What impact does media ownership have
upon the range of products available to audiences?
The US film industry is
the most profitable in the world. Hollywood’s golden era of filmmaking is
considered to be between 1930 and 1948 and 5 major studios formed the hierarchy
of Hollywood. However, in 1948 the US Supreme Court ruled that the major
companies were dominating the industry and ordered them to sell their cinemas
and end block booking. However, the contemporary Hollywood film studios still
dominate the film markets, both in the US and overseas. This is because the
studios are part of huge, multinational conglomerates that own companies in
almost all areas of the media. In this
essay I will discuss the impact that major media conglomerates have on the range
of products available to audiences, specifically British audiences.
Disney film studio is
an interesting case study to use when exploring media ownership and, as of
2010, is the largest media conglomerate, in terms of revenue, in the world. Disney
is a horizontally integrated company, which means that it has invested in
multiple areas of the media, predominantly in film, television and entertainment.
Other subsidiaries of Disney include, Buena Vista Music group, The Disney
Channel and Marvel Studios. This means that Disney media products can be
produced, distributed and exhibited across the different media platforms that
are owned by the company.
Disney’s High School
Musical franchise is an example of how the film market is saturated by big
conglomerates. Disney owns numerous media platforms, including theme parks and
merchandise. On the release of the films, Disney released accompanying
merchandise, such as CDs, clothes, perfumes, toys, etc. Disney’s distribution
arm was able to ensure that the films were successfully released across the
globe, through large marketing budgets and related products. Hollywood
blockbusters are no longer just a viewing spectacle but media events where the
fans are able to immerse themselves in the world of the films.
Marketing and
distribution power is increasingly important in the contemporary film industry.
In order to combat film piracy, the simultaneous global release of film is now
common practice for Hollywood studios. However, this requires an enormous
amount of funding. Therefore, smaller film industries, such as the British film
industry, are at a distinct disadvantage without the financing and scope of
their American counterparts. Not only does a worldwide release combat film
piracy but also saturate the market further with American films and related
merchandise.
Despite sharing the
same language, UK films repeatedly perform significantly lower at the UK and
the worldwide box office. Hollywood’s continuing domination of the global film
industry is arguably due to the amount of money that is invested by the
studios. The budgets behind Hollywood blockbusters enable special effects and
high-profile stars which contribute to such productions out-performing British
films. British audiences, as well as global audiences, are used to the
high-concept productions, formulaic genres and high production values provided
by Hollywood movies. The top grossing films in the UK in 2012 shows that
Skyfall and The Dark Knight Rises were the most successful. Only 2 out of 20
were independent British films, The Woman in Black and The Best Exotic Marigold
Hotel. Despite the fact that The Woman in Black was the most successful British
film of 2012, it was co-distributed by distributed by the American CBS. This
means that a portion of the profits will go overseas.
Getting funding for
British films is difficult and often comes from multiple sources. Major
contributors for financing films come from television, such as Film4 and the
BBC. Also, the National Lottery is a vital source of funding for British
cinema. For example, the film Submarine (2010) was funded by Film4, Film agency
for Wales and Warp films, amongst others. Film4 has played an enormous role in
the British film industry and tight form its conception it has sought to
promote British talent and culture. It seems that the difficulty with British
films is the limited distribution reach and the reliance on American companies
for international distribution. To make matters worse, David Cameron, in his
proposals for a more successful film industry, suggests that funding should be
invested in writers and directors who have had previous international success.
This will inevitably limit the amount of British films being made and make it
harder for new up-and-coming talent to emerge.
Britain has some of the
best filmmaking talent in the world; from directors, actors and writers to
post-production companies and technicians. Also, British talent has created
hugely successful intellectual properties such as Harry Potter and James Bond and
these films rate extremely highly in the 100 highest grossing films of all
time. Despite the fact that the Harry Potter films were filmed in Britain, most
of the profits made from the films went straight back to Warner Bros. Whilst
this is excellent for providing jobs for British talent, productions such the
Harry Potter films only qualify as British because of their cultural content.
The continuing
migration of British stars to the US is also an issue for the UK film industry.
Daniel Day Lewis made his film debut in the Channel 4 funded My Beautiful
Laundrette in 1985 and in the 2013 Oscars, Daniel Day Lewis became the first
person to win 3 awards for best actor for the US film Lincoln. In order to gain
global success, stars have to ‘make it’ in Hollywood. Both British and American
audiences are attracted to star power and will often go to watch a film based
on the actors and usually, the high budgets of American films enable star-studded
casts. Other hugely successful films, such as The Dark Knight, have British
directors. Unfortunately, once again it is the US which benefit from this
hugely creative British talent.
