Media Ownership Sample Answer

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.