The Global Media Market

Globalisation in media is no longer simply about access to a wider range of media from different countries. The disintegration of global ‘boundaries’, together with capitalism, has led to a new wave of media production that is both local and global at the same time. What we are seeing are television shows and films, which have a noticeably global formula, but have become cultural hybrids.

For such media production to succeed, it is necessary for global production companies working within convergent media environments to tailor media to the individual consumer, as opposed to attempting to appeal to a homogenous audience (Tay & Turner, 2008). Successful global media is thus a media that can traverse a global community whilst remaining culturally different (Voltmer, 2008).

While it may be appealing from a business point of view to adopt the widespread US media model on a global scale, the reality is that the varying political, cultural and economic framework of various countries will simply not allow for it (Voltmer, 2008). Varying levels of government control, consumer attitudes towards media, cultural values, and the strength of the economy, are all play, and will always be reflected in the media market.

It is not surprising then that the international media we experience has recognisable elements of Western consumer culture, and yet has a cross-cultural resonance, depending on the cultures being represented in the media form. This is largely within international co-productions, but is also evident in local media that has adopted a Western formula – for example the Chinese dating show If Your Are The One.

25111_500Of course, the adaptations can go too far. For example, popular American TV show Friends has had widespread popularity across the US, UK and Asia. Due to its popularity, the Chinese TV show iPartment emerged, which is starkly similar to Friends – following a group of young adults, living in the city. The show received much criticism from Chinese viewers, particularly after it reached cable networks (Gye, 2012). Whilst the show’s producers admitted to some plagiarism, a spokesman maintained that it is not a copy, and simply a product of comedic stereotypes, that pays homage to American sitcoms (Gye, 2012). Is globalisation destroying originality and imagination? Whilst it is necessary for a global media market to recognise that there are cultural cliché’s and experiences that have universal appeal, it is important not to get too caught up in being ‘Western’ to the point of losing creativity.

Skins_uk_2This can even happen within Western countries – and go just as horribly wrong. Take the TV show Skins for example. A hugely successful show in Britain, and widely watched in Australia, it was adapted by MTV for an American audience. Instead of airing the original TV show, MTV filmed the entire first season with American actors, and following the script practically word for word. What MTV failed to realise was that the shows popularity was not due to any universal ‘teenage’ experience, but rather the unique, quirkiness of the British characters and youth culture, with many idiosyncrasies that did not translate across to American culture (Jen, 2010). Needless to say, the show did not air for very long.

 

Sources:

Jen, 2010, Skins USA (MTV): Complete Rip Off of British Version of Skins, TV Fiends, Web Blog Post, 24 October, viewed 5 May 2013, <http://tvfiends.com/2010/10/24/skins-usa-mtv-complete-rip-off-of-british-version-of-skins/&gt;.

Gye, H 2012, ‘A Chinese knock-off too far? Shanghai TV show under fire for ‘ripping off’ Friends down to the scripts, characters and that sofa’, Daily Mail UK, 7 August, accessed 5 May 2013, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184727/Chinese-TV-iPartment-ripping-Friends.html&gt;.

Tay, J and Turner, G 2008, ‘What is Television? Comparing Media Systems in the Post-Broadcast Era’, Media International Australia, no.126, pp 71-81.

Voltmer, K 2008, ‘Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West’, Central European Journal of Communication, vol. 1, no. 1, pp 23-40.