The advent of democracy across the Western nations has also led to a scenario where few people own most of the available channels of communication. Media conglomerates have taken over the operations of digital media in most countries across Europe and America. The situation is not different in Canada where as of 2007 conglomerates were in control of most media and cultural industries. Beginning in the 1990s, Canada witnessed several deals that were aimed at bringing the ownership of media houses under mutual conglomerates. The power of conglomerates in regards to media ownership in the country is visible in the current broadcasting and cultural networks in Canada. Most media outfits in Canada are “owned by affiliate networks, although even private affiliate stations are mostly owned by non-network conglomerates rather than local companies” (Wagman & Urquhart, 2012, p. 121). In some countries, the influence of media conglomerates is often curtailed and some aspects of their influence are adequately controlled. However, Canada is a democratic country where the government and other organs operate in accordance with the spirit of free markets and capitalism. Conglomerates are mainly aimed at increasing profit margins. However, conglomerate ownership style has also been found to have a significant impact on other aspects of Canada’s media and cultural industries. The effects of conglomerate-styled ownership touch on fairness, political influence, globalization, cultural sovereignty, and content diversity. The conglomerate-style ownership in media and cultural industries has far-reaching impacts on governmental policies, investors, and consumers.
Conglomerates are responsible for lifting the barriers that apply to internal and external economic boundaries. Cultural industries have taken a central economic role in Canada and several cross-border aspects apply to the economic-sovereignty of the country. Through conglomeration, media companies are seeking to integrate their resources with the aim of maximizing profits. In the course of these activities, most media companies are crossing internal and external borders. For instance, in today’s broadcast media it is hard to demarcate the boundary between sales and news. On most occasions, news companies are packaging news as sales and vice versa. Most conglomerates cover businesses in several areas of the economy such as television broadcasts, sales of electronic items, and movie and music distribution. Consequently, these conglomerates turn to media and cultural industries to sway the opinions and perceptions of the consumers when it comes to other products of interest. Hesmondhalgh addresses the issues of both the conglomerate and the conglomeration. According to the author, “a conglomerate is a corporation that consists of a group of businesses dealing in different products and services while a conglomeration is the process by which an industry, sector, or economy becomes more marked by the presence and influence of such corporations” (Hesmondhalgh, 2013, p. 145). The internal and external forces that apply to both conglomerates and conglomeration are important to the inter-boundary financial factors. For instance, the Canadian culture can be used to further the agendas of conglomerates albeit through unorthodox means. Some observers have termed the conglomerates as the boundary-less phenomenon where there are no walls between “news, entertainment, sales, and other economic divisions” (Wagman & Urquhart, 2012). The main problem with the boundaryless phenomenon is that it is possible for some entities to become compromised. For instance, most news broadcasters operate under public trust. However, news broadcasters who are part of a conglomeration might appear suspicious to their viewers when it comes to their choice of content. The main goal of any conglomerate is to make profits and media and culture companies will not hesitate to cross any boundaries to achieve this aim.
Concentration and conglomeration have a significant impact on the diversity of the content that is made available to the Canadian population. Conglomeration only represents the interests of a few people. Consequently, there is concern that the practice leads to the loss of diversity when it comes to broadcast and entertainment content. In economic terms, loss of content diversity has been explained using the Homogenization Hypothesis. It is assumed that in areas where conglomeration has not taken its toll, the news and other entertainment content is diverse to coincide with the elements of competition. However, this argument is often counteracted by the knowledge that media and cultural content is produced in accordance with consumer demand. Therefore, content diversity cannot be repressed by concentration or conglomeration. Furthermore, conglomerates will only suppress content when profits are at stake. For example, all news companies compete to deliver content that is most likely to have a positive impact on viewership. On the other hand, conglomerates are only different from state owned corporations. All other privately owned media and cultural establishments are driven by the need to make profits. Consequently, only state sponsored establishments can be able to correct the deviation that results from the need to maximize profits. It is important to note that the state media and other such establishments are also subject to external influences apart from the need to make profits. One observer notes that conglomerates operate in a very peculiar manner when it comes to content diversity. For example, it is noted that “most sectors of the media simultaneously seek to manufacture and sell two completely different products to two completely different sets of consumers- they sell content to audiences; and they sell audiences to advertisers” (Napoli, 2009, p. 163). Diversity of content might be affected by the institution of concentration and conglomeration. On the other hand, it is evident that conglomeration and concentration does not ultimately affect content diversity. In Canada, there are no any major issues when it comes to loss of content diversity. Instead, the only issue that affects media and cultural industries in Canada involves lack of ownership-diversity. Lack of content diversity in Canada’s cultural industry can only be directly linked to profit issues. One industry expert reveals that
“the reason why all of the pop sensations that are produced by the music industry look, sound, and seem the same is because the corporations stick to the safe bet…they do not want to risk putting out an artist which may or may not hit….they continue with what has worked in the past” (Napoli, 2009).
Conglomerates have very little direct impact on content diversity. However, the conglomerates’ need to make profits has a major impact on content diversity.
Conglomeration-styled media can be used to instigate negative influences on the country’s political class. Media and cultural industries hold a considerable amount of power because they have the potential to hoard a lot of economic resources. Furthermore, media and cultural industry conglomerates also wield a lot of political power because their ownership is concentrated on a few individuals. Ordinarily, media is often be used to propagate and pursue the political agenda of some individuals. Therefore, politicians can use concentrated media to control how their image is projected to the general public. On the contrary, media moguls can use the influence of their conglomerates to give some politicians a ‘media blackout’. On some occasions, the media industry has been known to ‘kill’ the political agendas of individuals that it does not consider friendly. Conglomerates and concentrations are one of the tools that can be used to eliminate unfriendly agendas. The same concept applies to political policy formulation. Media conglomerates are important when political decisions that apply to public policies are concerned. For example, during referendums on important national issues, the media is extensively used to educate the public. Concentrations and conglomerates can easily be used by individuals with vested interests to sway public opinions. Politicians have always recognized the power that is wielded by media magnates. Consequently, most media moguls are part of politicians’ inner circles. Conglomerate-styled ownership can be used to impact political processes in Canada. Nevertheless, the political impact of these media and cultural industries can also be used to impact political processes in a positive manner. For example, on some occasions the media provides voter and civic education to citizens across the country.
Conglomerates in the film industry are in the business of eliminating the minor producers within Canada. Currently, the leading movies in terms of viewership are all produced by the leading film production conglomerates in North America. On the other hand, none of the films that are produced by the leading independent film producers in Canada is featured on the top-ten list of the most watched films in the month of May. The domination of the conglomerate-styled film producers in Canada and America has detrimental effects on the sovereignty of Canadian culture. For instance, most of the leading film producers in Canada are forced to abandon some significant aspects of the Canadian culture. Some of the effects that film conglomerates have on the local Canadian industry are inevitable. For instance, most conglomerates maintain profitability and relevance through overproduction. Overproduction is meant to help big companies such as Universal Studios to maintain profitability by ensuring that “their ratio of hits to misses remains up” (Hesmondhalgh, 2013). Companies that do not have the economic power of the big film production conglomerates are forced to tailor-make their products in a manner that ensures that they maintain profitability. Consequently, several local media companies end up accruing bad debts because they cannot be able to maintain a viable ratio of hits to misses. In addition, unlike the conglomerates, local film producers have to work with very minimum advertising budgets. Tensions between commercial and creative interests affect both the small industry players and conglomerates. Nevertheless, these tensions are particularly high for the conglomerates that have to please a series of stakeholders including industry executives, financiers, and fans. The impact of conglomerate film producers on Canada’s cultural industry is highlighted by lack of diversity of content, suppression of the local film industry, and general lack of creativity.
Concentration in media and cultural industries is not problematic to the country and its institutions. All the developments that surround the issues of conglomeration and concentration are not specific to the media and cultural industries but they also apply to other spheres of the economy. Before spreading to the media and cultural industries, conglomeration first took part in the pharmaceutical and financial sectors. Furthermore, conglomeration is mainly meant to serve the interests of capitalism and free markets. Concentration was also meant to form formidable regional industry players who could perpetuate the interests of the national economies. The main concentrations in Hollywood were initially meant to represent the interests of the state of California and the United States at large. Concentration of industries does not create any specific problems but it only highlights issues that coincide with other elements of capitalism. In Canada, mediascape shows various aspects of concentration. Concentration in most media and cultural industries in Canada is not easy to gauge because it is variable. Opponents of concentration have faulted the system for contributing to very high or low subscription rates. Furthermore, concentration has been found to foster unhealthy competition practices and have a negative impact on the global competitiveness of local products. Nevertheless, not all these problems are restricted to industry concentration but they also apply to all other elements of capitalism.
Conglomerate-styled businesses have a significant impact on Canada’s media and cultural industries. Conglomerates are responsible for bringing down the boundaries that govern the media business. Conglomerates also have a significant impact on the diversity of the content that is produced by media and cultural industries in Canada. Nevertheless, the impact of the conglomerates on media content is mostly dictated by the organizations’ need to make profit. Currently, the film industry is faced with issues of conglomerates dominating the business in both Canada and the United States. Politicians have been known to use conglomerates and media concentrations to further their own agendas. Overall, concentrations and conglomerations of the media industry do not cause any significant problems in Canada because they are mere extensions of capitalism.
References
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). Cultural industries, (3rd ed.) New York: Routledge.
Napoli, P. M. (2009). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. Columbia, Canada: Columbia University Press.
Wagman, I., & Urquhart, P. (2012). Cultural industries. ca: Making sense of Canadian media in the digital age. Ontario, Canada: Lorimer.