subject module - elective ciakl ii - class 02

EUROPEAN COURSE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

1

THEENTERTAINMENT

ECONOMY


2

The entertainment economy Sources:

Michael J. Wolf, “The Entertainment Economy – How Mega‐Media Forces are

Transforming our Lives”, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999

Michael R. Solomon et al., “Consumer Behaviour – a European Perspective”,

Prentice Hall, 2010

The Economist, “The lazy medium, How people really watch television”, a

special report on television”, April 29th 2010

The Economist, “The international film industry: Avatar 2 Made in China?”,

April 24th 2012

The Economist, “The film industry: China’s film market is proving tough for

foreign studios to crack”, April 28th 2012

Financial Times, “Iroko Partners: Demand proves insatiable for Nollywood on

the net” November 22 2011

Broadband TV News, “NCIS was Europe’s top drama show in 2011”, May 30

2012

Richard Broughton, Daniel Knapp, “A Future for TV: IP‐delivered video

advertising in a connected world”, IHS Screen Digest, 2012

Ofcom, “TV‐Like qualitative research report”, 2009

Screen Digest Insight Report

Entertainment – not autos, not steel, not financial services – is fast becoming

the driving wheel of the new world economy

Wolf

(1999)


3

The great influencer

Entertainment is increasingly influencing every choice that each of us makes every day.

Multiply that by the billions of choices that, collectively, all of us make each day and

you have a portrait of a society in which entertainment is one of its leading

institutions. The United Kingdom now employs more workers in entertainment (films,

music, video games, television, software, theater, etc…) than it ever did in its coal

mines in the heyday of its empire.

Entertainment as an act Every year, people spend billions of hours on legal forms of

entertainment. Globally, total annual spending is approaching $1 trillion (Vogel, 2007).

Entertainment is the act of diverting, amusing, or causing someone´s time to pass

agreeably. Or entertainment can be defined as anything that stimulates, encourages or

generates a condition of pleasurable diversion. “But entertainment can be much more

than mere diversion. It is something that is so universally interest and appealing

because, when it does what it is intended to do, it moves you emotionally (…) It

touches your soul.” (Vogel, 2007)

Entertainment as an effect Entertainment is also defined through its effect: a satisfied

and happy psychological state. Entertainment means so many different things to so

many different people that an analysis of entertainment industry makes us look to

many different topics. From movies, television, music, cable industry and all the pay

services that are related, multimedia, toys and games, live entertainment (horse

racing, lotteries, casinos, different sports, …), performing arts and culture (orchestras,

opera, dance,…) to amusement theme parks, all this is entertainment. A sharper

analysis of entertainment industry requires classifying entertainment activities into

industry segments, that is, enterprises or organizations of significant size that have

similar technological structures of production and that produce or supply goods,

services or sources of income that are substitutable.

Economic forces The study of entertainment, media and communication has

traditionally been dominated by non‐economic disciplines. Analysis of entertainment

content, for example, can provide a means of understanding the societies we live in

and our value systems. But economics is also a valuable subject area for entertainment

students. Most of the decisions taken by those who run entertainment organizations

are, to a greater or lesser extent, influenced by resource and financial issues (Doyle,

2003). Economic forces and profit motives are always behind the entertainment

industry. Those are the forces that shape the relative popularity and growth patterns

of competing, usually interdependent, entertainment activities and products. So


4

economics, as a discipline, is highly relevant to understanding how entertainment

industry operates.

Entertainment economics. Combines the study of economics with the study of

entertainment. It is concerned with the changing economic forces that direct and

constrain the choices of managers, practitioners and other decision‐makers across the

industry. Entertainment economics is concerned with how entertainment operators

meet the informational and entertainment wants and needs of audiences, advertisers

and society with available resources or, using a definition of media economics: “how

media industries use scare resources to produce content (…) to satisfy various wants

and needs.” (Albarran, 1996)1

Macro and micro Economics is traditionally studied in terms of macroeconomic and

microeconomics perspectives. The field of entertainment industry has tended to follow

suit. The distinction between macro and microeconomics is about whether that which

is being studied involves large groups and broad economic aggregates or small well‐

defined groups and individual firms and sectors. Macroeconomics examines the whole

economic system, and is usually studied at a national or a global level. It includes topics

such as economic growth indices, political economy, and national production and

consumption measures by gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product

(GNP). Microeconomics takes a more narrow view by examining the activities of

specific aspects of the economic system, such as individual markets, firms or

consumers. It examines topics like market structure, and firm conduct and behavior.

Types of firms Entertainment firms represent individual companies or entities that are

incorporated through their respective domestic country, that operate for a profit. They

can be publicly held firms (owned by stockholders or shareholders) or privately held

firms (also owned by stakeholders but not listed on any stock exchange). Examples of

publicly held media firms include large conglomerates such as Time Warner, Disney,

Sony and News Corporation, or companies that operate in only one or two media

markets such as Gannet (publishing and television) or Saga Communications (radio).

Privately held media firms include such companies as Bertelsmann (book publishing,

Univision, and Clear Channel (Albarran, 2010).

Industries Economists define an industry as a group of sellers offering the same or

similar products. Companies that are engaged in cable television, like Comcast, Time

Warner, and Cablevision, are members of the cable television industry. Direct TV and

1 Albarran, A.B., & Dimmck, J. (1996). Concentration and economies of multiformity in the communication industries. Journal of Media Economics, 9(4), 41‐50.


5

Echostar (owner of the Dish Network) compete in the satellite industry. AT&T and

Verizon are two leaders in the telecommunications industry, and also offer

multichannel television services similar to cable and satellite known as IPTV (Internet

Protocol Television). A unique feature of the evolving media industries is the changing

nature of their markets and industries. Companies now compete with one another

across markets and in different industries in the media economy.

Competition levels An important aspect of the media economy is the concept of levels,

used to describe where activity among media firms and industries actually takes place

(Albarran, 2010). Competing on a global level, offering their media products and

services throughout the world, are many large companies like Viacom, Disney, Time

Warners, News Corporation, Bertelsmann and Sony. At the national level, companies

focus on their domestic boundaries, and attempt to cover the entire country.

Examples at the national level include the broadcast networks, satellite delivered

channels and magazines. At a household level, households have access to multiple

devices or platforms capable of receiving content from a number of media firms and

industries. These devices include television and radio receivers, DVD and DVR players

desktop and laptop computers, and wired and wireless household networks.

This level is important for tracking not only household media usage but also media –

related expenditures and various subscriptions for media content. Finally, the

individual level is becoming even more important in the media economy. In a nuclear

family household there are differences in the way parents use the media in

comparison to their youngsters. How we choose to spend our time in media‐related

activities represents an economic action: allocation.

These levels of activity are constantly ongoing in the media economy and in all the

entertainment industry. A big challenge for media firms is how to develop as multi‐

platform entities that can reach consumers at all levels of activity (see figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1.

Multiple Levels of Analysis


6

Source: Albarran (2010).

Shaping forces The media economy, and more generally the entertainment industry, is

shaped by other forces as well. Albarran (2010) refers these forces as being

globalization, regulation, technology and social aspects.

Globalization This is a critical driver in the media economy. For media firms and

industries, the act of globalization – a word with many different meanings –

occurs when companies reach beyond domestic borders to engage consumers

in other nations or markets. Originally, media globalization meant selling

content around the world, a practice that first started with Hollywood films and

expanded later to television programming. The US is the largest exporter of

media content in the world, leading to many concerns about the influence of

America abroad and the notion of “cultural imperialism” (Jayakar & Waterman,

2000) 2. Globalization also occurs when companies acquire other properties in

other countries. News Corporation began as an Australian newspaper

company, acquiring newspapers in the United Kingdom and the United States,

and later on purchasing a group of television station that would eventually

become the Fox TV Network. Sony entered the film industry by first acquiring

Columbia Tristar and later MGM. Another form of globalization occurs when a

company establishes multiple locations in other nations. For example, Disney

operates theme parks in several global cities. Bertelsmann, the global leader in

book publishing, has operations around the world through its various

publishing entities.

2 Jayakar, K., & Waterman, D. (2000). The Economics of American theatrical movie exports: An empirical analysis. Journal of Media Economics, 13(3), 153‐169.


7

Regulation Another predominant force is regulation and regulatory practices

that differ from country to country. Through policy and regulation, business

and industry are required to follow certain rules and guidelines. Regulation is

important in establishing and maintaining competition, to protect workers and

consumers, and to generate government revenues through taxation.

Technology Has both enhanced and disrupted the media economy. Innovations

in technology with distribution and reception technologies continue at a rapid

pace. The wide range of technological advances has forced media companies to

try to keep up with one another. The digital environment has disrupted

traditional business models (Downes, 2009)3. For media companies, finding

new business models and revenue streams is a major priority. For consumers,

today´s technological device is likely to be either limited or obsolete in just a

few months, replaced by another innovation.

Social aspects Are also important in the media economy. The audience is no

longer a mass entity, but an aggregate of many different demographic groups

and lifestyles with different interests that evolve through the life cycle

(Albarran, 2010). The composition of the audience is changing almost on a daily

basis: societies are becoming much more ethnically diverse and multicultural;

people are living longer and working longer; younger people are more

technologically savvy and prefer to access content differently than adults.

Market structures Accordingly to Microeconomic theory, industries can be categorized

according to how firms make price and output decisions in response to prevailing

market conditions. In the model assuming perfect competition, firms all make identical

products, and each firm is so small in relation to total industry output that its

operations have a negligible effect on price or on quantity supplied. At the other

idealized extreme is a monopoly structure, in which there are no close substitutes for

the single firm´s output, the firm sets prices, and there are barriers that prevent

potential competitors from entry.

In the real world, however, the structure of most industries cannot be characterized as

being perfectly competitive or as monopolistic but as somewhere in between. One of

those in‐between structures is known as monopolistic competition, in which there are

many sellers of somewhat differentiated products and in which some control of pricing

and competition through advertising is seen. In an oligopoly structure there are close

substitutes and pricing decisions may affect the pricing and output decisions of other

3Downes, L. (2009). The laws of disruption: Harnessing the new forces that govern life and business in the digital age. New York: Basic Books.

EUROP

firms

acco

In m

struc

Activ

unde

focus

acco

persp

struc

comp

mark

for s

more

Figur

Desig

PEAN COURS

s in the ind

unt, the str

media and

ctural categ

Monopo

Cable TV

Newspap

Professio

Source: Voge

vities struc

erstanding

ses on the

unt for act

pective. O

cture by th

petitors. Fo

ket for cont

smart phon

e reflective

re 3.2.

gnating Me

SE IN ENTRE

ustry. Whe

ructure is ol

entertainm

gories:

oly

V

pers

onal sports

el (2007).

cture But,

of market

number of

tivities acro

One solutio

he activitie

or example,

tent, the ma

es, and so

of the reali

dia Markets

EPRENEURSH

n firms mu

igopolistic (

ment, indus

Oli

teams

Mo

Re

Ne

Cas

The

like our

structure

f participan

oss media m

on may be

es they are

it may be b

arket for dis

on (see fig

ty of today´

s by Functio

HIP FOR THE

ust take a ri

(Vogel, 200

stry segme

igopoly

ovies

corded mus

etwork TV

sinos

eme parks

understan

must evolv

nts in the m

markets. A

to define

e engaged

better to th

stribution, t

gure 3.2.). W

´s media co

on

CREATIVE IN

val´s reacti

7).

nts fall ge

Monop

sic

Books

Magaz

Radio s

Toys a

Perfor

nding of

ve as well.

market, the

nalysis is m

media com

in rather

ink of mark

the market

While this c

ompany (Alb

NDUSTRIES

on to chang

nerally into

polistic Com

ines

stations

nd games

ming arts

markets in

If the trad

e problem i

made from

mpanies an

than by

ket structure

for adverti

creates bro

barran, 2010

ges of price

o the follo

mpetition

n general,

ditional an

is that doe

a single‐m

nd their m

the numb

e in terms o

ising, the m

oader labels

0).

8

e into

owing

our

alysis

es not

market

market

er of

of the

market

s, it is


9

Locally, globally, internationally, we

are living in a digital entertainment

economy

The Hollywood Studio System under challenge At the heart of the economic structure

of the film business lie the Hollywood Studios. These are the six major distributors,

based in Los Angeles but with worldwide exploitation systems that consistently hold

the greatest share of the world film market. However, only two of the Studios are

today wholly owned by American interests. This means that the business is truly

global. The Studios utilize the vertical economic approach by releasing the films

theatrically first, and ensuring increased revenues and profits through creating a

system of “windows” where the film is not released onto the next form of media until

the exploitation in its previous one has been exhausted. They also strategically apply

the horizontal approach acquiring rights to any possible territories in which a film

could be exploited. Increasingly, over the last decade the Studios have seen their

dominance over both conduits of exploitation under increasing pressure and, in certain

cases, market erosion. This model is being challenged by the Internet. New

technologies have shrunk and opened up the vertical chain model. Increasingly, films

are distributed at different stages of the old value chain, and move on from there. The

windows system is breaking up.

Sturm und CSI However, Europeans still love American television series, albeit not at

prime‐time. The value of imported drama series for European broadcasters was $5,990

million in 2011, with the top 200 titles supplying 81% ($4,829 million) of that total. The

Imported Drama Series in Europe report estimated that the top 10 titles accounted for

23 per cent ($1,400 million) of the 2011 total value, with the top 50 taking 55% ($3,268

million). CBS distributed the top three titles in 2011, with NCIS leading the pack by

generating $210 million. The three CSI franchises appear in the top 10. Only one of the

top 10 titles (Sturm der Liebe) originated from outside the US. Only 22% of the hours

screened for the top 200 titles appeared in primetime [20,507 hours from 94,638 in

total]. However, 69 per cent [$3,337 million] of the value created for these titles was in

primetime.

The top six US distributors dominate the top 200, creating nearly three‐quarters of the

value and 56 per cent of the titles. CBS is the clear leader, with second‐placed Warner

Bros some way behind. However, these six companies are probably not as dominant as


10

many people would have guessed. Indeed, seventh‐placed ZDF [$183 million, 12 titles]

was pretty close to Sony in 2011. ITV was next with $116 million [9 titles]. Ninth place

(and the only other distributor to record more than $100 million from Europe’s top

200 titles) went to Bavaria Media [$113 million], but this was solely for Sturm der

Liebe.

The Internet renaissance The wider entertainment industry is growing at a rapid pace

(contrary to doom & gloom messages). Furthermore, more content creators are

producing more content than ever before ‐‐ and are more able to make money of their

content than ever before. On top of that, consumers are living in a time of absolute

abundance and choice ‐‐ a time where content is plentiful in mass quantities, leading

to a true renaissance for them. This does present a unique challenge for some

companies used to a very different market, but it’s a challenge filled with opportunity:

the overall market continues to grow, and smart businesses are snapping up pieces of

this larger market. The danger is in standing still or pretending the market is shrinking.

Don’t miss the opportunity Data from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and iDATE show

that from 1998 to 2010 the value of the worldwide entertainment industry grew from

$449 billion to $745 billion. That’s quite a leap for a market supposedly being

decimated by technological change. Of course, the world economy grew over this

period of time, but a particularly compelling bit of data shows that, in the US

specifically, consumer spending on entertainment as a percentage of income has

continued to rise significantly over the last decade. According to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, in 2000, 4.9 per cent of total household spending went to entertainment.

That number gradually increased over the decade ‐‐ and by 2008, it was up to 5.62 per

cent, an increase of nearly 15 per cent in the same decade as the internet went

mainstream.

More independent jobs Similarly, reports of job losses in the sector are equally hard to

square with reality. Once again, looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics data,

employment in the entertainment sector grew nicely in the decade from 1998 to 2008

‐‐ rising by nearly 20% over that decade. The BLS continues to predict similar growth

for the next decade as well. Perhaps even more importantly, during that same period

of time, BLS data shows that the number of people who were independent artists grew

at an even faster rate – over 43 per cent growth in that same decade. In fact, this may

be a strong hint as to why you hear reports of industry "demise" from certain legacy

players: because new technologies and services have made it much easier for content

creators to find success without going through the traditional gatekeepers.


11

Massive output The amount of new content being produced has grown at a

tremendous rate. In 2002, less than a quarter of a million new books were available on

the market. By 2010 that number was over 3 million. In 2001, the Gracenote database

had data showing just about 11 million song tracks. By 2010, that number had passed

100 million. According to the UN, in 1995, there were about 1,700 films produced

worldwide. By 2009, it was more than 7,000. Meanwhile, during this same period of

time, the video game industry ballooned massively, leaving its niche status behind, and

becoming a major part of the wider entertainment industry. By any measure, it

appears that we are living in a true Renaissance era for content. More money is being

spent overall. Households are spending more on entertainment. And a lot more works

are being created.

European flavour Leading European film production and distribution companies offer

significant challenge to the Hollywood Studios’ traditional hegemony. On the last

decade, the change across Europe is most marked in domestic films attracting local

audiences. Often times one local blockbuster is enough to tip the balance in favour of

the local film. However, the American television products have conquered the lion’s

share of the European audiences taste for series.

Key cinema data in European countries 2010 – 2011 (provisional)

News source: Press release – European Audiovisual Observatory


12

Bollywood to the next level India is the largest producer of films in the world by

quantity. But Bollywood’s low revenues reflect the shortage of screens in India relative

to the huge population; and low ticket prices, on average less than a $1 a seat. Yet the

industry has reason for optimism: prices are rising, with the development of urban

multiplexes that charge about $3 for a seat and up to $7 at weekends. KPMG forecasts

revenues will rise by about 30 per cent by 2015, buoyed by higher ticket sales and

more expensive television rights, amid an insatiable demand for entertainment from

an increasingly affluent population. Yet foreign sales remain a tempting target.

“Ra.One” costing more than $30m is by far the most expensive Bollywood picture ever

made. Packed with slick, high‐technology visual effects of a quality never before seen

in an Indian film, the film is a classic Hindi tale of good versus evil. Bollywood and other

Indian regional cinema appeals to audiences in many countries outside the west,

where it is already a competitor with Hollywood. “Indian films have as much of a

chance there as anyone else, as long as we make films that have some universal truths

and compelling characters,” Indian film makers say. Most insiders, owever, are more

cautious on whether Bollywood can make serious inroads into western markets.

As Bollywood evolves, its assault on Hollywood’s hegemony will intensify. Reliance

plans an English version of its forthcoming film Kites, about a conman in Las Vegas. In

recent years, Bollywood films have found favour in eastern Europe, Germany, east Asia

and other non‐English‐speaking countries where audiences are already accustomed to

watching dubbed Hollywood movies. Among mainstream audiences in the Anglophone

world, however, success has been elusive. India’s emerging middle‐class enjoys

watching its favourite beautiful stars cavort in exotic locales such as Thailand,

Singapore, Australia, the US and Europe. That trend has been facilitated by tax breaks

and other production incentives from foreign countries, which see Bollywood films as a

way to grab a slice of the fast‐growing Indian outbound tourism market. This year’s

coming‐of‐age movie, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, about three friends on a pre‐marriage

road trip, was produced in close collaboration with the Spanish tourism promotion

agency.


13

Nollywood goes to the Internet The Nigerian film industry turns out more than 2,000

films a year, making it the world’s second‐biggest film industry by output after India’s

Bollywood. Nollywood sprang up in the 1990s as home video cameras allowed films to

be produced at lower cost. A typical budget is only $30,000. In 2006 Nigeria made 872

films (in video format, with about half of them in English), about 200 less than

Bollywood and roughly 400 more than Hollywood. Already massive in Africa,

Nollywood is now gaining a reputation elsewhere. Copies of the movies are on offer at

markets throughout the continent. Most of these are illegal copies, however, meaning

most Nigerian film‐makers derive little financial benefit from their international

popularity. Most of these are illegal copies, however, meaning most Nigerian film‐

makers derive little financial benefit from their international popularity.

Yet the internet is beginning to change that, says Jason Njoku, a London‐born web

entrepreneur who has attracted a worldwide monthly audience of more than 1m to his

Nollywood streaming service. His company, Iroko Partners, is racing to keep up: it has

bought the online distribution rights to 1,600 films since November 2010. The

fragmented nature of the industry, with more than 500 production businesses, is a

boon for the digital distribution business, whose experience has been unlike that of

Netflix, the US film streaming site, which has faced tough negotiations with five or six

big Hollywood studios. Much of this demand from the Nigerian diaspora has been filled

by pirate videos. New York authorities, for instance, seized more than 10,000 bootleg

Nollywood films in November 2010. While slow download speeds and limited internet

penetration meant online distribution in Africa was restricted, there is a vast,

untapped market among African Nollywood fans in North America, Europe and other

developed regions. The proposition was also bound to be attractive to the film

producers, who had previously gained almost no income from foreign sales of their

films.

China’s pull The Middle Kingdom is now the world’s second‐biggest film market after

America. It has a booming home‐grown film industry, making historical dramas and

romantic comedies, but foreign blockbusters are the big money‐earners. Although

most films are pirated on release and viewed online and on dodgy DVDs, the rising

middle classes are increasingly willing to fork out for a night at the cinema. In 2011

China’s box‐office take rose by more than 30 per cent, to over $2 billion, according to

the Motion Picture Association of America. The number of cinema screens in China has

doubled in five years, to nearly 11,000 —again, second only to America.

The gravitational pull of the Chinese movie market, nonexistent less than a generation

ago, is now an undeniable force, sucking in all Hollywood blockbusters (and lesser


14

projects) that venture within its event horizon. Hollywood studios, independent

producers and directors regularly cycle through Beijing in search of partnerships with

Chinese production houses—often seeking money to finance their movies, as well as

access to a suddenly lucrative market. In 2012 China will surpass Japan as the world’s

second‐largest movie market, after America. Chinese box‐office takings totalled 13

billion yuan ($2.06 billion) in 2011, an increase of 30 per cent from 2010, which in turn

had been more than 60% higher than in 2009. The number of movie screens has

doubled in five years to more than 10,000 (and is projected to reach 15,000 in speedy

fashion), and the new screens are mostly digital and 3D‐capable. Meanwhile America’s

market is stagnating. Takings in North America (America and Canada combined)

declined by 4% in 2011, to $10.2 billion. China’s box‐office revenues may overtake

America’s by 2020.

Brand Empires

Disney is not animation In today´s environment, mind share – how well the public

knows your brand and cares about it – often precedes market share. A brand that has

the trust and allegiance of the consumer and that puts forward a simple, direct “high

concept” idea, is positioned to survive in an increasingly crowded marketplace. To cut

through the daily clutter of messages and products, a brand needs to do more than

identify a product, it must give it a personality. By our allegiance to certain brands, we

say something about ourselves. Brands transcend particular products and carry with

them a whole cultural statement.

Entertainment companies, whose products are purely cultural, have long recognized

this trend and, acting on it, have not merely created strong brands; they have built

brand empires. They have carved out pieces of our collective psyche that transcend

any single product. We have a relationship with these companies that disposes us to

accepting, or at least giving a courtesy look at, any product with their brand on it.

Disney doesn´t simply mean animated features or theme parks anymore: it means

family. Bloomberg is not just a terminal on a trader´s desk; it is instantaneous financial

news and analysis. The NBA isn´t about watching tall men put the ball in the basket

with a high degree of accuracy; it´s about a fast, urban, street lifestyle, whit all the glitz

and glamour of showbiz.

Through brands, consumers can gain entrance to a world that embodies a simple,

powerful idea: family, taste, money, or fun. The old definition of a brand carrying a

product´s attributes has become secondary to the way a brand makes a lifestyle


15

statement. Consumption of a brand´s products empowers the consumer with the

qualities of the brand. The base principle remains the same: consume and become.

Entertainment franchises Consumers like the endorsement of a company name they

recognize, but the new offerings of the brand have to fill a need or supply a distinct

pleasure of their own. Entertainment brands have had to compete in an increasingly

crowded marketplace, where, though the pie keeps growing, the slices are getting

smaller as more products compete for audiences. It is no longer sufficient merely to

turn out a hit movie, television show, magazine, or book, because in many cases these

products cannot be profitable on their own. A hit must become a franchise and, in so

doing, become the hub from which a wide‐reaching variety of products emanates. Hits

and, even more so, phenomena, behave like brands. By occupying every available

niche in popular culture, hits become long‐lived, wide‐reaching brands.

Multiple revenue streams The choice is not whether or not a hit should be leveraged;

a hit product that doesn´t move out into the wider economy and cultural realm is

doomed to be a flash in the pan. For the period of time that The X‐Files occupied its

favored place in the cultural spectrum, it was as a real brand like many others. As a

television show, books, movies, a traveling road show, home videos, hats, t‐shirts, and

other merchandising, we watched a brand with revenues in excess of more than $1

billion. And what about Lara Croft? She wasn´t a TV show, she became by being a

heavily armed digital figure who was the main character in the Tomb Raider video

games. With millions games sold, several books, a best‐selling action figure, high‐

priced fashion gear, and films where she became Angelina Jolie, her revenues were

tremendous. Jurassic Park was a hit book, but Universal and Steven Spielberg built a

brand empire. Jurassic Park became a brand that meant dinosaurs. The big cultural

concept is that we are all fascinated by dinosaurs.

Granted, all this marketing and leveraging is a far cry from the primal entertainment

experience of sitting in a darkened room and watching a projected image, but

increasingly, without multiple revenue streams there would ultimately be no profit,

and no profit means no long‐term business.


1

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR


2

Consumer behaviour Sources:

Nuno Cintra Torres, “A Model to Improve Pay TV Subscriber and Viewer

Experience, The seamless integration of complex technologies, processes and

contents are the key to achieve customer satisfaction and improve loyalty”,

University of Liverpool, 2006

The Economist, “The lazy medium, how people really watch television”, a

special report, April 29, 2010

Michael J. Wolf, “The Entertainment Economy – How Mega‐Media Forces are

Transforming our Lives”, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999

«Although life is full of constraints and disciplines, responsibilities and chores,

and a host of things disagreeable, entertainment, in contrast, encompasses activities

that people enjoy and look forward to doing, hearing, or seeing. This is the basis for

the demand for – or the consumption of entertainment of products and services».

Vogel (2001)

Experimental possession

Audiovisual entertainment: non‐goods services Audiovisual entertainment falls within

the experimental possession type of non‐goods services. In the case of pay TV, the

subscriber pays a monthly fee for the right to “experimental possession” of television

programming, a non‐goods service. When consumers go to the movies they “own” the

film for the performance’s duration. A (re)definion of services is provided by Judd

(1964):

The right to possess and use a product (Rented Goods Services)

The customer creation of, repair, or improvement of a product (Owned Goods

Services)

No product element but rather an experience or what might be termed

experimental possession (Non‐Goods Services)

Intangibility Grönroos (1978) addresses the difficulty in developing a concrete,

tangible service offering because «the most important characteristic of a service is its

intangibility». In fact, the service concept is itself confusing: the customer does not

own anything when a service is purchased, but is only given the right to use. The lack


3

of ownership and transaction of ownership when dealing with services results from the

intangibility of services.

Service is all Some authors, like Chase et al. (1973‐2006), argue that the emerging

model is that every organization is, in fact, in the service business. Services encompass

manufacturing and the services provided to the firm’s internal customers.

Parasumaran et. al (1985) define three characteristics of services that must be

acknowledged for a full understanding of service quality.

Intangibility: they are performances rather than objects

Heterogeneity: their performance often varies from producer to producer, from

customer to customer, and from day to day; consistency of behaviour from

service personnel (i.e., uniform quality) is difficult to assure

Inseparability: production and consumption of many services are inseparable

Expectations/performance According to Parasumaran et al. (1985) «quality is a

comparison between expectations and performance». Lewis and Booms (1983)

describe service quality as «a measure of how well the service level delivered matches

customer expectations. Delivering quality service means conforming to customer

expectations on a consistent basis». Other authors (Gronröos 1982) contend that

consumers compare the service they expect with perceptions of the service they

receive in evaluating service quality. Parasumaran et al. recall that much the same

reasoning was developed by Smith and Houston (1982) who claimed that satisfaction

with services is related to confirmation or disconfirmation of expectations.

Types of customer satisfaction Anderson et al. (1994) conceptualize customer

satisfaction as transaction‐specific or cumulative. From the behaviour transaction‐

specific perspective, it is viewed as a post‐choice evaluative judgment of a specific

purchase occasion. Cumulative satisfaction is an overall evaluation based on the total

purchase and consumption experience with a good or service over time. The

cumulative satisfaction is a more fundamental indicator of the firm’s past, current, and

future performance. In fact, these authors argue that «it is cumulative satisfaction that

motivates a firm’s investment in customer satisfaction».

Quality/Satisfaction conceptualisations A review by Johnson et al. (2002) of relevant

literature establishing the difference between quality and customer satisfaction

produced the following conceptualisations:

Behaviour: Perceived quality is the consumer’s judgement about a product’s

overall excellence or superiority

Marketing and economics: Quality as dependent on the level of product

attributes


4

Operations management: Quality is defined as having two primary dimensions:

Fitness for use and Reliability

Services: Quality is an overall assessment; service quality in this context is

believed to depend on gaps between delivered and desired service on certain

dimensions.

Price and value Often, in the absence of tangible evidence on which to evaluate

quality, consumers must depend on other cues. Price becomes a pivotal quality

indicator. However, some authors, like Rhodes (2001), consider that the new

consumer is not driven by price. It is just one early filter that may not be decisive.

Modern consumers demand better value for their money. Other product

characteristics then gain greater relevance and provide a basis for real differentiation

based on delivering emotional benefits. Marn et al. (2002) argue that marketers view

pricing in the context of determining the overall price premium that the product

deserves in the market place. Thus, these authors claim, «the primary force in play is

customer perception, or, more to the point, how customers weigh their product’s

benefits against a competitor’s offerings». In fact, when a supplier is better at meeting

the needs of a particular market segment, they become the preferred alternative for

which customers will pay some premium, as noted by Johnson et al. (2002). Some

authors, like Kotler and Anderson (1994), claim that «there is ample empirical support

for quality as an antecedent of customer satisfaction».

The “new consumer” The prevailing understanding today is that nobody owns the

customer, rather, the customer owns the firm. Customers no longer are seen just as

consumers. They are now also experience seekers. Furthermore, the customer is no

longer “king”. According to some, like McKinsey and Company (2006), at a time of

exigent customers, fragmenting segments, burgeoning products and services the

customer has become a tyrant. The nature of the consumer as the key protagonist was

highlighted by Braudillard (1971) in works like «The Consumer Society». According to

this view, from a production‐driven we’ve moved to a consumption‐led economy in

which value is created not at the point of value exchange but during consumption,

thereby defining not only the nature of what has to be produced but also the identity

of the consumer. The experience‐seeking consumer is an important notion according

to Holbrook and Hirschman (1982), quoted by Stuart‐Menteth, Wilson and Baker

(2006), who define the consumption experience as «a personal occurrence, often with

important emotional significance, founded on the interaction with stimuli which are

the products or services consumed».


5

These authors provide the following “new consumer” classifications based on several

authors:

Cynical → Integrity

Knowledgeable → Meaningfulness

Time Constrained → Relevance

Tribal → Tribal valida on

Individual → Customisa on

Demandingness → Excellence in Expecta on

Active → Par cipa on

Design, deliver, develop To achieve an integrated consumer experience, Allen et al.

(2005) consider the adoption of three necessary steps, the “The Three D’s of Customer

Experience”:

Design the right offers and experiences for the right customers

Deliver these propositions by focusing the entire company on them with an

emphasis on cross‐functional collaboration

Develop capabilities to repeatedly please customers by revamping the planning

process, training people in how to create new customer propositions, and

establishing direct accountability for the customer experience

A new differentiator In a world of commoditizing, customer experience is the new

differentiator. Shaw et al. (2002) reveal that 85 per cent of senior business leaders

agree that differentiating solely on the traditional physical elements such as price,

delivery, availability and lead times is no longer a sustainable business strategy. These

authors define customer experience as an interaction between an organization and a

customer. It is a blend of an organization’s physical performance, the senses

stimulated and emotions evoked, each intuitively measured against customer

expectations across all moments of contact. Five stages of customer experience can be

considered:

Expectations setting: brand image, advertising, what people say, own

experience with similar company, own experience with similar markets, own

imagination

Pre‐purchase interactions: information gathering, environment and local

assessment

Purchase interactions: starts with decision to buy, the heart of customer

experience

Product or service consumption: may occur in minutes or in years

Post‐experience review: Intuitive review of performance against expectations


6

The experience value chain To address the introduction of an organizational culture

and process for consistently delivering superior customer experiences, Forrester

proposes that firms develop what it calls the Customer Experience Value Chain (CxVC)

that combines two major components:

Customer‐centric DNA, consisting of two elements:

Customer familiarity, to design a persona, a composite description of real

people who represent a primary customer segment

Organizational engagement to create the change necessary across the

company and to engage in companywide efforts that demonstrate a clear

commitment to serving customer needs

Experience design process, to enable interactions that connect emotionally with

target customers at key moments

Define interaction personality to bridge the chasm that exists between

marketing messages and the interactive experiences delivered by the rest of

the firm

Identify high‐impact moments, companies need to identify which interactions

have the largest impact on users

Enable the experience by creating a feeling of excitement

Measure and refine

The experience economy Experiences provide sensory, emotional, cognitive,

behavioural and relational values that replace functional values, leading to what Pine

and Gilmore (1998) define as the “experience economy”. The implications of this

experience‐seeking consumer reinforces the necessity of a coordinated or integrated

set of actions, including brand communication and delivery, to highlight what is unique

about the product. These are considered the primary tools for building emotional ties.

Furthermore, as argued by Coyles et al. (2005), the importance of emotion is relevant

in the context of loyalty, because, of three basic customer attitudes – emotive, inertial,

and deliberative – emotive customers are the most loyal. Feeling strongly that their

current purchases are right for them and that their chosen product is the best, emotive

customers, rarely reassess purchasing decisions. Deliberative and inertial customers

represent, on average, more than half the total. But the Coyles et al. study argues that,

although emotionally loyal customers often constitute a relatively small segment,

«building emotional ties should be a long‐term goal for most companies». Emotionally

loyal customers are the most valuable because of their higher spending and lower rate

of downward migration.


7

Emotions lead to loyalty Loyalty is an emotion that addresses the fundamental human

need of belonging – to a family, a tribe, a social group, argue Shaw et al. This feeling

provides a sense of security because people like to be loyal to winners as a result of

the association with success it brings. Reichheld (2006) considers emotions as one of

the two conditions necessary for customers to make a personal referral. Not only they

must believe that the company offers superior value (price, features, quality,

functionality, ease of use, and all the other practical factors), but they also must feel

good about their relationship with the company. On the first dimension, a company is

engaging the customer’s head. On the second, it is engaging the heart.

Promoters, passives, detractors The business goal isn’t merely to delight customers

but to turn them into promoters, argues Reichheld (2006). These customers are loyal

enthusiasts who keep buying from a company and urge their friends to do the same.

They account for 80 per cent of the referrals. Passives are satisfied but unenthusiastic

customers who can be easily wooed by the competition. Referrals are 50 per cent

lower than those from promoters. For the average firm, more than two thirds of

customers are passives, bored, or detractors. The latter are unhappy, angry customers

trapped in a bad relationship. Together they account for 80 per cent or more of

negative word‐of‐mouth comments. In The Ultimate Question (2006) Reichheld

proposes asking “How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend

or colleague?” and correlate it to the number of years the customer has been with the

firm. The equation will provide a reliable customer satisfaction score. This single

question purportedly allows companies to track promoters and detractors, producing a

clear measure of an organization’s performance through its customers’ eyes — the Net

Promoter® Score.

Segmentation, malleability and collaboration Today, different customers want to do

business differently, and being profitable means having the capabilities that allow for

malleability. The key is to understand that a value proposition is not merely a product

or service; it includes the entire customer experience. The psychographic and

behavioural variables are particularly relevant to provide the data necessary to target

each segment by a different and appropriate experiential marketing mix. To create

unique customer experiences for selected segments or to respond quickly to shifts in a

segment's value becomes the objective. But most companies lack the planning systems

necessary to establish the pertinent roles and processes, argue Collins et al. (2006).

Understanding and acting on segment‐ or customer‐level information often requires

collaboration among a number of functions that interact with customers across the

organization, something that may prove to be difficult to achieve. In fact, according to

Temkin (2004), only 24 per cent of American firms have a single person responsible for

customer experience.


8

The emotional consumer of the emotive industry Audiovisuals operate in a strongly

motivated emotional environment. During the last decades TV and pay TV became

central to the way of life of hundreds of millions of persons. Furthermore, the pay TV

subscriber is a multifaceted persona: as a passive viewer, as an active participant, as a

user of technologies, as a paying customer of a subscription service, as an individual, as

a family member, as a member of an interest group.

The E‐factor The means of distributing television are now ubiquitous. «It's TV that

people want, however it is delivered», writes journalist Chris Forrester (2006).

However, just as any other industry, television is not entertaining per se. It is

entertainment that must remain entertaining in order to capture audiences and

subscribers, an ever more complex congregation. Companies need to provide

entertainment experiences that engage the consumers, what Wolf (1999) calls the E‐

Factor, that is, entertainment contents and experiences. The personalization of the

contents, either via the internet or the DVR, should provide a tool to differentiate, at

least temporarily. But the most effective instrument to improve loyalty should reside

in service personalization, according to Ball et al. (2006) who studied its effects in the

banking sector. The authors argue that personalized services may encourage the

customer to believe that the firm is benevolent, increasing trust, which is an

antecedent of loyalty. The extra effort involved in personalization may thus be

attributed to benevolent motives to the firm. Besides, the consumers show a tendency

to view personalized services as difficult to replace with another provider. In fact,

while service differentiation is hard to copy, price differentiation is short lived and

product differentiation is quickly copied.

Passives and anytime, anywhere consumers IBM (2006) argues that the television

market evolution hinges on two key market drivers: openness of access channels and

levels of consumer involvement with media. In the near future, there will be a

coexistence of two types of users with disparate channel requirements. The IBM study

“The End of Television as We Know It” argues that while one consumer segment

remains largely passive in the living room, the other will force radical change in

business models in a search for anytime, anywhere content through multiple channels.

The tech‐ and fashion‐forward consumer segment will lead us to a world of platform‐

agnostic content, fluid mobility of media experiences, individualized pricing schemes

and an end to the traditional concept of release windows. With the advent of video‐

on‐demand and the possibility to personalize the consumption of television through

the DVR, the TV channel is now being remodelled around the concept of the channel‐

as‐show window of a main brand supported by several sub‐ and sub‐sub‐brands. These

brands are no longer confined to a specific medium.


9

High involvement Cinema and television can be classified as high‐involvement

categories, according to the Fishbein and Ajzen theory of reasoned action for

predicting purchase behaviour, cited by Jobber (2004). The theory postulates that

«consumers are highly involved in the purchase to the extent that they evaluate the

consequence of the purchase and what others will think about it». The decision to

subscribe is in general taken within the family. Applying the Blackwell, Miniard and

Engel (2006) five roles in the purchase decision‐making process (initiator, influencer,

decider, buyer, user), the home is the buying centre, dominated by the mother, who is

in general the final decider, with the husband acting as buyer and, together with the

children, as initiator and influencer and the whole family is the user.

The central role of the family and of family centred entertainment has been reinforced

in recent years. Forrester research by Charron et al. (2006), from 1998 to 2003,

revealed that family and entertainment motivations jumped in 2000. American

consumers are more likely to agree with the statements “Family is the most important

thing in my life” and “I am always looking for ways to entertain myself” than with

career motivations. Three years later the trend continued. The September 11, 2001

terrorist attacks led many consumers to re‐evaluate their priorities, pledging to focus

more on family and friends.

Television, still the ultimate unifier

The lure of the sofa A change in expectations is not quite the same as a change in

behaviour. Although It may seem dated, but the image of the family clustered around

the living‐room set is an accurate depiction of how most people watch television in

most countries. Live television is not just the most popular way of watching video; it

also influences the way people watch shows on all devices. It is easier than ever to

watch programmes at a time and on a device of one’s choosing, and people expect to

be able to do so, nearly all TV is nonetheless watched live on a television set. Even in

British homes with a Sky+ box, which allows for easy recording of programmes, almost

85 per cent of television shows are viewed at the time the broadcasters see fit to air

them.

“People want to watch ‘Pop Idol’ when everyone else is watching it,” says Mike Darcey

of BSkyB. If that is not possible, they watch it as soon as they can afterwards. Some

60% of all shows recorded on Sky+ boxes are viewed within a day. Often the delay is

only a few minutes—just enough to finish the washing up or to make a phone call.

EUROP

For t

a vid

that

Attit

what

what

ease

prog

sofa.

recog

scree

thou

beha

peop

hous

The

degr

be pa

PEAN COURS

the most pa

deo‐streami

programme

udes towar

t “TV‐like”

t television

, passivity

rammes via

. This was

gnized that

en househo

ght that TV

aviour. TV w

ple in touc

sehold, freq

rising popu

ee of contr

art of this s

SE IN ENTRE

art, internet

ng website

e airing on T

rds TV Rese

meant to

was. The tr

and familia

a a traditio

the scenar

viewing be

olds and th

V represente

was felt to p

h with the

quently bein

ularity of tim

ol and flexi

hift toward

EPRENEURSH

t video is us

, says onlin

TV.

earch carrie

participants

raditional T

arity. The m

onal TV scre

rio most pa

ehaviour wa

he rise of i

ed societal

provide new

e wider wo

ng switched

me‐shifting

bility into h

s more pers

HIP FOR THE

sed in the s

ne viewing o

ed out by Of

s. The rese

TV viewing e

most comm

een in the

articipants

as increasin

nternet‐bas

shared valu

ws and infor

orld. It was

on even w

TV viewing

households,

sonally tailo

CREATIVE IN

same way. M

of a progra

fcom, the U

earch explo

experience

mon viewing

living room

had grown

gly changin

sed progra

ues and ref

rmation, off

s also a co

hen no one

g was recog

, and VOD s

ored viewin

NDUSTRIES

Matthias Bü

mme peaks

UK regulato

red sponta

was widely

g context w

m, from the

n up with,

g over time

mme servic

lected gene

fer entertai

omforting p

e was watch

gnised as br

services we

g schedules

üchs of RTL

s within a d

r, set out to

aneous view

y associated

was watchin

e comfort o

although it

e due to mu

ces. Partici

erally accep

nment and

presence in

hing.

ringing a gr

re consider

s. The resea

10

LNow,

day of

o find

ws on

d with

ng TV

of the

t was

ultiple

pants

ptable

keep

n the

reater

red to

arch


11

study found that broadly, any example that had been previously broadcast via a linear

TV schedule was thought to be “TV‐like”. The example of Dr Who shown via Virgin

Media on a TV platform was consistently regarded as the most “TV‐like” of the

examples shown. In contrast, the examples of user‐generated content on the YouTube

website and a promotional video located on the Audi TV website were considered the

least “TV‐like”.

Anyone can become a professional publisher of video content Migration of

advertising brand spend to online video and changing conceptions of audience result in

a fundamental change to advertisers: The ability to convey audio‐visual brand

narratives is not confined to the linear broadcast environment anymore, but

decoupled from a single media platform in an age of IP‐delivered content. The old

industry wisdom that ‘TV is the worst form of advertising except all others that have

been tried’ may still hold true today, but the nature of what constitutes TV is changing.

The age of IP‐delivered video also is an age of reduced access barriers. Broadcasters

will face new entrants as the dissemination of professional video content is

democratized. Not only are traditional print publishers ramping up their stake in online

video (competing with the digital assets of news broadcasters, amongst others), but

potentially anyone can now become a publisher of professional video content.

The fragmentation of free time

Hedonomics Culture, demography, and technology are all pushing us towards one

goal: extracting the last drop of fun out of every experience. First, demography. After

years of workaholism, there is a generation that is now returning to its hedonistic, fun‐

seeking roots. Wolf (1999) calls hedonomics the science of understanding the fun‐

focused consumer. Nowadays, approximately 20 per cent of European are 62 or older.

Not only this “grey market” is growing and living longer, but have large amounts of

discretionary income, since they typically have paid off their mortgage and have no

longer the expense of raising and educating children (Solomon, 2010). They have

made their major life purchases already.

The demand for leisure goods and services can also be significantly affected by

changes in the relative growth of different age. Age can affect demand and

demographic factors are very important. For instance, teenagers tend to be important

purchasers of recorded music; people under the age of 30 are the most avid

moviegoers. As this generation matures past its years of family formation and into


12

years of peak earnings power and then retirement, spending may be naturally

expected to collectively shift to areas as casinos, cultural events, and tourism and

travel, and away from areas that are usually of the greatest interest to people in their

teens or early twenties. This is part of a larger cultural shift in the perception of time:

how we conceptualize it, commoditize it, quantify it, and deal with it.

A multitasking generation Whereas the older generations grew up with television, the

actual new generations are growing up with television, computer, smart phones, the

internet, the Facebook, etc. Young people become acculturated and socialized through

the internet, or at least entertainment content, on their computers. Eyeballs glued to a

screen are audiences; where there are audiences, there is advertising; and where there

is advertising, there is commerce. As children of the media, actually multimedia, this

generation more than any other has learned to multitask, its media experience. In the

same way that their computers can be opened to multiple applications, today´s young

consumers can be watching something on TV, have a CD playing in the background,

texting in a smart phone, and be surfing the Net. While it is true that all young

consumers still have the same number of hours in the day that their parents, they are

learning to divide them up in new ways. Furthermore, as entertainment content

becomes more and more integral to none entertainment business, time is

paradigmatically of the essence.

Paying for free time Nowadays, it seems that there´s not enough time to do things.

Even though we have the same hours per week, we feel busier, with less time. This

subjective reality is the basis of the push for more entertainment product. For a

minute, five minutes, two days, whatever time is allotted, it help us escape from the

pressures of the daily grind.

Consumers are willing to spend money to gain free time. Once people start buying

time with money, they are going to demand more intense, more concentrated, more

satisfying returns on their entertainment investment. Entertainment can be seen as

commercial leisure time. All consumers need to buy food. We want to buy

entertainment, so we make our entertainment choices on the basis of how they excite

our desires. Furthermore, modern life creates emotional needs that the marketplace

can best help assuage through entertainment or entertainment‐enhanced products.

Fulfilling our wants and desires has become an emotional necessity. Are people more

emotionally needy than they were in the past? Probably not. What is true is that

modern life has piled on a number of emotional stress factors that have, in recent

decades, reached a cultural critical mass and, in doing so, have rewritten the rules of

the economy.


13

Reorientation of leisure patterns Fundamental to this is the notion that society´s

concept of time has changed. The pressure of work, family, social obligations, etc. have

forced us to compartmentalize our lives into a series of highly segmented boxes of

time. So we turn to entertainment to fill those boxes, the unscheduled portions of our

day. This societal change and all the technological innovations have fuelled the growth

of the entertainment industry.

Time fragmentation and the resulting reorientation of leisure patterns are leading

consumers to choose recreation that can be enjoyed intermittently. In the past, leisure

time meant big blocks of free time, free in the sense that you could choose to do it for

an extended period of time and free in the sense that it cost nothing, or next to

nothing. You could work in the garden, go bird‐watching, catch a fish, read a book.

Enjoying leisure did not mean paying every time you did something. That has changed.

As time has become segmented and broken into variable‐length blocks, it has become

commoditized.

The entertainment marketplace allows us to recapture some of the pleasure

associated with free time by offering fun in big and small doses, as stand‐alone fun, or

as part of a more utilitarian activity, and it charges us as it does so. Furthermore, once

people get used to treating the enjoyment of free time as a commodity, not only will

they spend their money on video games, movies, theme parks, and so on; Formerly

low‐cost or no‐cost activities such as gardening, flower arranging, or riding a bicycle

now come with an attendant range of goods and services that you pay for: do‐it‐

yourself kits, rose‐pruning lessons, bicycle tours, cooking schools, etc.

A shift to quality People are compressing fun into more concentrated doses whether

short vacations or short internet sessions. Furthermore, they are showing a willingness

to spend money to ensure that those concentrated doses are of the highest quality.

Increasingly, consumers must plan their free time. Not only a bad movie perceived as a

waste of time, it also represents a major opportunity cost in terms of other fun one

might have had. The value of each leisure moment is increasing, and with it the

consumer´s demand that time spent be high‐quality time.

These shifts in consumer behavior are responsible for the tremendous glut of

information and products vying for our attention. Businesses now understand that

consumers are seeking out fun and engagement in just about every buying decision

and, furthermore, that they are seeking guidance in finding the products that meet

their needs most enjoyably. The result is more products clamoring for their attention,

more advertising touting those products, more internet pages. It´s hard to know which

way to turn or how to focus on anything long enough to make an informed decision.


14

Diffusion of innovations

Innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or

unit of adoption. Everett Rogers formulated an explanation of the process by which

innovations are adopted and implemented within a society. Diffusion is the process in

which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the

members of a social system. This type of communication is concerned with new ideas.

This involves uncertainty, information that seeks to reduce the uncertainty, and social

change. He proposed that the characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by

members of a society, determine its rate of adoption. The five attributes of an

innovation are: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) reliability,

and (5) observability.

The identification and courting of potential early adopters is essential to the overall

marketing strategy for any new consumer product or service. Early adopters are the

people who enjoy being first on the block with a new gadget, perceive immediate uses

for something new, and are willing to take risks. They have a high degree of tolerance

for initial limitations and inconveniences, provided that the innovation imparts some

measure of status, respect, or attention. Early adopters convince the opinion leaders in

their companies, institutions, or communities to adopt an innovation through word‐of‐

mouth evangelizing. The opinion leaders, in turn, convince those in their interpersonal

networks to become adopters. All diffusion curves for new ideas are S‐shaped, with

the rate of adoption accelerating rapidly when a product or service has diffused into 10

to 25 percent of its potential market.


15

Bridges of familiarity Modern forms of communication media have demonstrated

similar patterns. Photography was readily adopted because it was based on familiar

ways of seeing and of representing vision. More creative uses had to wait until the

bridge of familiarity had been crossed. Silent films owed their quick acceptance to

familiarity with photography and vaudeville shows. The recording of images and

mechanical music boxes provided the familiar bridges for the phonograph and

recorded sound. Radio and audio recordings, in turn, provided the connections for

rapid acceptance of the "talkies". Television was anticipated and quickly accepted as

radio with moving pictures.

Complex, adaptive systems Over time, each new form of communication has evolved

from its origins as a recognizable extension of an earlier form into a distinct form all its

own. This continuum of transformations and adaptations is actually a complex process

comparable in many ways to the evolution of species. Successful forms of new media,

just as new species, do not emerge spontaneously from nowhere. They have all

required links with the past. Scientists studied the behavior of complex systems and

discovered that the richness of the interactions that occur within living systems allows

them to undergo spontaneous self‐organization in response to changing conditions.

Complex systems are adaptive in that they don't just passively respond to events the

way a rock might roll around in an earthquake. They actively try to turn whatever

happens to their advantage.

By recognizing that the human communication system is, in fact, a complex, adaptive

system, we can see that all forms of media live in a dynamic, interdependent universe.

When external pressures are applied and new innovations are introduced, each form

of communication is affected by an intrinsic self‐organizing process that spontaneously

occurs within the system. Just as species evolve for better survival in a changing

environment, so do forms of communication and established media enterprises.

Supervening social necessities Social, political, and economic forces play powerful

roles in the development of new technologies. Inventions and innovation are not

widely adopted on the merits of a technology alone. There must always be an

opportunity as well as a motivating social, political, or economic reason for a new

technology to be developed. The accelerators that push the development of new

media technologies are supervening social necessities, the interfaces between society

and technology. They derive from the needs of companies, requirements of other

technologies, regulatory or legal actions, and general social forces. On the other hand,

the law of suppression of radical potential applies the brakes that slow the disruptive

impact of a new technology upon the social or corporate status quo. Brakes arise from

the same four broad categories identified with supervening social necessity.


16

Convergence In 1979, when Nicholas Negroponte began popularizing the concept of

convergence few people had any comprehension of the notion. Audiences were often

astonished by Negroponte's revelation that all communication technologies are

suffering a joint metamorphosis, which can only be understood properly if treated as a

single subject. He drew three overlapping circles labeled "broadcast and motion

picture industry," "computer industry," and "print and publishing industry". Since then,

the notion that these industries are coming together to create new forms of

communication has shaped much of the thinking about the future of mass media and

human communications.


1

CLUSTERS & ENTREPRENEURIAL

ECOSYSTEMS


2

Entrepreneurial ecosystems Sources:

Michael Porter, “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition”, Harvard Business

Review, 1998

Marco Ansiti and Roy Levin, “Strategy as ecology”, Harvard Business Review, 2004

Richard Florida, “Who’s Your City? How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live

the Most Important Decision of Your Life”, Basic Books, 2008

Martin Prosperity Institute, “Creative Potential, Straddling Two Mega Regions”, Rotman

School of Management, University of Toronto, 2010

http//martinprosperity.org/media/Southwestern_Ontario_Report.pdf

Ivan Turok, “Cities, Clusters and Creative Industries: The Case of Film and Television in

Scotland”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 11, No. 5, July 2003, Carfax Publishing

http://nknu.pbworks.com/f/Cities,%2BClusters%2Band%2BCreative%2BIndustries.pdf

Christina Kukenshoner et. Al, “Bollywood – Maharashtra and India’s Film Cluster”, 2008

Clusters

What Is a Cluster? Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and

institutions in a particular field. Clusters encompass an array of linked industries and other entities

important to competition. They include, for example, suppliers of specialized inputs such as

components, machinery, and services, and providers of specialized infrastructure. Clusters also

often extend downstream to channels and customers and laterally to manufacturers of

complementary products and to companies in industries related by skills, technologies, or

common inputs. Finally, many clusters include governmental and other institutions – such as

universities, standards‐setting agencies, think tanks, vocational training providers, and trade

associations – that provide specialized training, education, information, research, and technical

support.

Why Clusters Are Critical to Competition Modern competition depends on productivity, not on

access to inputs or the scale of individual enterprises. Productivity rests on how companies

compete, not on the particular fields they compete in. Clusters affect competition in three broad

ways: first, by increasing the productivity of companies based in the area; second, by driving the

direction and pace of innovation, which underpins future productivity growth; and third, by

stimulating the formation of new businesses, which expands and strengthens the cluster itself. A

cluster allows each member to benefit as if it had greater scale or as if it had joined with others

formally – without requiring it to sacrifice its flexibility.


3

Clusters and Innovation In addition to enhancing productivity, clusters play a vital role in a

company’s ongoing ability to innovate. Some of the same characteristics that enhance current

productivity have an even more dramatic effect on innovation and productivity growth. Because

sophisticated buyers are often part of a cluster, companies inside clusters usually have a better

window on the market than isolated competitors do. Computer companies based in Silicon Valley

and Austin, Texas, for example, plug into customer needs and trends with a speed difficult to

match by companies located elsewhere. The ongoing relationships with other entities within the

cluster also help companies to learn early about evolving technology, component and machinery

availability, service and marketing concepts, and so on. Such learning is facilitated by the ease of

making site visits and frequent face‐to‐face contact. Clusters do more than make opportunities for

innovation more visible. They also provide the capacity and the flexibility to act rapidly. A company

within a cluster often can source what it needs to implement innovations more quickly. Local

suppliers and partners can and do get closely involved in the innovation process, thus ensuring a

better match with customers’ requirements.

Clusters and New Business Formation It is not surprising, then, that many new companies grow

up within an existing cluster rather than at isolated locations. New suppliers, for example,

proliferate within a cluster because a concentrated customer base lowers their risks and makes it

easier for them to spot market opportunities. Moreover, because developed clusters comprise

related industries that normally draw on common or very similar inputs, suppliers enjoy expanded

opportunities. Clusters are conducive to new business formation for a variety of reasons.

Individuals working within a cluster can more easily perceive gaps in products or services around

which they can build businesses. Beyond that, barriers to entry are lower than elsewhere. Needed

assets, skills, inputs, and staff are often readily available at the cluster location, waiting to be

assembled into a new enterprise.

Regions with clusters are innovative leaders The basic coherence between cluster existence and

economic advantages can be derived from the “Redbook” by the European Cluster Observatory:

“Today, there is substantial evidence that suggests that innovation and economic growth is heavily

geographically concentrated. Clusters provide an environment that is conducive to innovation and

knowledge creation. Regions with strong cluster portfolios are innovative leaders, while regions

with no clusters or isolated research facilities fall behind.” The cluster policy has to address all

clusters and has therefore a national, international and sectoral focus.

EUROPEA

The Bol

about $

cluster.

and is a

Mumba

Bollywo

share o

early 20

migrant

entrepr

Mumba

called “

AN COURSE I

llywood clu

$1 trillion. M

It is India’s

also India’s

ai (populatio

ood is just o

of films (40%

0th century

ts with adva

reneurs em

ai market b

masala”, w

IN ENTREPRE

uster India

Maharashtr

s largest sta

second ric

on 13 milli

one of them

%) mostly i

. The cluste

anced film

merged and

ecame quic

which system

ENEURSHIP

is a rising

a is the eco

ate econom

chest state

on). Indian

m. Bollywoo

n Hindi. Bo

er became c

technology

disintegra

ckly saturat

matically co

FOR THE CR

star as the

onomic pow

my GSDP ab

in terms o

n film indus

od is the clu

ollywood is

competitive

y from Laho

ated the p

ted in late 4

mbined sto

EATIVE INDU

e world’s 12

werhouse o

bout $ 110

f GDP per

stry consist

uster locate

the oldest

e after recei

ore after pa

roduction

40s, Bollyw

ory genres li

USTRIES

2th largest

of India and

billion com

capita. Hom

s of multip

ed in Mumb

film cluster

ving a large

rtition of P

system int

wood came

ke comedy

economy w

d home to t

mparable to

me to India

ple regional

bai, produci

r in India, d

e inflow of H

Pakistan. A l

to multiple

up with an

y and roman

with a GDP

the Bollywo

Kansas (US

a’s largest c

l clusters, a

ing the larg

dating back

Hindi speak

large group

layers. Af

n original st

nce along w

4

P of

ood

SA)

city

and

gest

k to

king

p of

fter

tyle

with


5

symbol‐driven song and dance in order to attract viewers across regions. Because of wide

popularity of “masala” style, Bollywood today still dominates segments like music and TV across

regions in India. Other film clusters in India such as one in Hyderabad, called “Tollywood”

produces second largest number of films mostly in Telugu. Other clusters produce films mainly in

their regional language.

Business ecosystems

Business networks In the boom years of the Internet, there was an almost universal euphoria

about the potential of business networks. Vas, connected communities of companies would enjoy

unheard of efficiencies in operations and innovation. New technologies would disrupt traditional

companies and create unprecedented opportunities for innovation, as well as for the growth of

new companies. Networks effects – the increasing value of a product or service as the number of

people using it grows – would create enormous value and remove barriers to entry in different

businesses. But things were not so simple as the disastrous failures of companies like Webvan

made clear. The implosion of the Internet bubble made it obvious that members of a network

share a common fate, meaning that they could rise and fall together. The stunning reversal of the

virtuous circle left many question the power of business networks. The analogy between business

networks and biological ecosystems can aid this understanding by highlighting certain pivotal

concepts about the health of business ecosystems.

Productivity The ability to convert nonbiological outputs, such as sunlight and mineral nutrients

into living outputs – populations or organisms or biomass. One business equivalent is the return

on invested capital.

Robustness To provide durable benefits to the species that depend on it, a biological ecosystem

must persist in the face of environmental changes. Similarly, a business ecosystem should a

business ecosystem should be capable of surviving disruptions such as unforeseen technological

change.

Niche creation It is also important for ecological systems to exhibit variety, the ability to support a

diversity of species. In the business equivalent is the ability to absorb external shocks and the

potential for productive innovation. This is the capacity to increase meaningful diversity through

the creation of valuable new functions, or niches.


6

Creative mega regions

Clustering force Today’s key economic factors—talent, innovation, and creativity—are not

distributed evenly across the global economy. They concentrate in specific locations. It’s obvious

how major new innovations in communications and transportation allow economic activity to

spread out all over the world. What’s less obvious is the incredible power of the clustering force.

In today’s creative economy, the real source of economic growth comes from the clustering and

concentration of talented and productive people. New ideas are generated and our productivity


7

increases when we locate close to one another in cities and regions. The clustering force makes

each of us more productive, which in turns makes the places we inhabit much more productive,

generating great increases in output and wealth.

The central axis Because of the clustering force, cities and regions have become the true engines

of economic growth. Today, more than half the world’s population lives in urban areas. In the

United States, more than 90 percent of all economic output is produced in metropolitan regions,

while just the largest five metro regions account for 23 percent of it. And cities and their

surrounding metropolitan corridors are morphing into massive mega‐regions, home to tens of

millions of people producing hundreds of billions and in some cases trillions of dollars in economic

output. Place remains the central axis of our time—more important to the world economy and our

individual lives than ever before.

Bundles of “public goods” The economist Charles Tiebout argued that communities specialize in

the bundles of services or “public goods” they offer—such as education, police, fire, parks, and

what not. Different bundles of services and different qualities of services come with a price, paid

as taxes. So when we choose a place, we’re not only selecting a physical location—we’re also

picking the bundle of goods and services that will be available to us there. People will “vote with

their feet,” selecting the particular community which offers goods and services compatible with

their particular preferences and needs. Some people prefer great schools and are prepared to pay

for them. Single people, or those whose kids are out of the house, will value schools much less:

They are more likely to desire nice restaurants, world‐class beaches, great golf courses, and lower

taxes. Tiebout’s model provides a basic logic for thinking about what we value in our communities.

When given a wide range of choices, we need to identify our key needs and priorities and then

find a place that meets them at a price we are willing and able to pay.

EUROPEA

What is

innovat

potters,

agnostic

manufa

bounda

AN COURSE I

s the Creat

ion ‐ by pe

, bohemian

c and emp

cturing an

ries; creativ

IN ENTREPRE

ive Econom

eople paid

ns as broker

ploys creativ

nd agricultu

ve occupati

ENEURSHIP

my? The cre

to think; it

rs, entertai

ve workers

ure. The C

ons have in

FOR THE CR

eative econ

t is as muc

ners as ent

s who work

Creative Ec

nfiltrated ev

EATIVE INDU

nomy is an

h about ar

trepreneurs

k across all

conomy is

very part of

USTRIES

economy d

chitects as

s. The creat

industries

industry

the econom

driven by k

artists, pro

tive econom

and secto

neutral an

my.

nowledge a

ogrammers

my is indust

rs – includ

nd knows

8

and

s as

try‐

ing

no


9

Creative industries

Cultural and commercial Creative industries can be defined as the area of overlap between

cultural and commercial activities. They involve the supply of goods and services that contain a

substantial element of artistic, imaginative or intellectual effort, or that are associated with and

play a vital role in sustaining cultural activities.

The boundary is a matter of debate; for example, what forms of entertainment are included. They

typically include film, television, video, music, the visual and performing arts, advertising,

publishing, design activity, software and new digital media. Creative activities have distinctive

properties that affect their organization, economic impact and geography.

Uncertainty How consumers will value a new product because of its original, often unique

character ? This makes communication between producers and consumers important and

encourages sophisticated intermediaries, such as commissioning agents and distributors. Their

powerful position in understanding and shaping consumer preferences makes access vital for

producers. The uncertainty of consumer reaction also means a high risk of product failure, so

attracting investment is difficult and ways of sharing risk are important. This helps to explain the

common ownership and alliances that exist between producers, distributors and cinema owners in

the film industry. This vertical integration gives market power to control what films are shown.

Source: Martin Prosperity Institute

Source: Martin Prosperity Institute

EUROPEA

Internal

failure.

Centred

involved

consum

integrity

objectiv

make in

individu

Diverse

dramas

tempor

for new

such as

location

Heterog

and cha

organiza

teams

facilitat

coordin

AN COURSE I

l economie

d on the ind

d. Creative

mers do no

y or techn

ves, especia

ncome gene

ual, cultural

e and speci

) require v

arily. This c

w producers

film, televi

n of product

geneous an

aracter, wh

ational arra

and freela

e essential

ation that r

IN ENTREPRE

es of scale

dividual Th

e producers

t notice or

ical proficie

ally for ‘hig

eration and

and politic

alized skills

very divers

complicates

s. The public

ision and po

tion.

nd irregular

hich create

angements

ncers. Soc

exchange

result from

ENEURSHIP

also reduce

ere is often

s may care

r value as

ency. This

gh’ or ‘alter

business vi

al values do

s Some cre

se and spe

s their orga

c profile of

op music st

r Creative p

es awkward

and labour

ial networ

of ideas a

fragmentat

FOR THE CR

e the cost

n a high deg

e deeply a

much, suc

can create

rnative’ cul

iability mor

o not featur

eative produ

ecialized sk

nization an

popular en

tars. Celebr

products ar

d and inef

r markets ca

rks among

and informa

tion.

EATIVE INDU

of product

gree of indi

bout attrib

ch as origi

e a tension

tures rathe

re difficult t

re as promi

ucts (such a

kills and kn

d can be ve

ntertainmen

rities may e

re often he

fficient disc

an assist th

individuals

ation, and

Source

USTRIES

tion and he

ividual skill,

butes of th

nality, puri

between c

er than ‘po

than in man

nently.

as feature

nowledge t

ery costly, c

nt can creat

xert a stron

eterogeneo

continuities

e process,

s and asso

reduce som

e: Martin Prospe

elp to spre

, talent and

heir produc

ity, meanin

cultural an

pular’ form

ny other ind

films or ma

to be brou

creating ba

te powerful

ng pull on t

us and irre

s in produc

including p

ociated ins

me of the

erity Institute

ad the risk

d commitme

cts that m

ng, aesthet

d commerc

ms. It tends

dustries whe

ajor televis

ught togeth

rriers to en

personaliti

the timing a

egular in sc

ction. Flexi

project—bas

titutions m

difficulties

10

k of

ent

ost

ics,

cial

to

ere

ion

her

ntry

ies,

and

cale

ble

sed

may

of