

and Information Society 227

Spanish Statistics Institute (INE) 223

Spence, A.M. 55

sponsorship 93

Sri Lanka 98

stakeholders 1–3, 5–10, 14–15, 17, 19–25;

and action research 96, 98, 100, 102–4;

and ad blocker industry 117; and

audiovisual consumption 225–8; and

Index 265

digital privacy 244; and digital transformation 208, 211–12; and ethnography 75–91; and location-based services 122, 124–6, 133; and news media 156–7, 159–61; and practice-led research 60, 72; relevance for local stakeholders 84–6; and research for innovation 174, 179–80; and small television ecosystems 144–9, 152; and societal impact 162, 164–5, 167–9; and technology 188, 191, 197, 199–200 Starbuck, W.H. 18 start-ups 94, 123, 180, 188, 192–3, 195, 198–200 The State of Media and Communications Policy and How to Measure it 158 Statista 48, 55 Statistics Finland 155, 159–60 Steiner, P. 55 Stigler, G.J. 237 Strategic Management Society (SMS) 21 strategy as practice (SAP) 77, 81–4, 87 Strauss, A.L. 177 streaming 54, 115–16, 138, 145, 218–19 Street Fighter 127, 131 Strengthening Media in Exile 97 Strijp-S 183 sub-Saharan Africa 93 subscription-based services (SVOD) 140, 144, 149 subscriptions 52, 54–6, 94, 142, 145–6, 161, 163, 165, 218, 223, 227 Suomen Lehdistö 164–5 surveillance 234 Sweden 32, 51, 96, 159, 161, 166, 169 Switzerland 141, 144 synergies 5, 10, 77, 82, 87–9, 102 Syria 98 taxation 167, 211 Tech Crunch 127, 131 technology 4, 6–7, 9, 15–16, 29; and action research 103; and ad blocker industry 107–8, 113–14; and audiovisual consumption 218, 220–1, 223, 226; and collaboration 31, 33, 47, 49–53; and digital journalism 98–9; and digital privacy 233, 235, 237–8, 242–3; and digital transformation 209, 212; emerging technology 7, 188, 190–200; and entrepreneurship 188–203; and location-based services 121–5, 127–8, 131–2; and news media 155, 157, 163;

and practice-led research 62, 65, 68; and research for innovation 174, 177–8; and societal impact 171; wearable technology 192 Tedlock, B. 79, 82 Teece, D.J. 63, 206 Telefónica 218, 222 Telenet 145 television (TV) 52, 54–6, 65, 67, 95, 115–16, 138–56, 176, 209, 218–20, 222–8 temporary contracts 19, 34, 36, 42 Ten Keys to Understanding the Consumption of Audiovisual Content in Spain 225 Tencent 13 tenure 4, 22, 34–5, 38–43 Tesco 67 thick descriptions 77 Thomas, H.M. 96 Thomson Reuters 65, 228 TikTok 53, 56 time-series analysis 64 timeframes 126, 129–30, 149–50, 169 tisoomi 108–10, 114, 117 Topsector Creative Industry 179–80, 185 Tranfield, D. 23 transformation 6–7, 13, 15–17, 25, 47; and collaboration 50, 57; and digital journalism 95; and ethnography 76, 85, 88; and location-based services 124; managing digital transformation 204–17; and news media 155; and practice-led research 61–2, 64–7; and societal impact 171 transparency 8, 26, 104, 157–8, 167, 227, 234, 236, 238–9, 243–4 Treiß-Media 126 Trinity Mirror Group 242 Triple Helix model 31 trust 20, 25, 34, 75, 79; and audiovisual consumption 227; and digital journalism 98–9; and digital privacy 239, 242–4; and digital transformation 209, 214; and ethnography 85, 87; and small television ecosystems 145; ‘Trust Label’ 228 Tumblr 53 Turkey 31 Turkmenistan 98 Twitter 53 Ukraine 98 Unilever 67 United Arab Emirates (UAE) 70

266 Index

United Kingdom Research and Innovation

(UKRI) 59

United Kingdom (UK) 3, 30–2, 51, 55, 59;

and digital journalism 95, 97; and digital

privacy 240, 242–3; and location-based

services 123; and practice-led research

62, 64–5, 67–71; and small television

ecosystems 142, 149

United States (US) 3, 48, 51, 55, 61; and

digital privacy 233, 239–40, 242; and

location-based services 121, 124; and

small television ecosystems 140; and

societal impact 160, 162–6, 169

universities 1, 6–7, 19–20, 22, 24; and

audiovisual consumption 226–30; and

digital journalism 101; and digital

transformation 204; and

entrepreneurship 199, 212; and

ethnography 78, 85; and location-based

services 125–6, 129–30, 133; and news

media 157; and policymaker-academic

collaboration 46–58; and practice-led

research 59; and small television

ecosystems 139, 141, 145; and societal

impact 160, 163, 165–6, 170–1;

university-industry collaboration 29–45

University of Florida 108–9 University of Helsinki 157, 160, 162,

164, 166

University of Jyväskylä 157, 160, 166

University of Navarra 218, 225, 228

University of North Texas 3

University of Santiago de Compostela 227

University of Tampere 157

University of Turku 157, 160

university-industry collaboration (UIC) 4, 29–45 Urgellés, A. 224

user-created content 52, 56, 233

Uzbekistan 98

valorisation practices 177–9 Van Damme, K. 239, 243

Van de Burgwal, L. 177–8, 180, 185

Van de Ven, A.H. 17–18 Van der Heijden, K. 68

Van Maanen, J. 77

venture capital 52

video-on-demand (VOD) 138, 140, 142,

144, 148–9, 218, 222–3

Villi, M. 6, 155–72

viral processes 56

virtual reality (VR) 188, 192, 194,

196, 199

Von Rimscha, M.B. 189

Voncom 235

voters 100, 242

Vrije Universiteit Brussel 139

VRT 141, 143, 145, 148

VTM.Go 145

Wagemans, A. 96

Wagenhofer, R. 3

Walton, J.S. 68

Watson, T.J. 83

wearable technology 192

Web 2.0 52–3, 233

Web of Science database 123

websites 56, 64, 82, 107, 110–11, 113, 123,

128, 164, 184, 239–40

Webster, J.G. 221, 228

Westin, A. 236

Westlund, O. 124

WhatsApp 235

Wilbur, K.C. 56

Wildman, S. 4, 46–58 Will, A. 7, 188–203 willingness to accept (WTA) 48

Windscheid, J. 7, 188–203 Wirtz, B.W. 189–90, 193, 195

Witschge, T. 96

Wolter, L.-C. 5, 107–20 workshops 23, 37–8, 42, 79, 93, 97, 100,

159, 174, 183, 214, 229

World Association of Newspapers and

News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) 169

World Bank 49, 51

World Café 99–100 World Media Economics and Management

Conference (WMEMC) 21, 35, 166

World Population Review 49

World War II 236

Wylie, C. 242

Yale University 163

Yanow, D. 84

YouTube 13, 53, 56, 68–70, 194,

225–6, 233

Zaire 236

Zenith Media 49, 51

Zott, C. 62