GLOBAL MEDIA GIANTS Edited by Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gomez, and Janet Wasko R Routledge ‘wjerbancli Group NEW YOR AND LONDONFin published 2017 by Routledge ‘71 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Rowdedge 2 Park Square, Mikon Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 ARN Routledge imprint ofthe Taylor &e Fans Group a informs basins (© 2017 Taylor & Francis The Hight ofthe editor tobe identified athe author of the edo ter and ofthe athos for thei individual chapen, has been acted in accordance mith sections 77 and 78 ofthe Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, AL righs reserved: No put ofthis book may be reprinted or reprodaced or utized in any fom or by any elecwoaic, mechanical or ther means, ow known oF hereafter invented ching photocopying and vecering, rin ay iteration storage or eevl stem, without permission in wating fom the publishes, Trademark msc: Product or corporate names may be tradematk or regiered ‘esdemarks, and ae used only for idenifaton ad explains witha etn to inkinge. Lira of Cana Catering in Pabiction Date Names Birknbine, Benjamin J, eto. | Gomes, Redo, eitor. | Watk, Janet, tor. ‘Tie: Global medi gat / edited by Benjamin J. Bickinine, Redsige Gémer, and Janet Wate, Derrption: New York, London: Routledge, 2016 entifen: LCCN 2016001248) ISBN 9781138927704 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138927711 (bk) Sobjects: LCSH: Mas media~Econonsi apec, | Masi medis—Management, | ‘Mae media and glabsltion. (Chisato: LEC 96228 C573 2016 | DDC 338.4/75022~—de23 LC record amiable at hep Neen loc gov/2016001248 ISBN: 978-1-136.92770-4 (Hb) ISBN: 978-1138.92771-1 GBR) ISBN: 978-1315-68253-4 (bh) ‘Typeset in Bembo and Stone Sant by Florence Production Ld, Stodlegh, Devon, UKCONTENTS About the Contributors Introduction Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gomez, and Janet Wasko PART | Global Giants 1 The Walt Disney Company Janet Wasko 2. National Amusements Eileen R. Meehan 3 Time Warner Scott Fitzgerald 4 Comeast Corporation ‘Lee McGuigan and Victor Pickard 5. News Corporation Graham Murdock PART Regional and Geolinguistical Giants 6 Grupo Televisa Rodrigo Gémez uw 26 51 72 92 109 itME Contents 7. América Movil Gabriel Sosa Plata 8 Bertelsmann SE & Co. Jorg Becker 9 Vivendi Philippe Bouguiltion 10 Mediaset (Gruppo Mediaset) Benedetta Brevini and Lukasz Swiatek 11 Telefenica Gabriela Martinez 12 Grupo Prisa Luis A. Albomox 13. Grupo Globo Joseph D. Straubhaar 14 Sony Corporation William Kunz PART I Regional Overviews 15 South America Guillermo Mastin and Martin Becerra 16 ‘The Middle East Gholam Khiabany 17 Sub-Saharan Aftica ‘Téwodros W. Workneh 18 Eastern Europe Sandra Basié Hrvatin and Brankica Petkovié 19 South Asia Pradip Ninan Thomas 20 Fast Asia and China Yu Hong 125 144 191 226 239 255 237 273 287 312 326 340125 144 163 181 191 206 226 239 255 257 273 287 312 326 340 21 Australia and New Zealand ‘Martin Hirst, Wayne Hope, and Peter Thompson PARTIV Internet Giants 22 Apple Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell 23. Microsoft Corporation Benjamin J. Brkinbine 24 Google: Information Organizer Micky Lee 25. Amazon.com Andrew Calabrese and Tyler Rollins 26 Facebook (Chistian Fuchs PARTV Global Ratings and Advertising Giants 27 Nielsen Holdings Daniel Biltereyst and Lennart Soberon 28 Interpublic Group of Companies Christopher Chévez Conclusion: Reflections on Media Power Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gémez, and Janet Wasko Index Contents vit 351 413 428 445 447 464 a7 484ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Luis A. Albomoz is a founding partner and former president (2007-2013) of the Latin Union of Political Economy of Information, Communication and Culture (ULEPICC), a scientific association. He is a researcher atthe Argentinian National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) at the Gino Germani Research Institute, University of Buenos Aites, He isa member of research group Television-Cinema: Memory, Representation and Industry at the University Carlos Ill of Madrid and author of Periodismo digital (2007), La televisi6n digital tenesre: Experencias nacionales y divesidad en Europa, América y Asia (2012), and Power, Media, Culture: A Critical View from the Political Economy of Communication (2013) Sandra Bailé Hrvatin (Ph.D., Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, 1997) isa profesor at the Univenity of Primorka, Slovenia, Her scientific and research work focuses on the isues of media policy, political communication, communication law and practice, and international ‘communication. She is author of several books on media policy, public sevice broadcasting, and ‘media ownership. She regularly publishes che results of her research work in national and intemationa scientific magazines, Prof. Balié Hivatn is alo a member of the editorial board of the Medic Watc journal in Slovenia and is a regular contributor. She served, inter alia, 8 4 chairperson of the Slovene Broadcasting Council, a member of the Independent Media Commission in Kosovo, and a member of the Slovene Advertsing Ethics Commision. Since 2000, she has worked a an independent expert fr the Council of Europe, OSCE, and the European ‘Commision in the field of media regulation. She is ako a media and human rights activist and columnist for several newspapers. Martin Becerra is professor of the School of Communication at National University of Quilmes and the University of Buenos Aires, He alo is a researcher at the Argentinian National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET). Becern’s most recent book is De la omegenia 4 la concnmain: Pots de Medios en Argentina y América Latina (2015) and he is co-author of “WikiMediaLeals: la relacin entre medios y gobiemos en América Latina bajo el prisma de WikiLeaks' (2012), and many other articles. J6rg Becker is an honorary profesor of political science at Marburg University and Managing Dizector of the KomiTech Institute for Communication and ‘Technology Research in Germany. His work focuses on intemational and comparative media, and culture and technology policy. Daniel Bittereyst is a profesor in film and media studies at Ghent University, Belgium, where he leads the Centre for Cinema and Media Studies. He has published widely on media cultureof the Latin Union PICO), a scientific cal Research Council ines. He isamember 1y at the University terreste: Experencias ture: A Critical View + 1997) isa professor reuses on the issues and international « broadcasting, and + in national and editorial board of ced, inter alia, as a dependent Media Dommission. Since “and the European rights activist and versity of Quilmes National Scientific 5 De la convergenca 1e is co-author of 1a bajo el prisma ity and Managing arch in Germany. nology policy. Belgium, where on media culture Contributors tx and history, mainly in academic journals and volumes. He recently edited Silencing Cinema (2013), ‘Moralizing Cinema (2015), and is now preparing The Routledge Companion to New Cinema History (with Richard Maby and Phillippe Meer). Benjamin J. Birkinbine is an assistant professor at the Reynolds School of Journalism and the Center for Advanced Media Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno. He holds a Ph.D. in “Media Studies from the University of Oregon, and his research focuses on the political economy of communication and digital technologies. Recently he has been researching the increasing involvement of corporations in free and open-source sofware comiunites Philippe Bouquillion is professor of communication at Université Paris 13 (France), member of LabSic_(htep:/labsic-univ-paris13.f1/En/index.php/bouquillion-philippe), and head of the Observatory of Transformations of the Cultural Industries (www.observatoire-omnic.org/). He is ‘working on the industrialzation and commodification of culture and communication, using methods developed in the political economy of communication, His work focuses on concentration and ‘Snancialization in the cultural and communication industries, public policies towards the creative industries, collaborative Intemet, cultural diversity, telecommunications industries in Japan, design and craft in India, as well as theories of the cultural and creative industries. Benedetta Brevini isa lecturer in communication and media at the University of Sydney, Visiting Fellow of Centre for Law Justice and Journalism at City University, and Research Associate at Sydney Democracy Network. She is co-editor of the volume Beyond WikiLeaks: Impliations for the Puture of Communications, Journalism & Society (Palgrave Macrnillan, 2013) and the author of Public Serice Broadcasting Online: A Comparative European Policy Study of PSB 2.0 (Palgrave ‘Macmillan in August 2013). Before joining academia, she was working as a journalist in Milan, New York, and London, Andrew Calabrese is a professor of media studies at the University of Colorado, His research ‘emphasizes the relevance of critical social and political theory in explaining issues of media and citizenship, media policy at national and transnational level, and uses of media for social movement activism. His publications focus on the role of media in twentieth and twentieth-fist century concepts of civil society and the public sphere; the politics and activism related to media reform, communication rights and social justice; social mobilizations that rely on digital communication; and uses of digital media in nonviolent civil disobedience. His current research focuses on media and food politics. Christopher Chavez (Ph-D., Univenity of Southern California) is an assistant professor at the University of Oregon and his research lies atthe intersection of globalization, media, and culture. He is author of Reinventing the Latino Television Viewer: Language Ideology and Practice and is com editor of Identity: Beyond Tradition and MeWorld Neoliberaliom. His work has appeared in peer reviewed journals including Consumption, Mavkets and Culture, Intertional Journal of Communication, and Critical Studies in Media Communication. Priot to his doctoral research, Chris worked as an advertising executive at several advertising agencies including TBWA Chiat/Day, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, and Publicis & Hal Riney. Scott Fitzgerald is senior lecturer in the Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Perth, ‘Australia, His research interests cover cultural industy corporations, creative work, public services, and new public management. He has recently published Corporations and Cull Industries: Time Wamer, Betelmsin end News Corration. Christian Fuchs is a professor at the University of Westminster, where he is director of the ‘Communication and Media Research Institute (CAMRI) and director of the Westminster InstituteX Contributors for Advanced Seuies. He isthe co-editor ofthe jounal mpleC: Communication, Capitan & Crue (eww trple-c.at) and a member ofthe European Sociological Association's Executive Commitee Rodrigo Gémez is an associate professor at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Cuajimalpa His research addreses the interactions of the communications policies and cultural industries in the Americas. He is former president of the Mexican Association of Communication Research (AMIC) and currently is the chair of the Political Economy section of te Intemational Asocation for Media and Communication Research ((AMCR). Martin Hirst is associate professor in journalism at Deakin Univesity, Melbourne, Australia. He {sa former journalist with research interests is political economy and journalism studies. ‘Yu Hong is an assistant professor in the Annenberg School of Communications at Univesity of| Southern California, Her research focuses on the political economy of Chinese media and communications, most recently on the development of the Internet. She is the author of Labor, (Class Formation, and China's Infrmationized Policy of Eonomic Development (2011) and is completing a new book titled Networking the Nation: Communication and Economic Restrturing in China. Wayne Hope is asociate professor in the School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. He isa researcher, teacher, blogger, and media commentator across the areas of New Zealand media history, New Zealand media ownership, public sphere analysis, the political economy of communication, sport-media relationships, globalization, and time. On the latter theme, Time, Communication and Global Cepitalism has been published, Wayne's other published work has appeared in Media, Culture and Society, the Intemational Journal of Communication ‘and Time and Society. Hle is joint editor of the online IAMCR journal, Political Eonomy of Communication. Gholam Khiabany teaches in the Department of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths, ‘University of London. He is the author of Ionian Media: The Paradox of Modersity and co-author of Blopistan, with Annabelle Srebemy. He is an editor of the Middle East Jounal of Cultue and Communication and is a member of the Council of Management of the Institute of Race Relations, Wiliam Kunz is an associate professor in the lnterdisiplinary Arts and Sciences Program atthe ‘Universy of Washington Tacoma. His research is grounded inthe critical political economy of communication, examining ownership and regulation in media industries. His frst book, Cale Conglomerate: Consolidation jn the Motion Picture and Television Industries, was an analysis of how changes in regulations and policies resulted in fewer and fewer voices in the television and fm marketplace. Currently, he is focusing on spor television through a book-length project that focuses on the analysis of national and regional sports networks, broadcast and cable, and the regulations and policies that impact ownership, distibution and cariage rates. Micky Lee (Ph.D. Oregon) isan asociate professor of media studies at Sufolk Universit, Boston, She has published one book, 18 journal articls and numerous essays on feminist political economy; telecommunications, new information, and communication technologies; and media, information, and finance. Gabriela Martinez is associate professor at the Schoo! of Joumalism and Communication at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on global tclecommunications, Latin American ‘media industries, and media and memory. She is the author of Latin American Telecmmunizations: Telefnica’s Conquest (2008). In addition, Martinez is documentary filmmaker whose work focuses con human rights isues and socio-political events in Latin Ametica. Among her latest works are Women, Media, and Retellon in Oaxaca (2008) and Keep Your Eyes on Guatemala 2013)4, Capitalism & Critique ‘ecutive Commitee 2potiana-Cuajimalpa cultural industries in munication Research ernational Association sourne, Australia, He alism studies tions at University of Chinese media and the author of Labor, 11) and is completing. ‘uring in China ‘Auckland University | commentator across ublic sphere analysis, tation, and time. On shed, Wayne's other smal of Communication Political Economy of tions at Goldsmiths, lemity and co-author ist Journal of Culture re Institute of Race rnees Program at the >olitical economy of is first book, Culture San analysis of how ‘evision and film length project that and cable, and the University, Boston 1n feminist political vologies; and media, Communication at ons, Latin American « Telecommunicatons: whose work focuses her latest works are tala (2013). Contributors xh Guillermo Mastrini has a Ph.D. in Communication Studies fiom Universidad! Complutense de Madrid, He is profesor of international communication policies and introduction to politcal economy of Communication at Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. He is alo a profesor at Universidad de Buenos Aires, Together with Martin Becerra, his published books include. Las duets de palabra and Los monopolis dela Verdad (both 2009) and Peredisas y magnates: Earutira -yeoncentain dels industiasclturls en América Latina (2006). He has abo published Mucho mid, _pocas lees: Eonomay polca en la comuniacion en ln Argentina (1920-2004) (2008) and Las palticas de comunicacin del Siglo XXI (with Ana Bizberge y Diego de Charras), among others. He was the president of the Argentine Federation of Soci! Communication Careers and head of the ‘Communication Science School at Universidad de Buenos Airs Richard Maxwell sa profesor of media studies at Queens College, City University of New York His recent publications include The Rowledge Companion to Laber and Meda (edie, 2018), Media andthe Elegial Crisis (co-edited with Jon Raundalen and Nina Lager Vesberg, 2014), and Greening the Media (co-authored with Toby Miller, 2012) Lee McGuigan isa Ph.D. student atthe Annenberg School for Communication a the University of Pennsylvania. He studies the business and cultural histories of television and advertising, the sociology of markets and consumption, and the political economy of technology, Lee is co-editor (with Vincent Manzerolle) of The Audience Commodity in a Digial Age: Revising a Creal Theory of Commer! Mea. His work has been published in New Media & Soy, Medi, Culture & Secety, Television & New Media, Jounal of Communication laguir, and Canadian Journal of Communication. Eileen R. Mechan is a professor in the Radio, Television, and Digital Media Department and a member of the graduate faculty in mass communications and media ars at Southern Illinois University. Her research examines intersections of politcal economy and materialist cultura studies. She is the author of Why TV Is Not Our Fault and co-editor of Sex and Money and Dazzled by Disney. Recent publications analyze Dog the Bounty Hunter, the hisory ofthe commodity audience, and trends in media conglomeration. She is featured in Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Research john A. Lent and Michelle Amazcen, eds) Toby Miller is an emeritus distinguished profesor, University of California, Riverside; Sic Walter ‘Murdoch Professor of Cultural Policy Studies, Murdoch University; profesor invtado, Escuela de Comunicacién Social, Universidad del Norte; profesor of journalism, media and cultural studies, Cardiff Universty/Prifysgol Caerdydd; and director of the Institute of Media and Creative Industries, Loughborough University in London. His work has been tansated into Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, Turkish, German, Italian, Farsi, and Swedish. His most recent volumes are The Sage Companion to Television Studies (co-edited, 2015), The Routledge Companion 4 Global Popular Culture (edited, 2015), Greening the Media (co-authored with Richard Maxwell, 2012), and Blow Up the Humanities (2012). Graham Murdock is a professor of culture and economy at Loughborough University. He is a pioneer in the study of the politcal economy of media and culture. His research is grounded in a distinctive approach to critical inquiry which combines insights and methods from across the social sciences and humanities to explore questions around change, power, inequality, risk, and representation. His recent publications include co-editorship of Money Talks: Media, Markets, Cris (2015), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communication (2011), The Idea ofthe Public Sphere (2010), and Digital Dynamics: Engagements and Discntiuities (2010). Brankica Petkovié, M.A. in sociology of culture, is researcher and project manager at the Peace Institute—Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies in Ljubljana. She is editor of the ‘Media Watch book series and Media Watch journal in Slovenia. Her work is focused on research,xii Contributors advocacy, and publishing activities in the field of media accountability, communication tights of Citizens and minority groups, media ownership, and media pluralism, She is author of articles and research reports, and co-author of books on the above-mentioned topics. She has been a project leader of national and regional research and advocacy projects on media and communication rights Of citizens, including the project Media Ownership and Its Impact on Media Independence and Pluralism in 18 countries of central, eastern and south-eastern Europe (2003-2004), and a current regional initiative South East European Media Observatory-Building Capacities and Coalitions for Monitoring Media Integrity and Advancing Media Reforms (2012-2016) Victor Pickard is an associate professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He has published over 50 scholarly articles and book chapters on the history and political economy of media and media activism, and his op-eds have appeared in news outlets such as The Guardian, The Hufington Post, and The Atlentc, He is the editor of Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights (with Robert McChesney) and The Fut of Internet Policy (with Peter Dechemey), and the author of Ameria’s Batle for Media Democracy. ‘Tyler Rollins is a Ph.D. candidate in Media Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder. His dissertation is a historical examination of domestic surveillance programs caried out by the US. government during the mid-20th century, with a focus on the intersection of surveillance, communication, law, and society. This work examines the arbitrary application of surveillance practices and the justifications used by federal agencies to intercept lawful communications of US. citizens, finding that surveillance is not a post-9/11 phenomenon but a perpetual State practice, ‘Tyler specializes in surveillance studies, media law, research methods, communication history, altemative media, and social movements. Lennart Soberon works asa researcher and teaching assistant for the faculty of Communication Sciences at the University of Ghent, where he is amember of the Centre for Cinema and Media Studies (CIMS). His research concerns the representation of contemporary conflicts in cinema and focusses on the construction of enemy images in American war and action films. Gabriel Sosa Plata is full-time professor and researcher at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco. He has published more than 30 academic articles and chapters in collective books. He is author of Technological Innovations of the Radio (Manuel Buendia Foundation, 2004) and The 1001 Radios (McGraw Hill, 1997). Sosa was formerly Audiences Advocate for the Mexican Institute for the Radio from 2011-2013 and for Noticias MVS from 2013-2015. He is also member of the consultant board of Article 19 association for Mexico and Central America. Joseph D. Straubhaar is the Amon G, Carter Centennial Professor of Communications in the Department of Radio~TV-Film at the University of Texas at Austin, His primary teaching, research, and writing interests are in global media, digital media, and the digital divide in the US. and other countries; Brazilian and Latin American television, media, and migration; and global television production and flow. Lukasz Swiatek is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Media and Communications in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, atthe University of Sydney in Australia, His doctoral research examines awards and prizes from the perspective of media and communications. He has taught in a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the department—including media globalization, public relations, and Australian media—as well asin the Bachelor of International and Global Scudies. Pradip Ninan Thomas is at the School of Communication and Arts, University of Queensland,munication rights of author of articles and ‘he has been a project communication rights lia Independence and ~2004), and a current acities and Coalitions 9), ommunication at the book chapters on the ave appeared in news fhe editor of Will the ture of Internet Poicy vagy orado, Boulder. His ried out by the U.S. tion of surveillance, ation of surveillance communications of ‘petual State practice, munication history, of Communication Cinema and Media conflicts in cinema ‘on films. versidad Autonoma sles and chapters in ' (Manuel Buendia formerly Audiences Noticias MVS from ion for Mexico and ‘munications in the yrteaching, research, de in the US. and sation; and global ‘munications in the is doctoral research ons. He has taught including media \or of International ity of Queensland, Contributors xl Hie has written extensively on the media in India, including a trilogy published by Sage between 2009 and 2012. His latest (2015) co-authored book (with Elske van de Flier) is Intenogating the ‘Theory and Practice of Communication for Social Change: The Basis for a Renewal, Peter Thompson is 2 senior lecturer in media studies at Victoria University of Wellington in [New Zealand. His broad area of research concerns the political economy of media, with specialist interests in media policy (especially public service and funding issues) and also communication processes in financial markets. Janet Wasko is the Knight Chair in Communication Research at Univensty of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, USA. She isthe author, co-author, or editor of 19 books, inchuding Understanding Disney: ‘The Manufacture of Fantasy and How Hollywood Werks. Her research and teaching focuses on the political economy of media, especially the political economy of film, as well as issues relating to democracy and media, She currently serves as the President of the International Asociation for ‘Media and Communication Research. ‘Téwodros W. Workneh is a postdoctoral fellow atthe School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon. Dr. Workneh broadly studies global media flows and the role of transnational ‘media industries in the production, distribution and consumption of content through critical political economy and postcolonial approaches. His latest project involves an investigation on the global telecommunications ecosystem from various perspectives including policy, political economy, and technology.INTRODUCTION Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gémez, and Janet Wasko During the hist three decades, media industries have generally been growing fster than most other industrial sectors. With the business opportunities afforded by technological convergence with telecommunications, as well as the rise of companies within information services, these industries are some of the most productive and profitable sectors of the world economy. In addition, these industries have been increasing their lobbying activities to bring about communication policy reforms as a way to support and expand their business models. Meanwhile, the level of con- centration in media/communication industries is growing, with media and telecommunications consolidition evident in many nations and regions. Asa result, scholars and policymakers around the world have expressed their concerns about the impact of media concentration, specifically as it relates to cultural diversity and political pluralism. More specifically, the power of media corporations has been increasing in differen, complex, and, at times, contradictory ways around the world. The power of these companies in economic, political, and symbolic terms has been a concern within national contexts 2s well sat the regional and global level. Thus, the importance of understanding media corporations is essential vo under- stand the political, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions of contemporary societies. To that end, this volume addresses these isues by offering an in-depth look at how media ‘corporate power works globally, regionally, and nationally. The book aso contributes to the growing body of rescarch on these topics, as well as to the policy process in some countries. Why This Book? And Why Now? Despite the challenges associated with undertaking this ambitious task, we are convinced that the time is right for such a project. The past ten year have been marked by significant changes in technology, including the growth and maturation of the so-called “Web 2.0” era, which is characterized by companies providing services rather than packaged sofeware, controlling robust clata sets that expand as more people use them, trusting users in the co-creation of products and services, hamessing collective intelligence, relying on customer self-service, providing software across multiple devices, and featuring lightweight user interfices, development models, and business models. In other words, technology companies have focused on providing interactive services to customers and gathering information about those users 28 way to sell those users to advertisers. The shift from packaged software to interactivity, a well as the companies that led this shif—exemplified by Google, Facebook, and other social media stes—were heralded as great2 Benjamin |. Birkinbine, Rockigo Gémez, and janet Wasko disrupters of the global economy. Indeed, these companies have enjoyed a significant rise to ‘economic power, as well 3s those companies that provide the hardware necesay to access these services, exemplified by Microsoft, Apple, Sony, and others. ‘The manufacture of smartphones, aptop computers, and other portable devices for accessing ‘media content and information services has ishered in an era of convergence, whereby the lines of previously separate business activities become blurred or altogether broken down. Thus, a symbiotic relationship has emerged between more traditional content producers (.., Disney, News, Corporation, Time Warner, National Amusements, Bertelsmann, et.) and the information-service companies that provide platforms for the delivery of digital content (i.c., Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.). But beyond this somewhat crude distinction between media content production and digital distribution platforms and services, many companies have sought to explicitly incorporate both within their corporate structures (ie., Comeast, Tencent, Telmex, Telefonica, ‘Televisa, and others). The effectiveness ofthese strategies has been varied, however, with some ‘companies finding success whereas other stil struggle to eam profits for shareholders. Nonetheless, as these lines have converged, diverged, or simply blurred, we needa reassessment of media power, particularly as it is practiced within differing national and international context, Furthermore, such an analysis is needed precisely because increasing technological convergence, digital (economic) disruption, and increased interconnectivity have been heralded as harbingers of an entirely new epoch in human history, whether economically, politically, ot culturally? Yet despite these celebratory accounts, the global economy stil struggles to find even a modicum of sustainable growth after the Great Financial Crisis that began in 2007-2008, when the burst of the speculative housing bubble in the United States sent shockwaves throughout the global economy, leaving many countries financially stressed at best, if not completely locked in the grips of indebtedness without any hope for repayment. The crisis and i aftermath have had profound implications for the global economy, and the crisis constitutes a critical juncture, whereby diverging viewpoints have vied for support ftom those who are most affected by the eri, On the one hand, the centers of global financial capital urged austerity a& a way to cut back state spending asa precondition for receiving additional loans to temporarily prop up the state. On the other hand, popular movements demanded an end to the vicious cycle of predatory lending that placed the state and its constituents within a seemingly never-ending cycle of indebtedness to intemational lenders > ‘This stragule to find altematives to austerity has been acutely important for those who have been most affected by the financial crisis. And, as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer than 100 billionaires worldwide, the number of people affected by the shamefil inequalities of the global capitalist system continues to grow. Indeed, recent estimates indicate thatthe richest 1% of people in the world own 48% of global wealth, and their share is projected to surpass 50% of global wealth by 2016. ‘These figures become even mote egregious when one considers thatthe richest 80 people in the world saw their wealth double during 2010-2014, and these 80 individuals hold the same amoune of wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people on earth. {In 2010, one would need to include the wealth of 388 billionaires to equal the combined wealth of the bottom 50% ofthe global population, but that number decreased to only 80 in 2014. Such figures ery out for alternatives to the gross inequalities ofthe global capitalist sytem, and yet austerity and the expansion of corporate rights continue to define the present era. This is not to say that countercurrents have not tried to ebb the flow of these powerful waves. Yet, the countercurrents seem only to create temporary tidal pools that are eventually washed over by the flows of global financial capital. Im assessing the current state of affairs, then, one wonders why a more widespread uprising against the inequalities of global capitalism struggles to take hold? Such questions are not nev, however, and those of us who conduct critical sudies of global media and communication systemsa significant rise to, essary to access these devices for accessing , whereby the lines ken down, Thus, a 8 (ve, Disney, News + information-service Google, Facebook, ‘content production sought to explicitly ‘Telmex, Telefonica, however, with some solders. Nonetheless, rent of media power, logical convergence, sralded as harbingers ¥, or culturally? Yet even a modicum of 3, when the burst of ‘oughout the global ‘y locked in the grips 1 have had profound juncture, whereby ed by the crisis. On ay to cut back state up the state. On the edatory lending that 2 of indebtedness to for those who have ‘gly concentrated in cted by the shamefil 1 estimates indicate sir share is projected 2gregious when one ing 2010-2014, and ‘on people on earth. ve combined wealth ty 80 in 2014." Such ‘em, and yet austerity ais is not to say that the countercurrent the flows of global widespread uprising stions are not new, munication systems Introduction 3 find it useful vo interrogate the ways that particular ideologies, imaginares, and perspectives ae communicated to audiences around the World. Indeed, we argue thatthe terain upon which the seruggle for avaiable alternatives takes place is within the creation, distibution, and access cof mediated content. Although the global economy is propped up by key sectors like finance, insurance, realestate, and extractive industries, the media telecommunications, and informa tion service sectors play a key role in determining which type of information is available at certain times and in certain locations. As such, a deuiled and comparative analysis of media and communication companies becomes vitally imporant because they control (to varying degrees) not only che terrain upon which the struggle for akzrnatve viewpoints takes place but the ways in which such information is presented, Therefore, acomparative analysis and ongoing reasessment of the world’s largest and most powerfil media corporations’ changing structures and practices is vitally imporant Defining Corporations Corporations have become the dominant form for organizing collective and productive economic activity in many societies today, although this has not always been the case Prior to the 17th century, corporations often represented not-for-profit institutions that contributed to the public good by building hospitals, universities, etc. After the 17th century, businesses with similar interests came together to monopolize a specific type of product or trade, and the profit motive became the major goal of corporations. Companies such asthe East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company were organized to finance colonial expansion, and they became significant enterprises in controling various pats of the world. For example, the Fast India Company maintained control of India’s trade with its own private army. In the United States, the first corporations were similar to the early British model in that they performed public tasks under limited government charters. However, in the mid-1800s, corporations began to take on different role, as they moved avray from state control in both the US. and Britain, The British mode! of corporations allowed companies to define their own purpose, ‘with “limited lability” 2s a legal principle. Inthe US., corporations eventually began to be granted various rights, For instance, in 1886, corporations were declared to be “artificial persons” under law with “individuality and immortality.” By the end of the 19th century, corporations had moved into important postions of power {in many countries. In the U.S., monopolies and cartels controlled key industries, such as railroad, steel, coal, cl, and chemicals, s wells the telegraph, telephone, and newspapers. Despite regulatory attempts to tame corporate excess, corporations continued to grow and evolve during the 20th century. Boosted in the 1970s by afice-market ideology of neoliberalism, which especially increased privatization of formerly public- or state-owned entities, for-profit corporations now phy dominant roles in many economies around the world. Contemporary corporations are business structares and legal constructs that are still based on a charter granted by the state to a group of investon for a specific purpose, but they differ from companies owned by individuals or partnerships, which typically involve personal lability and risk, Corporations have limited liability and thus shareholters are not responsible fora corporation's liabilities (debss oF other obligations). And since corporations are given “individuality,” they are legal persons, existing separately or independently from their owners. For instance, in the USS. corporations can own property, incur debts, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued. In addition, corporations ae “immortal,” existing beyond the iftime of shareholders, managers or employees. Corporations are organized to seek profit, but they aso raise capital by issuing stock or shares, which are purchased by stockholders or shareholders, who then hold equity or ownership in the ‘company. Shareholders hope to receive dividends if the corporation makes a profit—which is4 Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gémez, and janet Wasko what remains affer expenses have been deducted from the revenues of a fim, Furthermore, corporations are considered “public” when shares are traded on astock exchange and thus available forsale to the public. Iti important to note that “public” corporations are notin the publisector, but patt ofthe private sector. When the shares ofa corporation are held by individuals and not sold on a public stock exchange, the corporations ssid to be “privately held.” While corporations are involved in many different types of activities, ffom manufacturing products to offering services, the goal of a corporation is to generate a profit and to increase sharehokler value. It might ako be noted that corporations may not lways succeed in their goals. Their srategies may be faulty, other companies may be mote succes, or economic and political contexts may change. ‘Whatever the reasons, corporations are not infilible, and they are shaped to a certain degree by the regulatory context within which they operte. The Study of Mi s Corporations operating within the information, communication, and entertainment industries have significant influence on the production, circulation, consumption, and access to media content ‘As such, studying media corporations is vitally important to understanding the informational ecosystem, We have already noted here that the control of media corporations can provide a ‘means to promote certain ideas and values. ‘Thus an understanding of corporate ownership may help to alert the public to the ways in which information is produced and, more importantiy, why itis produced, Therefore, a thorough undentanding of communication companies also serves as an essential beginning for understanding media content and its reception. While many forms of textual analysis dssece, deconstruct and critique media content, an understanding of producers’ ‘motivations and goals can aso contribute useful insights for cultural analysis. Moreover, such an ‘understanding can dispel some of the popular rhetoric used to describe media content that is infinitely varied, ubiquitous, and representative of diverse tastes, audiences, and interests. To be sure, a wealth of mediated content does exist, but tracing the ownership pattems of such content can often reveal the vast corporate structures of the media giants and the way they leverage their multiple holdings to create synergy or cross-promotion between their properties. In this sense, audiovisual and information products are placed within their corporate structure to determine hhow mediated content may be affected by the structure within which itis produced. To get a sense for how media corporations ae structured and how they behave, critical researchers typically rely on a range of research methods ‘One kind of analysis i often called power stracture research, which focuses on “the importance of formal and informal social networks as the means by which power is concentrated and institutionalized."® Clearly, there are opportunites for interconnections and overlapping areas of| influence within a capitalise class or power elite, whether through formal business relationships, interlocking directorships, or more informal social connections, such a social elub memberships, exc. By analyzing these relationships, researchers can get a sense for how particular interests are represented within the corporation and, perhaps, understand why the corporation decides to behave in particular ways (.e., lobbying efforts, executing certain strategies, or producing particular content), ‘structural analysis rather than instrumental analysis is used, then we are more concerned with those structures that limit or constrain the behavior of the institution, For example, we might angue that the basic structural imperatives for corporations are associated with profit maximization. “Whether a manager or owner (and often, managers are owners) makes decisions, profit is the goal. As Graham Murdock has explained: “it does not particularly matter who the key owners and controllers are. What is important is their ation in the general economic system and the constraints and limits that it imposes on their range of feasible options.” Thus, a complete analysis ‘of control is necestary, both of the individual corporation as well asthe general structural context Corporaa firm, Furthermore, ange and thus available ‘not in the public sector, by individuals and not 1” While corporations products to offering shareholder value. It 5. Their strategies may {contexts may change. to a certain degree by inment industries have ss to media content. ing the informational nations can provide a sorate ownership may vemment privatized Ecologist Party of Mexico, and then also as pat of PRI. Is competitor, TV Azteca, had established After a controversial the same strategy in the two chambers; this type of congresiman was known as Telebancada stituto Mexicano de Azteca, This ushered Televisa lost around years. Nevertheless, ving market.” 1997. Paxman and (TVcongressman). ‘These deputies and senators control, or at least influence, the commissions responsible for regulating the telecom and broadcasting industries or any other initiative related with the communications sector. Economic Profile 9-year-old son P aes oe oe Financial Data/Market Share pany seemed on Daring the lat 20 years, Televn's finances have been continuously growing, and over the lst 31.8 billion : several years the group has been the Latin American media company withthe highest annual and ofewo historic revenues. The company has ako appeared in the annual reports of the top 50 and 30 global the enterainment audiovisual companies." Historically, such results have been related with the free-to-air TV, Year, respectively. advertising market. However, this situation is changing, because the group is shifting the core of and marking the its business from audiovisual content to telecommunications services, pariculanly to pay-TV 2e most important platforms, fixed telephone lines, and broadband Internet. In other words, Televisa has diversified its revenue streams, regandless of the opportunities for convergence and the re-reyulation of Out 2 significant telecommunications. ‘ersuch financial (One aspect that should be underlined is that the Mexican peso has been more or es stable owned 54.55%; t from 2004 to 2014. This is significant because in the past the success of Mexican companies 0 Inbursa owned hhas been affected by the instability of the Mexican economy, Televisa’s revenues have sometimes 1 3.80%." This been affected in the intemational markets, and particulaly when the peso is exchanged to US, tive signal to its | dollars. Despite this occasional setback on the global frontier, the group continued to grow its | revenue at the national level.194 Rodtigo Gomer As Table 6.1 shows, the last 10 years ofthe company confirms—in Mexican pesos—how the company has been growing constantly with a progressive rhythm. Yet, the U.S. dollar results show some down points—for example in the petiods 2007-2008, 2010-2011, and 2013-2014, ‘This pattern reflects a different performance in the global arena, and its handicap as a global media siant located in an emergent economy with a weak currency. Historically, the main business of the company has been the revenue from the TV advertising market (ee the content segment in Table 6.2). Inthe last 20 years, Grupo Televisa has controlled around 68-70% of the television advertising market share in Mexico.” Yet, this structure will change somewhat after 2016, because there wil finally bea further national network in the Mexican ‘TV system, breaking the national duopoly Televisa has with TV Azteca. The forthcoming change vill reconfigure, to some extent, the Mexican TV advertising market, Another important change to the dynamic is the reconfiguration of the TV advertising market with the increasing prevalence cof multi-channel platforms and their growing user base, Thus, as is happening in other national media markets, the pattem appears to indicate that the TV advertising sector will decrease in percentage in the coming years, ‘The group's revenues from 2004 to 2014 show how the content segment"® revenue has been decreasing in percentage points and centrality by Televisa (ce Table 6.2). Nevertheless, this reventic has been continuously growing in absolute amount of Mexican pesos since then. In this respect, itis clea that the pattem of decline in TV advertsing's centrality will continiie, while the group Jooks for markets that have more potential grovith, sch a telecom and Direct Broadcasting Satelite (DBS). In the case ofthe content segment, it is important to isolate the revenue regardless ofthe supplier of Spanish-language programming in the United States. This is because Televisa has been receiving significant royalties for a program license agreement (PLA) with Univision.” In 2012, 2013, and 2014, Televisa received $247.6 million, $273.2 million, and $313.7 million from Univision, TABLE 6.1 Grupo Televisa, Revenues 2004-2013 Gin billions) Your Mean pesos U.S. dolls 2008 29,314 2,629 2005 35,068 3.057 2006 39,358 3511 2007 41,562 3,805 2008 47972 3.466 2008 52,353 3,936 2010 57,857 4,682 2011 62,582 4477 2012 69,290 5,392 2013 73.791 5644 2014 80,118 5,428 Source: Teva's Annual 20 repre Rom 2008 to 2014 TABLE 62 Grupo Televisa Revenues by Segment, 200-2014 (4) “Segment nese 2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2012 20132014 Content 6 SSCS] Sky nt) i ry a ey eg Telecommunictions 37 42 «S135 B28 Other businesses 1832 136 «13214512109 10810 oral 100100 100100100100 -—*100~— 100 Source: Teen's Anal 20F ropors from 2004 9 2004lexican pesos—how the the USS, dollar results 2011, and 2013-2014, ndicap asa global media tom the TV advertising Televisa has controlled Yet, this structure will network in the Mexican the forthcoming change ‘other important change 1e increasing prevalence ening in other national sector will decrease in ent revenne has been overtheles, this revenue te then. In this respect, ttinue, while the group ct Broadcasting Satellite egardless ofthe supplier wvisa has been receiving 1.” In 2012, 2013, and illion from Univision, 2013 2014 6 28 4 215 228 257 os 10 100100 oo I i 4 Grupo Televisa 115 respectively, This alliance is one of the most productive relationships for Televisa as well as the company's best horse to bet on at the international kvel. Infact, Televis’s objective is to recover the ownership of Univision at some point in the future. Since 2006, Televisa has been engaged in an aggressive economic strategy to dominate the cable industry market in Mexico.® As part of this strategy, Televisa acquired four major cable ‘TV companies. At the end of 2014, Grupo Televisi concentrated around 58% of the cable TV market in Mexico. This is important to underline because the cable TV companies in Mexico could offer triple-play services. Thus, Televia’s goal is to have a national telecommunications network that can compete with Telmex, part of America Movil, in the markets of fixed and broadband Internet. . ‘According to the data from the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (Instituto Federal de tas Telecomunicaciones or IFT), at the end of 2014, Grupo Televis’s cable companies controlled 11.8% of fixed lines in the country, whereas Telmex controlled 70%6. In broadband fixed-line services, Grupo Televisa has 15.5% of the subscribers." These business fronts are the future of ‘Televisa, allowing the company to diversify, expand its markets, and increase revenue. ‘The other business that has been bolstering Televise's revenues during the last decade is their DBS company, Sky, which ia partner ofthe DirecTV Group. Atthe end of 2014, Sky controlled 71.6% of the Mexican DBS market.” The other company that competes inthis subsector is Dish “Mexico, a partner of the DishNetwork, owned by EchoStar. The 2014 numbers for Grupo Televisa cable TV and Sky indicate that the company has comered 64% of the pay-TV market in Mexico, with around 15.6 million subscribers. Certainly, the size of Televisa in the pay-TV market reflects a dominant position. An IFT research project and declaration, at the end of April 2015, declared that Televisa enjoys “substantial power of market" in the cable TV sector ® However, at the end cof September of that year, the IFT in a plenary sesion determined, by five votes in favor and ‘ovo against, chat Grupo Televisa did not have “substantial market power” in pay television, meaning the company avoided being hit with new tougher rus. Their argument was (partly) that its market share had decreased by 29%. Corporate Properties It is important to establish that Grupo Televisa has many companies and subsidiaries related to various media industries (see Table 6.3). Infact, it should be characterized 2s media and telecom ‘munications conglomerate as it has radio stations, TV stations, TV networks, cable TV networks, cable networks, Internet and telecom carriers, audiovisual production companies, cinema distribution companies, publishing companies, and publishing distribution divisions. in addition to media and telecom properties, Grupo Televisa owns one the most popular soccer teams in Mexico, Club de Pathol América, and the Azteca stadium, along with gaming, sports, and show business promotion companies. ‘The corporate structure of Televisa has been changing according to the necessities of global capitalism, For Televisa to survive and to be competitive in the global arena, it has had to adapt its corporate structure to acquite and access more financial flows and credit. Nowadays, the major Stockholders of Grupo Televisa are as follows: Azcirraga Jean controls 14.7%; Bill Gates, 7.40%; BlackRock holdings, 6.90%; First Eagle Investment Management, 5.30%; while the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), Bola Mexicana de Valores (BMV, Mexico), and fndice Bursiil Espafiol (BEX, Spain), and others comprise 65.60%: ‘As mentioned before, the company’s main investments oflate have been in cable TV companies jn Mexico. Between 2006 and 2015, Televisa acquired Television Internacional (TVI), Cablems, Cablecom, and Telecable. Following a clear stategy to achieve economies of scale, Televisa appears to be loosely replicating Comcast’s steps in the U.S. cable TV market.”116 Rodtigo Gémez ‘TABLE 6.3 Televisa Main Companies, by Ownership Peroentage and Business Segment, 2015 Subsidy Company's oomerhip peerage Business egnent ‘Grupo Teleitema 100% Comene Televi 100% Content G.Tetevis-D 100% Content Malkimedia Telecom 100% Content Sky 58.7% DBs Empresas Cablevision 51% Telecom ‘Television internacional (IVI) 50% Telecom Cableser 66.1% Telecom Grupo Cable TV (Cablecom) 100% Telecom CCorporativo Vasco de Quiroga 100% Telecom Sistema Radiop6lis 50% Radio Béitoial Televisa 100% Publishing (Grupo Diswibuidoras Intermex 100% Publishing Distribution Consorcio Nekexs 100% ‘Other Business “Televiea Juegos 100% Gaming Source: Tavis Ansoal Repost 2-F 2074 In the context of television networks and infrastructure, Grupo Televisa has four licenses, or more specifically, three national networks (Channels 2, 5, and 9) and one regional network (Channel 4) At the same time, to carry these signals requires 224 stations and 33 afiliated stations throughout Mexico. In this respect, Televisa controlled 49% of the commercial TV stations in Mexico at the end of 2014. In the pay-TV sector, Televisa has 25 pay-TV channels and 51 national and intemational feeds, which enjoy subseribers throughout Latin America, the US., Canada, Europe, and Asia Pacific markets. Its pay-TV channels include music, movies, telenovels, news, variety, entertainment, and sports channels In the area of film production and distribution, ‘Televisa continues to produce and co-prodce first-run Spanish- and English-language feature films. I is important to remember that during the 1980s Televisa became the ist film producer in the nation.” In the following yeas, Televi, established co-production arrangements with Mexican film production companies, with Holly ‘wood studios such as Miravista, Warner Bros., and Lionsgate, as well as Spaniard Plural Entertain iment. Televisa distributes its films to Mexican movie theaters and later releases them on video for broadcast on cable television. The company also distributes its eature films outside of Mexico.” In addition, Televisa distributes feature films ftom non-Mexican producers in Mexico, including several US. blockbusters through its distribution company Videocine. ‘Other important media segments of the company include its publishing and publishing distribution segments. Televisa is considered the most important publisher and distributor of ‘magazines in Mexico, and of Spanish-language magazines in the world, Televisa publishes 182 titles that are distributed in 21 countries, including the United States, Mexico, and Colombia, The company reports that is distribution network, including independent distributor, reaches over 300 million Spanish-speaking people in approximately 21 countries. ‘The company alo estimates that its distribution network reaches over 25,000 points of sale in Mexico and over 75,000 points of sale outside of Mexico. Its publications are also sold in the United Stas and the Caribbean. ‘At the end of 2010, Televisa made an important investment with Broadcaster Media Partners, Inc, (BMP), the major owner of the U.S. Spanish-language television company Univision. The agreement provided Televisa with equity and debentures that, upon conversion and subject 0sgment, 2015 segment 8 ng Distibution isa has four licenses, ne regional network 133 affliated stations sxcial TV stations in international feeds, Pe, and Asia Pacific ity, entertainment, Ace and co-produce rember that during ving years, Televisa vanies, with Holly vd Plural Entertain ses them on video e films outside of ducers in Mexico, 'g and publishing. and distributor of visa publishes 182 ©, and Colombia stributors, reaches ‘he company ako 9 and over 75,000 vd States and the t Media Partners, / Univision, The and subject to Grupo Televisa 197 any necessaty approval fiom the Federal Communication Commission (PCC), would represent approximately 38% on a fly diluted, as-converted basis ofthe equity capital in BMP. tn Spain, since 2012 Televisa has owned 14.5% of the capital tock of imagina, whichis pare of Atrsmedia holder of Antena 3 Television and la Sexta two fie-to-air television channels? In 2006 Televisa launched its gaming company, which consists of casinos and a national otery. ‘Atte end of 2014, Grupo Televisa had 17 casinos under the brand name “Play City.” In 2007, the company released Multjuegos, an online lottery with access to a nationwide network. The ‘casinos and Multjuegos ae operated under the gaming license obtained ffom the Mexican Ministry ‘of the Interior, which allows the company to establish, among other things, up to 55 casinos and number draws throughout Mexico2® Joint Ventures ‘Televisa has been active during the lst three decales in joint ventures, which exemplifies a significan aspect ofits overall busines strategy. The mos important joint venture ofthe company is Sky, a DBS company, with services in Mexico, Central Americ, and the Dominican Republic. Grupo Televisa owns a 58.7% interest in the company while the remaining 41.3% is owned by DIRECTV. This venture has been very productive: after 14 years of partnership (1996-2014) Sky has grown considerably, from 590,000 subscriber reported in 2001 to more than 6.5 million at the end of 2014. Part of the success of Sky can be attributed to its financial muscle in the segion to offer exchuive content, which includes the widely popular FIFA World Cup toumaments and Copa America, as well as the Mexican Soccer League, Spanish Soccer League, English Premier League, English FA Cup, and the NFL Sunday Tickes, among other programming, ‘The success is also due in pare to the fact that Sky offers two main packages to subscriber cone low-end package, named VeTV; and the regular package that Sky offers, which ensures the highest quality and exclusive content in the Mexican piy-TV industry Its programming packages combine Televisas over-the-air channels and cable channels with other exclusive content Televiz’s radio company, Radiépolis, is operated under a joint venture with the Spanish communication group, Grupo Prise, Televisa holds 2 controlling 50% fall-voting stake in this subsidiary and the right vo appoint the majority ofthe member to the board of directors, Radipois owns and operates 17 radio stations in Mexico. Radi6polis’s radio stations reach 28 tates in Mexican territory, and the company estimates that it radio network reaches approximately 75% of Mexico's population. ‘One joint venture that was controversial in terms ofa collusion.of interests and convergent acquistionsis Televisa’s partership with TV Azteca inthe telecommanications company luce From 2011 to 2014, Televisa and TV Azteca—competitor in the over-the-air TV and contents Segments-—were partners in this telecom company. Televisa made an investment of $1.5 billion and, as a result, they held a 50% equity take in Isuaell. This move appeared to be an attempt to join forces to compete with America Movil in the mobile market. However, in January 2015, the sale of Televisa’s equity interest in Tusacell to Grupo Salinas (owner of TV Aztec) for $717 million concluded the joint venture. Months later, Grupo Salinas sold the company to ATCT for $2,500 million; this transaction was approved by the IFT.” Labor As of 2014, Televisa reports 39,615 full-time employees. Of these, 38,433 worked in Mexico, 850 in Latin America, and 322 in the United States, 43% being represented by unions, Under Mexican law, the agreements between Televi and most of their television, radio, and cable television union employees are subject to renegotiation on an annual bass. They ako have union198 Rodkigo Gomez contracts with artists, musicians, and other employees. It is important to mension that their employees enjoy profit sharing, recognized a a direct benefit to employes in the consolidated statements of income in the period in which ti incurred. New Developments Its importan to undesine the fict that Televia is developing a clear srategy to take on new business opportunites offered by the convergence process in order to boost its assets and revenues, particularly its voluminous content catalog. The different formats that the company has been exploring include new platforms of content diteibution. It has one over-the-top (OTT) company (Blin), that wis to compete with Netix and Claro Video in Mexico. Currently, its competitor, enjoy 95% of the OTT market share. Yet, Televi sell an important element oft catalog content to Netflix and thus receives some benefis fom its competitors along with new entryways into the audiovisual matket. Political Profile ‘Azcarraga Jean and his small circle of vice-presidents have determined how to deploy new stat- egies to the mew institutional trends shaped by the emerging Mexican democracy. In fact, the adaptation process of the company has been highly controversial and many scholars have argued hhow Televisa has reshaped its role in the Mexican political system as a de facto power. At its roots, Televisa continues to influence various aspects ofthe political sytem under a pragmatic logic determined by its economic interest.” The company’s most visible influence and impact relates to Televisa's actions in relation to any amendment regarding the normative bodies of telecommunications and broadcasting, as wellas its role during electoral processes, especialy in the last 2012 presidental election in Mexico. ‘There is journalistic evidence that corroborates how Televisa constructed a highly positive image of Enrique Pesia Nieto through different televised content when he was governor of the State of| Mexico from 2006 to 2012. Peiia Nieto was married to one of Televis’s Telenovela sta, consequently gamering much attention in the entertainment and magazine television programs. Such actions have been interpreted as strategic moves with the objective of presenting a solid candidate for the 2012 presidental race and even to create a “Telepresidente”” or “TV-president."*” However, Televisa denies any collusion with the Enrique Pela Nieto staff or involvement in the campaign. ‘Televia's actions have provoked different social reactions throughout is history. The hist episode, so to speak, occurred between Televisa and civil society collectives for the head-on critique of the student movement #¥oSoy132 during the 2012 presidential race. The students challenged the role of Televisa TV news, among other media, as unfair rather than unbiased media, arguing that Televisa supported Enrique Pefia Nieto. #Y oSoy132 held many demonstrations and boycots against Televisa in Mexico City. Itis important to note that the main banner of the #Y¥oSoy132 student movement was the democratization of the Mexican media system, in order to guarantee 2 fair and transparent electoral process and to bolter the democratic process in Mexico." ‘A surprising constitutional reform took place in Mexico's telecommunications and antitrust rules in 2013, commanded by the Enrique Peita Nieto administration and with the support of the three majority parties in Congress, under the Pacto por México (“Pact for Mexico”). This alliance then iswued a new Federal Act of Telecommunications and Broadcasting. Thanks to its lobby, Televisa stopped some of the major changes that were expected under the guidelines of the constitutional reform. However, the act presented some new challenges to Televisa, including the following: (1) the participation of foreign investors in Mexico could now be as high as 49%to mention that their yees in'the consolidated strategy to take on new «its assets and revenues, the company has been xe-top (OTT) company rently, its competitors nt of ts catalog content th new entryways into, ¥ 10 deploy new stat- smocracy. In fet, the 7 scholars have argued 1 de ficto power. At fem under a pragmatic influence and impact normative bodies of rocesses, especially in highly positive image vemor of the State of a’s Telenovela stars, television programs, of presenting a solid or “TV-president. + involvement in the ory. The last episode, head-on critique of students challenged ased media, arguing tations and boycotts of the #¥0Soy132, order to guarantee in Mexico.*? utions and antitrust sith the support of ‘or Mexico"). This ting, Thanks to its F the guidelines of Televisa, including be as high as 49% Grupo Televisa 119 in fiee-to-air radio and television, subject to reciprocity requirements, and up co 100% in telecommunications services and satellite communications; and (2) Televisa was declared by the ‘new regulator, Instituto Federal de las Telecomunicaciones (the “Federal Telecommunications Institution” ‘or IFT), a8 a preponderant economic agent in the broadcasting sector i.e, an €co- nomic agent that has more than 50% national market share in the broadcasting sector, based on audiences and advertising revenue according to the data available to IFT. The “preponderance decision” imposed various measures, terms, conditions, and restrictive obligations in regard to infastructure, content, advertising, and information.” ‘This situation is historic because, for fst time ever, Televisa was subject toa significant adverse resolution. Of course, to some extent, this resolution could be qualified as insufficient in its provisions, given the dominance, size, and cross- ‘ownership concentration of Televisa. Yet, at the very east, there was a clear resolution against the Group by the IFT. Lobbying Efforts and Editorial Positions ‘The so-called “Telebancada” is an important strategy for addressing the economic interest of Grupo ‘Televisa's direct intervention in congress. However, this relationship was not formed only with former Televisa employees. In fact, it is a common block of the private broadcasting and cable industry. The point here is that while the political parties provide these companies important positions to guarantee their seats 2s deputies and senators, they are not necessarily afiiated with the party. This scheme is clearer in the case of the PVEM. In other words, their main purpose is to represent the corporate interest of media companies in congress over the politica party's ‘manifesto. While these tendencies have been documented, there are no official daa for the expenses that Televisa has provided to political parties or politcal institutions. In terms of editorial position, the company has declared itself non-partisan since 1997. However, Televisa has a clear pro-business, market economy and a conservative agenda," at least im its primetime TV news, At the same time, Televisa maintains a systematic editorial postion against leftist social movements. Their trong criticism of these movements has been documented and illustrated since the student movement in October 1968 through to #¥oSoy132 in 2012. ‘One observation that could be added to the discussion of its editorial postion is that its pay-TV carers in cable and DBS do not offer the cable TV news channel Telesur. This 24/7 news channel is a coniortium operated by Venezuelan, Argentinan, Bolivian, and Ecuadorean government, which tries to present a kind of counterbalance in the international information order from the ‘global South Corporate Board Members ‘The core executives of Televisa have remained the same since the tum of the century and are approximately the same age 25 its president and CEO, Emilio Azcarraga Jean, The key vice- presidents are: Alfonso de Angoitia Noriega and Bemardo Gémea, as executive VPs of Grupo ‘Televisa; Ricardo Pérez Teuffer as corporate VP of ales and marketing: and Adolfo Lagos as corporate VP of telecommunications. ‘The govemance of the company follows the rules established for Mexican and US. governments, mainly in terms of stock exchange markets in both countries. Thus, The Mexican Securities Market Law governs Televisa’s governance practices, as well asthe regulations issued by the Mexican Stock Exchange and Comisién Nacional Bancaria y de Valores (the “National Banking and Securities Commission” or CNBV). At the same time, Televisa has to follow corporate governance requirements 2s 2 foreign private issuer with shares listed on the NYSE.120 Rodtigo Gémez ‘TABLE 64 Televisa External Board Members ‘Name “Member Poston and other Connmuriations Company Boards since milo Azcaraga Jean 990 Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief ‘Executive Office, and Chairman of the Executive Committe of Grupo Televisa Roberto Hemnindez Ramirez 1992 Honorary Chairman of the Board of Director of Banco "Nacional de México Fernando Sendetos Mestre «1992 -—=—Chaitman of the Board of Directors and President ofthe Executive Commitee of Desc, Dine and Grupo Kuo Enrique Kraue Klinbort «1996 -——_Director and partmer of Eitoil Clio Libros y Videos [Alberto Bullies Gonzsler —«2004-——_—Presdent of Grupo Bal Enrique Francisco Joe 2001 Managing Director of An & Company, Board member Senior Hernindez in Univision Communications, Board member Cinemark José Antonio Vicente 2007 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Oficerof 3 Fernie Carzjal Fomento Econémico Mexicano and Coca Cola Fema Lorenzo Aljandro Mendoza 2009 Executive Oficer and Member of che Board of Giménee Directors and Executive of Empress Polat : Bduardo Tricio Hato 2012 President of Grapo indus Lala t eas Pear Che Ete fw Dicoraeny Global : Jon Feiheimer 2018 Chief Executive Officer Lionsgate Encersiament Cop. t David M, Zashv 2015 President, Chief exectve Oficer Director of Ditcovey Communications, In . i Board member in Univision Communications ‘Board memaber in Sirus XM Rati In. Sore Televi Aval Report 20-F 2014 ‘The members of Televisa’s Board of directors are listed in Table 6.4. All of the external board ‘members are from North America, six fom Mexico and four from the United States. At the same time, the table indicates the attention that Televisa ht shown in recent yeas to new appoinamens, particularly in 2015 in the context of media eneprenews. Another aspect that has to be emphasized is that no women are on its Board. This isa historical tendency. Social Marketing ‘Televi’ social marketing strategy isto offer a philanthropic fice to Mexican society. Televisa thas two main fronts in the social marketing sphere. Its main banner isthe telethon “Teletin" that has taken place annually since 1997. The Teletn rises money from audiences, companies, state governments, and institutions to build a network of health centers for the rehabilitation and treatment of children and youth with disabilities, cancer, and autism, The other program that the company uses to present itself a socially responbleis the “Goal for Mexico.” This program ‘was launched in 2001 for the Televisa Foundation to connect social responsibility with is. broadcaster sports. During the soccer games broalcat by Televisa, it focuses on seven social causes ‘education, nutrition, housing, health, breast cancer, natural disasters, and reforestation, Every goal scorer during the game generates one donation tothe soil benefits described above to a particulaely vulnerable commanity. The Televisa Foundation works with this program in Mexico, as wells in the US., geared toward Latina/o communities.‘pany Boards 5; President and Chief ifthe Executive of Director of Banco s and President of the ve and Grupo Kuo lio Libros y Videos apany, Board member urd member Cinemark ixecutive Officer of 1.Coca Cola Femsa er ofthe Board of 's Polar and Director of Liberty Intertainment Corp. Director of Discovery ofthe extemal board dd States. At the same ‘new appointments, pect that has to be san society. Televisa thon “Teletén” that 2s, companies, state rehabilitation and other program that ico.” This program ponsibility with its 1 seven social causes: ‘estation. Every goal ove to a particularly 1 Mexico, as well as Grupo Televisa 121 One criticism of this particular strategy is that ‘Televisa is promoting a culture that benefits from philanthropic private institutions over welfare sate responsibilities. It as also come under fire as simply a means of tax reduction. Cultural Profile Symbolic Universe/ideology In the case of Mexico, there is no doubt that Televia built the DNA of Mexican TV audiences, under the dominance of entertainment and conservative values during the 20th century. For 2 Jong time, its postion as a monopoly gave it the ability to stratify or package Mexican audiences in accordance with its different stations as follows: Channel 2 or El canal de la estrellas (“The Stars Channel”), has historically been the flagship signal that broadcasts the most popular contents of Televisa, including TV news, telenovelas, magazins, variety, comedy programs, realty shows, sports (mainly Mexican soccer), contests and Mexican movies. With the exception ofthe movie, 100% of these programs are Mexican and almost all content is produced in-house. This signal has ‘been called the “Mexican family channel.” Channel 5, Mi canal, has served 2s a window into U.S, popular culture. From moming to aftemoon, the channel shows cartoons and, in the evening through the night, it shows USS. sitcoms and movies. Named Carlos Monsivdis in the early 1980s, this channel isthe first U.S. channel broadcast beyond its fontiers. Initially its content was geared to young, urban, middle-chss audiences. Historically, 90% of Channel 5’s content has come from the U.S. ‘Channel 9, Gala TV, was often used asa rerun channel for Mexzican telenovelas and U.S. series. ‘Nowadays, it shows imported telenovelas from Telemundo, as well 2s some low-cost, in-house programs, such as talk shows, TV news, and Lucha Libre (wrestling). On weekends the channel broadcasts Mexican League soccer games. The regional Channel, Canal 4, used to be another rerun channel of old USS. series and some Mexican magazines programs. Since 2010, the channel hha been broadcasting its 24/7 TV news program, FOROt, and the following programs on the ‘weekend: Formula One racing, Major League Baseball (MLB), and National Football League (NFL) games, among other sports. Ths channel is offered in addition co pay-TV services in Mexico, the US., and Latin America, ‘The organization of Televia’s TV channels has been very productive asthe company has been. able to sell diverse and vast audiences to their advertise. At the same time, for long periods Televisa monopolized free time through TV and was given the chance to shape the cultural consumption of large numbers of Mexican audiences Televia’s TV news is part of Mexican TV history, and is the TV news program with the largest audiences. This is important because 76% of Mexican citizens prefer TV news as their primary source for politcal information, according to surveys on political information consumption.*S This situation provides Televisa a significant ability to set the public agenda and reach wide audiences inthe country. Televisa’s symbolic power for the Mexican politcal actors often constitutes its primary basis for media power. ‘Most Popular Productions and Their Place in Culture ‘The most popular television genre from Televisa has been their telenovelas, which have been the ‘most profitable content in both Mexico and intemational markets, particularly in the US. Latino/a-TV submarket. According to data from Observatorio iberoamericano de la ficeién televisva (the ““Ibero-American Observatory of Television Fiction,” or Obitel) in 2013 the top 10 prime-time fictional programs in Mexico were all telenovelas produced by Televisa, Ibis worth122 Rodtigo Géme2’ highlighting the fict that in the case of the Latino/a-TV market in the USS, all ofthe top 10, most watched television programs were Televisa productions, too, which were broadcast by Univision. In addition, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Spain, Peru, Venezuela, and Argentina broadcast a significant number of Televisa ‘Telenovelas during prime-time hours, In all ofthese rarkets, Televisa was the foreign television company that placed the most Telenovels titles behind the local producers.” ‘Another genre chat ha been very popular forthe company is comedy. Over the lst few decades, the shows “EI chavo del ocho,” “Chesperio,” and “El chapulin colorado" have been very popular in Mexico, Spain, and throughout Latin America, even in Brazil. These programs were produced fiom the 1970s to 1990s, and in many Latin American counties itis still posible to find reruns of these programs currently running on television. Other comedy programs that have enjoyed suceess in Mexico include “Qué nos pasa,” “Le Familia Paluch,” and “Deréex en cuando,” among others. Other popular content from Televisa includes soccer games, especially the Mexican Football League games. Throughout Mexican television history, Televisa has enjoyed broadcasting right to the most popular teams in the nation, However, its most important aliance in this segment is with the Mexican Federation of Football (FMF) ast has broadest, since the beginning of television, all the games of the Mexican National Team. In fat, thanks to ths alliace and Televisa’s good relations with the Intemational Federation of Football Association (better known as FIFA), Mexico organized two World Cups, in 1970 and 1986." Nowadays, the Scleccién Mexicana provides important profits to Televisa, particularly during international events, Neverheles, Televi, hha shared these rights with its competitor, TV Azteca, since the 2000s, and it will most likely do the same with the new national TV network, Cadena Tres, which will begin operations in 2016, This is thanks to the fact that the provisions established by IFT prevent Televisa from offering certain content exclusively 28 a preponderant agent Finally, itis significant to note that throughout Televi’s history, the company has broade ‘many educational and cultural programs, pethaps in an effort ro collaborate with the Mexican government or because the company thought that it would bolster is image in Mexican society. In fact, Televisa co-produced Sesame Street (Plaza Séiamo) and enjoyed several collaboration agreements, in the past, with the National Autonomous University of Mexico to broadcast various ‘programs from the university. Imports from Other Countries ‘As established ffom the above discussion, Televisa impors significant amounts of foreign programs, mainly U.S. audiovisual productions like movies, series, sitcoms, cartoons, and U.S. professional sport, primarily to fill up the Canal 5 grid. Televia’s competitor, TV Azteca, has followed a similar strategy since 1994 with its Canal 7 network, becoming a misror channel of Televis’s Canal 5. So, since 1994, Mexican audiences have had two over-the-air networks with the most popular content on U.S. pop culture and spors. Conclusion ‘Televisa has recently been adapting to the different challenges thatthe economic, political, socio cultural, and technological changes have presented by implementing a significant diversity of diferent strategies. As a result ofthis, it is clear that Televisa continues a8 a cental agent in the Mexican communication system, particularly in setting the political news agenda, shaping an important part of the cultural audiovisual consumptions, and expanding its busines accordingly with the process of convergence with telecommanications,all of the top 10 which were broadcast by ‘enezuela, and Argentina ime hours, In all of these + Telenovelas titles behind Over the last few decades, ave been very popular in programs were produced ill possible to find reruns ‘grams that have enjoyed Derbee en cuando,” among lly the Mexican Football oyed broadcasting rights ance inthis segment i e beginning of television, tnce and Televisa's good ‘eter known as FIFA), the Selecci6n Mexicana 8. Nevertheles, Televisa and it will mos likely will begin operations in 1 Televisa from ofring ‘company has broadcast rate with the Mexican 'ge in Mexican society: 4 several collaboration ico to broadcast various 1s of foreign programs, and U.S. professional \zteca, has followed a channel of Televis’s ‘works with the mos. omic, political, socio- smifcane diversity of "central agent in the agenda, shaping an business accordingly f Grupo Televisa 123 ‘At the same time, this chapter has tried to establish the historical structufal advantages of the company in regard to national and regional competitors in economic terms. Certainly, Televisa ‘will extend is business and it is prepared to adape to the trend towards convergent business operations ja local, regional, and global contexts. [Nevertheless che singularities of Televisa that should be underlined are the dfferene ways that jt uses its media power, which sometimes became a de fato power in regard to various political ‘agents by influencing the totality of the Mexican political system. This isan important characteristic of Televisa’s power, because it marks a significant change in the political interactions between "Televisa and the Mexican political system. In the past, Televisa used to be incorporated into the regime in some way, and this alliance was always under the umbrella of the PRI-Administrations, ‘But now, with changes in the federal government office, Televisa is exercising its agency outside that umbrella, working asa free agent, and imposing conditions and forming alliances with diferent political parties and governments, all with the goal to maintain and expand its structural advantages in national and global business. Notes 1 ‘The president of Televisa was Emilio Azcarraga Milmo, the fist heir ofthe Azcartagas dynasty. Fernando ‘Mejia, "50 aios de Television comercial en Mésico (1934-1984) Cronolog,” in Tela, Elqunt poder, ‘ed. Rail Trejo (México: Chaves Latinoamericanas, 198), 22-35, 2 For further informacion about the history of Mexican sa signal, se: Florence Tousin, ed, Telain ible en México? (México: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1993) and Panicia Oreg, La tra levis: por qué no tenemos tevin pbc? (Médico: UAM-Xochiilco, 2006). 43 Raul Treo, Telersa.Elquimo poder. (México: ClavesLtinoamericaras, 1984); Andrew Paxman and Alex Saragora, “Globalization and Latin Media Powers: The Case of Mesico's Televisa in Camtinenial Order? cds, Vincent Mosco and Dan Schiller (Lanham, MD: Rownan & Lilefeld, 2001); Gabriel Sosa y Rodgo Gémez, "Mexico. Enel puis Televisa” in Zapping TV. El pang dea telling, ed. Omat Rincon (Bogota: Friedrich Eber Stung, 2013). 4 Héctor Aguilar Camin y Lorenzo Meyer, A la sombra de ls Revoién Mexicana (Mexico: Cal y Arena, 1989), 199-201. 5 John inci, Ltn Ameria Televison: A Gal Vew. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Enrique Sinchee-Rusiz, “El audiovisual mexicano: ;Concentrar para competi?" Global Media ural Méxia 1, no, 2 2004): 41-59, accessed April 3, 2015, worw sme cony/index php/GMj EL/aricie/view/138/132 6 Soledad Robina, “Televis: de los cables subterzineos a PANAMSAT” in Deunolo de lis indus audiovizules en Méxio y Canad, ed. Debi Crovi (México: UNAM-FCPyS, 1995), Paxman and Sargora, “ Globization’; Sinci, Lain Ameria Televison 7 Rodrigo Gomez, “El impacto del Tratado de Libre Comercio de Amética del Norte en I Industria Audiovisual Mexicana" (PAD dis, Universidad Auénoma de Barcelona, 2007) 8 Paxman and Saragoza, “Globalization,” 67 9 Paxman and Saragora, “Globalization,” 67. 10 Televisa, “Annual report 20-F 2002" (Televisa: Mexico, 2003), 105-108. 11 Lawson Chappell and James A. McCann, “Television News, Mexico’ 2000 Elections and Media fc in Emerging Democracies." Bish Jounal of Potial Sdewe 35 (1) 2008): 1-30. 12 Rodkigo Géme, “La agenda informativa en los notcarios mis importanes de la televisién mexicana darante 1997," M.A. Diss, Universidad Nacional Autinoma de México, 1998, 13. Chappell and McCann “Television news.” 14 For more information, se: Javier Esteinou y Alma Ross Alka de la Selva ed, La Ley Teles y aha per ol poder en Mexia (México: UAM-Xochiralco/Fundacion Fredich Ebert /AMIC, 2009) and Rodrigo Gomez and Gabriel Sos, “Reforms to Media Legstion in Mexico,” Quadens del CAC 25 (2006): 63-80, 1S Aavkew Pasman and Chua Ferner, lige ni cna inp Televa (Mico: Gio, 12}. 16 European Audiovisual Observatory Yeatbook’s and ZesithOptimedia Annual Top Thiny Global Media ‘Owner report. 17 Enrique Hiuera-Wong and Rodrigo Gémes, *Concentncia y divenidad de os meds de comunicacién yyks telecomunicaciones en México.” Comunicainy siedad 19 (2013): 113-152,124 Rodkigo Gomer 18 The content segment categorized by Televisa sources understands “content revenue” as follow ‘Adversing; Network Subscripdon Revenue; and Licensing and Syndication 19 Yeidy Rivero and Arlene Davila, eds, Contemporary Latina/o Media: Poducion, Cialation and Polis (New York: NYU Press, 2014) 20, Rodeigo Gémee and Gabriel Sosa. “La concentraciénen el mercado del televsin resrngida en México,” Gomunicaitn ysoedad 14 (2010): 109-142, 21 Televi, “Annual report 20-F 2014" (Televisa: Mexico, 2015) 22 Televi, “Annual report 20-F 2014” (Televisa: Mexico, 2015) 23 El Economist, "Televisa, con poder sustancial de mercado en a t-paga,” El Economists (April29, 2015), accested May 1, 2015, hp://eleconomista.com.nx/industras/2015/04/29/televsa-poder-sustancal- smercado-tv-paga 24 Istituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (2015), Vtsin pica del acuerdo P/1FT/EXT/300915/114 De la sesion del pleno del Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones en su XXXII sesiéa extraordinaria el 2015, celobrada el 30 de sepriembre de 2015. Accesed October?, 2015, wwrw if org:m/stes/ eiul/files/conocenos/pleno/sesiones/acuerdolga/ versionpublicadc0120141_{.pdf 25 Televisa, “Annual report 20-F 2014” (Televisa: Mexico, 2015), 106, F 26 Televisa, “Annual report 20-F 2044 27 Susan Crawford, Captive Audione. The Telecom Intry and Monoply Power inthe New Gilded Age (New Haven, CT: Yale University Pres, 2013) 28 Comisin Federal de Telecomunicaciones, Documento de referencia a la consulta piblica para la t i | lictacién de frecuencias para televisiOn abiere. (México: Cofetel, 2012: 2). www.cf.pobsmx:8080/ poral/ep-content/uploads/2012/06/Documento.de.refeencia_Consuta_TV.pat 29 Lucila Hinojoss, El cine mexiano: de lo global a fo lal (México: Trias, 200). 30 Televisa, “Annual repore 20-F 2014.” “Annual Report 20-F 2014." wanual Report 20-F 2014,” 26, 33 Televisa, “Annual report 2014 20-F." 34 Televisa, “Annual repore 2014 20-F." 43 t 35 Televisa, “Annual report 2014 20-F. 36 For more information about this case see Rodrigo Gémez and Gabriel Sos, "Digital terest.” 37. CNN Expansion, “AT&T completa la compra de lusaell” CNNExpansién January 16, 019), accesed March 1, 2015, www.cnnexpansion.com/negocios/2015/01/16/at-completa-la-compra-e-iuacell i 38 Televisa, “Annual report 2014 20-F.” 39 Enrique Sénchea-Rouia, “Concentacin meditica, 0 gobemabiidad democritic? La ‘Ley Televi’ como ceido de caso." Enrique Sancher, Francisco Aceves eta. Gobemabilidad democri: elu pola y mdi ‘ke comuniain en México (Guadalyjaa: Universidad de Guadaljar, 2007): 137. Rail Trejo “Poderes icténs, poderes graves," Reva Mexicans de Ciewcts Plies y Soils 58, no. 217, 223-232, } 40 Jenaro Villamil, “Proyecto Jorge: el plan de Televia-Peéa Nieto para alcanzar la presidencia” Paso (September 8, 2012), accesed Febroary 8, 2015, ware proceso com ms/%p=319353; Jo Tuckman, Mexican Media Scandal: Secretive Televisa Unit Promoted PRI Candidate. The Guardian (June 26, 2012}, accesed February 10, 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/2012 /jun/26/mexican-media-scandab-tlevisa-pri- 41 Emiliano Treré, “Rechiming, Proclaiming, and Maincaining Collective Identity in thet YoSoy132 Movement in Mexico: An Examination of Digial Frontage and Backsage Activism through Socsl Media and Instant Messaging Platforms” Information, Communiation & Scr, forthcoming (2013): 1-15. 42, Jorge Bravo, “Concentacién, preponderancia y competenca en la Televisibn en México” en Mara Elena “Meneses, Jorge Bravo y Maria Gabino, Tecomuniaows y Radian en la eniaa. Ryu, Eonorda 1 Cambio Tecoligio San Luis Potosi: UASL-AMIC, 2018, 171-206, 43: Paxman and Cssttieda 44 Gubriel Gonsiler, Rela como Note... 178-183, 45 Direccién General de Culrara Democrticay Fomento Civico, Quinta Enata Naina sobe Cult Police y Prices Cludadanas ENCUP 2012 (México: SG, 2013), worw-encup.gob.mx/work/models/Encup/ Resource/69/1/images/Presentacion-5ta-ENCUP_2013.pdF 46 John Sinckit, Lain American Television 47 Guillermo Oroeco and {mmacolata M. Vassallo (E&s), OBITEL 2014 Transmedia Produsion Steteis in Television Fiaion Porto Alegre: GLOBO-Eaitoril Sulina, 2014) 48: Ichas to be sud that over a limited period of time the rights of the National ream were not Televs's bout this was only for part of 1991 49 John Sinchir, Lain American Television3, bup://adage.coms "York Times, May 2, “ommunications and ahemlze=878678= ampaigns,” Economic Macmillan, 2014), ‘bbying/188607-t0p- -wamotherjones.com/ The Hil, August 6, ociates-loses highest” ag Trade,” Nav Yor snared-guinea-bisa- 2C Lobbying Fin ~ “publi.com/article/ sition in Advenising: 9. 13th edition (New srmediaries in Social a com/dyn/file_dlphp/ snyc.gov/heml/echt/ Jean Umiker-Sibeok York, NY: Columbia 1999), Castells, “European and Seciel Geograpy Forge Pres, 2000) Jobal Restruceuring.” CONCLUSION Reflections on Media Power Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gémez, and Janet Wasko In Tterationalizing Media Theory, John D. H. Downing remarks, “without constant attention to [power relations), media studies might as well shut up shop.”! We wholeheartedly agree, and ‘most cttical media scholars will find Downing’s claim fail, 2 it constitutes one ofthe seemingly ‘commonplace assumptions of critical media studies. Indeed, the call for constant attention to the changing nature of power relations is one that is consistently made by critical researchers during times of inter-paradigm dialogue on the nature of media studies? While the sentiment may be familiar, critical scholars devote comparatively less attention to establishing explicit definitions of “power,” generally, or “media power,” more specifically. Rather, critical scholas may operate with either an implicit understanding of power or they may adhere to a definition that is inspired by the work of one or another social theorist. However, given the importance of power to the entire enterprise of critical media studies, the contours of power relations are in constant need of rethinking, renewal, or outight disposal To that end, one of the major intentions of this volume was to specifically interrogate the notion of media power, particularly the ways that specific media corporations both hold power and how they exercise it. Indeed, 2s discussed in the Introduction, contributing authors to this volume-were asked to comment on how particular corporations exercise power within their respective domains. Recognizing that media corporations and their products always act in relationship to other institutions and forces, authors were requested to provide economic, politcal, and cultural profiles of their respective corporations or regions. ‘This conchiding chapter, then, provides a summary of what was learned through the process. ‘We reffect on how media corporations are both shaped by and exercise economic, political, and cultural power. And although the comments and analysis are separated into these three spheres, the main argument presented here is that power itself i always relational, expressed at times in somewhat predictable patterns, while at other times in contradictory ways. However, we find the radical view of power to be the most useful because it explicitly critiques the unequal distribution ‘of resources and the ways in which this inequality is reproduced over time. In ths sense, we are following Des Freedman's work in The Contradicions of Media Power, wherein media power is described as both a consequence and an increasingly significant component of continuing, and stratified, processes of social reproduction. It is not simply about either gently persuading or forcibly coercing individuals to do things they would otherwise choose not to do but about the478 Benjamin J. Bickinbine, Rodrigo Gomez, and Janet Wasko material coordination of flows of information, communication and culture such that persuasion and coercion—as well as expression and interpretation—are most effectively able to take place? This volume can be seen as an extension of Freedman’s work on media power insofar as authors have specifically interrogated. how companies facilitate the “material coordination of flows of information, communication, and culture” chrough economic, political, and cultural relations, In what follows, then, we explore specific iterations of media power within these three spheres Economic Power ‘The economic profiles ofthe companies in this volume reveal at least two distinct level of economic power exhibited by media corporations: those factors that are internal to the corporation and those that are external. On the one hand, media corporations exercise economic power by those things that are intemal to the corporation, including subsidiary companies, other properties (whether tangible or intellectual), and its workforce (from laborers to executives). All ofthese are internal to the corporate structure, and they collectively represent the corporation's ownership or control of those factors that are necessary for the material coordination of flows of information, ‘communication, and culture. ‘The sheer scale of any particular corporation's holdings provides cone of the clearest expressions of its power to control the production, distribution, and exhibition of communicative resources. However, the availability of information about these factors varies across national boundaries. In the United State, the Securities Act of 1933 requires publicly traded companies to provide annual disclosures oftheir business activities, including sets and Tabilites, financial performance data, and information about the board of directors. Indeed, many of the authors in this volume relied on these annual reports to determine the holdings and business activities ofthe corporations covered in their chapters. This is particulaly true of lange, U.S.-based companies like Disney, Time Warner, News Corporation, Comeast, and, to some degree, National Amusements, which owns both Viacom and CBS. National Amusements, however, illustrates one limitation of the disclosure requirements of the Securities Act in that privately owned corporations are exempt fom filing annual reports. Nonetheless, the disclosure requirements ofthe Securities Act provide researchers with a mechanisi for obtaining regularly published reports on the activities of media corporations. ‘The same cannot be said for other global media giants. As noted by Pradip Ninan Thomas in his chapcer on South Asia, information about companies in that region is not readily avaiable. Moreover, the information that i available may not be reliable, Sandra Balié Hrvatn and Brankica Petkovié raised a related issue in their chapter on Faster Europe. ‘The media “giants” in that region (or, s proposed by the authors, “media dwar8”) are ofien controlled by local moda oligarchs, and their non-transparent ownership is offen used to ficiltae the non-transparent flow of money. ‘These insights illuminate a central concern with the economic power of media corporations. Insofar as one can determine the extent ofa particular media corporation's operations, such information ‘can reveal its potential to control the production, circulation, and consumption of media messages. However, when such information is not available, then the public loses its ability to scrutinize the activities of the corporation, Such concems are not unique to media corporations, but the implications are much more profound when one considers a corporation's tiesto other institutions and actors outside of its corporate structure. “This consideration leads to the second level of a media corporation’s economic power, which is related to those forces that ate to some degree extemal to the corporation itself. These include 2 corporation's involvement in the circulation of financial capital, including corporate investmentsulture such that ‘steffectvely able insofar as authors ation of flows of ‘ural relations. In three spheres. evels of economic oration and those sx by those things >perties (whether these are internal vership oF control of information, roldings provides 1, and exhibition ional boundaries. panies to provide vcial performance 1s in this volume the corporations nies like Disney, wusements, which limitation of the tions are exempt tities Act provide crivities of media Jinan Thomas in readily available. atin and Brankica “giants” in that media oligarchs, tt flow of money. porations. Insofar such information media messages. lity to scrutinize corations, but the other institutions tic power, which If These include orate investments Reflections on Media Power 479 that can dramatically influence operations as well 2s the strategies that a corporation is able to pursue, Other external factors include a corporation’s strategic partnerships, alliance, joint ‘ventures or temporary agreements that extend the reach of the corporation beyond the boundaries ofits corporate structure, What is important to conse about these extemal factors i that they can shape the contours of the possible strategies avalable to a corporation at any given time. ‘One example is provided in Luis Albornoe’s chapter on Pris. In that case, Prisa experienced 4 period of aggressive growth fom 1984-2007, but the rapid expansion that was marked by substantial acquisitions and cheap loans afer going public in 2000 created a situation in which the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 left che company with massive debts. Consequently, the company has been restructuring its debt and selling off key asets since approximately 2008. In this cae, the corporation's transformation has been dramatic, as it has been abandoning assets that ‘were previously considered to be the heart of the company. Moreover, even though the corporation is based in Spain, more than 73% of its earnings before interes, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) come from Latin America Indeed, all of the companies and regions described in this volume have experienced diferent financial foreunes resulting from their unique histories. These financial histories are tied to ‘ownership structures and the investment capital avaiable to exch corporation. Those companies with large capital reserves have a greater ability to acquire additonal propertics, especially those that may constitute a competitive threat to the corporation. This was highlighted in many ofthe chapters on the Internet giants (.e., Google, Facebook, Apple, ct.), as well as Yu Hong's discussion of Tencent Holdings. The practice of acquiring start-up companies or established companies within particular national or regional markets becomes a key strategy for both expanding growth as well 2s siffing competition, which represents another key dimension ofa media corporation's economic power Perhaps the most important external fictors contributing to a media corporation's economic power, however, are is ties to the state and the political or regulatory environment in which it operates, As noted by many of our authors, neoliberalism has been a defining feature of how feconomic power has been exercised around the world. While the term neoliberalism can be used to describe a range of practices, it is marked by an ideology that tends to separate market relations ‘from socal retions, as ifthey were two distinct spheres of activity. When the market is elevated above social relations and is no longer viewed as embedded within social relations it serves the normative function of providing an ethic to which all social relations should ascribe. This was the basis of Kael Polanyi’s critique of the chen-emergent neoliberal thought in the 1940s. But neoliberal thought has provided the backdrop for many significant domestic and international regulatory changes since atleast the 1970s. One ofthe more concrete expressions ofthis ideology hhas been the increasing privatization of those instrutions or resources that were once publicly ‘owned. In effect, the interests of capital and corporations have usurped the power ofthe sate. ‘As it applies to media comporations, we can examine the changes in the regulatory environment as well as particular corporations’ tiesto the state as way of assessing the extent of their political power. Political Power ‘The relationships of media corporations with political power involve different approaches and practices depending on specific interactions with different institutional powers of states around the globe. As discussed in this volume, corporations sometimes can be allied with government and at other times vehemently antagonistic. Rarely, however, do media corporations serve 25 ‘watchdogs of the state, but instead become ideological counterparts that participate as partisans ‘oF political agents in supporting one leader or patty that holds political power.480 Benjamin J. Birkibine, Rodrigo Gémez, and Janet Wasko Ics important that we understand pluralism a8 “a condition ofcukual and ethnic diversi, 4 dispersal of power, and greater ficedom and diversity of expresion and belief" Media power can be concentrated if media sytem isnot suficienty plaaiic ro present abroad range of views fiom the political spectrum of a society. Thus, when media monopolies ot duopolis exis, media power becomes concentrated and has negative consequences for the democratic heath o¢ ® country. Clear examples of this are discussed in the regional chapter, most specifically in the Mediaset (Italy) and Televisa (Mexico) chapters. For certain periods in some settings, there have been various kinds of collusion between meta corporations and goverment. Bertekmann’ ole duringthe Nazi period isa paradigmatic example, but this condition has also existed even in democratic countries, such s Britain under Thatchersm, The case of News Corporation is significant in this respec, asthe company has developed diferent practices and strategies around the world according to the particularities of each political sytem where it operates. In fic, it may be possible to argue that News Corporation is the global media siant with the most visible international political activity a local levels. Another example atthe regional level was the behavior of Grupo Prisa in relation to the Chavez regime, as ie provides an example of how a foreign and infental regional-Spanish multimedia group wied to wield politcal influence in Venezuela, specifically, and in Latin America, more generally, Media power isa key element to understanding the quality of democracies and the vitality of civil societies. After the eruption of social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Google, ett), which, to a certain degree, have enhanced the capacity of audiences a citizens to communicate horizontally chrough digital platforms and social networks, we ate experiencing new relations, counterbalances, and interactions in our media systems. cis clear that the roles and the centrality ‘of mainstream media corporations are being reshaped inthis new era, However, its aso posible to argue that mainstream media still exercise power and often maintain some kind of centrality in media systems. At the same time, the new corporations that control social media and provide {information and Internet-based services (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Comeas, Telmex, Tencent, tc) have developed new forms of control and surveillance through databases of information that can be obtained from social media platforms, email accounts, ot from manipulation of Intemet infastrucures. Thus, the efforts to regulate digital and informational rights (for instance, privacy and net neutrality) have become increasingly significant Indeed, these situations present many new challenges for the regulation of communication systems. Because these companies control public information and ate usin it for commercial and private interests, new regulations and policies may be vital in preserving the democratic potential of these new technologies. However, the media/communications corporations tend to supper deregulation by any means possible, in an attempt to clear the way for private imperatives and profit maximization, Many of the chapters inthis volume discuss the details of corporate lobbying for sympathetic legislation and local and national political campaigns. Specific examples ofthese activities are found in the chapters on Comeast, Disney, Microsoft, Apple, Time Wamer, News Corp, Globo, Televisa, and Mediaset. Overal, then, the study of the media corporations and how they build power is fundamental to understanding the constraints, challenges, and contradictions of our contemporary societies in relation to social change. Cultural Power Global media corporations are significant not only because oftheir economic and political role, but because ofa wide range of potential cultural influences. Certainly, the iswe of media influence or “effects” isa highly contentious topic among media rearchers, a well as with policy makerscthnic diversity, a " Media power a broad range of 1 duopolies exist, rocratic health of pecifically in the ‘between media ligmatic example, der Thatcherism, veloped different » political system the global media example at the ne, a8 it provides wp tried to wield ally. nd the vitality of Googlet, etc), to communicate g new relations, nid the centrality itis ako possible 5nd of centrality adia and provide “elmex, Tencent, information that xxion of Internet instance, privacy communication commercial and cratic potential tend to support imperatives and ‘porate lobbying amples of these » Warner, News + is fundamental rary societies in xd political role, ‘media influence h policy makers Reflections on Media Power 481 and the public. Meanwhile, many media corporations offen claim that their busines is merely entertainment, without political implications or strong fects Nevertheless, it is dificult to deny that media corporations have significant cultural effects/influences, both at societal and individual levels. Generally, the media giants contribute to the commodification of culture, 2s the manufacture and marketing of cultural commodities increasingly replaces other ways that culture has been created and shared. Thus, media companies, at least potentially, shape dominant cultures and may contribute to the inhibition or demise of traditional or alternative culrares. It ight be argued, as wel, thatthe proliferation of media giants may tend to limit choices and contribute to a homogenization of culture, especially through the recent development of fanchises, synergistic practices, and more formulaic programming In terms of content, itis clear that media products/messages communicate social norms, and thus, ultimately influence people’ lives. For instance, as Meehan argues, “mere” entertainment can persuade people to buy advertised goods, adopt consumerist lifestyles, and buy only brand- named products. Of couse, different companies use different strategies, which may lead toa variety of cultural consequences. For instance, Disney maintains a unified corporate meta-brand, with Disney products and services availble and/or recognized all over the world, while Time Wamer (as Fitzgerald observes in his chapter) represents a “house of brands” and focuses on trans-industrial practices Fitzgerald alo points out another relevant dynamic in his discussion of Time Wamer’s recent ‘emphasis on a strategy of quality programming: Cultural-symbolic and economic power here are inextricably linked: in what one ‘Time ‘Wamer executive refers to as “the arms race in original programming,” the wider culeural significance of such products reinforces both the potential for commercial interextuality and the position of Time Wamer within shifing commodity chains. ‘Meanwhile, other corporations combine a wide variety of business and thus have different kinds of cultural influence. As Pickard and McGuigan observe in their chapter on Comcast, the company's “vast holdings offer it many opportunities to exert subtle forms of influence, a kind ‘of soft power that extends its reach into symbolic and ideological spheres... Its extensive holdings cof cable neeworks, spanning various genres, enjoy national distribution and furnish many symbolic resources through which Americans construct their realities and public cultures.” ‘The quality of content is alo an issue identified by some of the contributors to this volume. Becker describes how Bertelsmann produces as many items as posible, and that “The economics of high circulations mean that they must appeal to mediocre tastes.” He traces the evolution of Bertelmann’s low-quality entertainment television activities and the effect on public broadcasting, in Germany: “RTL started presenting an apolitical, low-quality entertainment television channel and the two public service broadcasting authorities ARD and ZDF allowed themselves to sink to the same low-quality standards in the battle for market share.” ‘The issue of globalization strategies and cultural consequences isa component of the discussions ‘of many authors in this collection. Though much has been written critiquing the concept of cultural imperialism, fiom both critical and administrative positions, the infiuence of powerful trans- national media conglomerates on local and national cultures is sila relevant question around the ‘world even ifthe specific contours of this dynamic may vary within different national contexs, For example, in his chapter on © Globo as well as in his other work on cultural imperialism, Joseph D. Straubhaar demonstrates how the forces of cultural imperialism and dependency on Time-Life blended with specific actions of Brazilian manages who were responsive to popular tastes within the country.482 Benjamin J. Birkinbine, Rodrigo Gémez, and Janet Wasko Not only do global media giants provide specific cultual products that include Western trends, fashions, and ideas, but the ideas of culeural commodities or cultural market values are exported and reinforced by these gigantic companies through thei examples, a5 well as thei inks to political agendas, public relations campaigns, and international policy organizations. Political economists continue to be criticized for avoiding cultural concems, despite a good deal of work that integrates politcal, economic, and cultual analysi.® The data and analysis offred by Global Media Gian’ contributors provide entry points for further cultural analysis and foundations for a wide range of multi- and cross-disciplinary analysis Concluding Remarks on Media Power ‘We beyan this concluding chapter by arguing that power is always relational and that itis expressed in both predictable and contradictory ways. By ascribing to a relational definition of power, we argued that economic, political, and cultural power are all woven into the fabric of media power precisely because media corporations are situated within these spheres, but they also have the ability to influence these spheres in diferent ways. Having established a relational and interwoven definition of power, we separated three strands for commentary and analysis. In this concluding section, we ‘would like to re-emphasize the need for weaving these three stands back together to ative ata more comprehensive, although historically contingent, picture of media power. "To put it simply, the global media giants covered in this volume continue to hold power over the materia coordination of the flows of information, communication, and culture. However, the various case studies illustrate how each of the companies exercise power in different ways, and the way that they exercise power is contingent upon their unique histories. These histories include the effectiveness of the specific strategies pursued 2t any given time, but the range of strategies availble to the corporation is shaped by multiple factors, including the properties avaiable within its corporate structure (and the opportunities for synergy), the financial performance ofits investments, the regulatory environment within which it operates, its ties to the state (especially those individuals or partis that hold significant influence), and the degree to which its power is legitimized or accepted by those living within reach of its symbolic universe. ‘Then again, it would be fillacious to see only divenity in the way that these corporations exercise power. Although the specifi strategies may be unique and contingent, all corporations have the pursuit of profitand, by extension, survival as their central motives. This generally means that the range of strategies available to the media giants is further limited by those options that have the greatest potential for profit maximization. Those options are generally marked by the creation of cultural commodities that appeal o the largest nuraber of viewers 2s lest-objectionable choices among programming choices. In other words, the global media giants generally tendo create “mere entertainment” as opposed to fulfilling their watchdog function in a democracy as 2 critic ofthe government. This can ako limit the extent of tre innovation within programming, as successful programs or formats are likely to be adapted to national audiences or the creation of copycat shows that follow predictable patterns.” ‘In this sense, studying media corporations and media power has important implications for social inequality, diversity, democracy, as well as basic media literacy. By focusing on media corporations, this collection has presented information and analysis that should provide a better understanding of global media power. This should be particularly important to those studying the ‘media in various context. It can provide a foundation for stuies that explore media texts, audiences, and effects, 2s well a the role of media in other social institutions (education, religion, etc). Certainly, however, more research is needed to round out the picture in vatious ways. [Although we have covered various types of global media giants as well as provided overviews of specific regions, there are still other media companies that exercise significant power that were‘Westem trends, tues are exported links to political « despite a good d analysis offered wal analysis and uatit is expressed m of power, we of media power >have the ability oven definition ding section, we ter to arrive at a told power over ture. However, different ways, ‘These histories ut the range of operties available sformance ofits state (especially sch is power is 'se corporations all corporations generally means ose options that ‘marked by the st-objectionable snerally tend to a democracy as 1 progamming, the creation of implications for ssing on media vrovide a better vse studying the sexs, audiences, igion, etc). various Ways. ed overviews of ower that were Reflections on Media Power 483 not covered in this volume. For example, a more comprehensive picture of information and telecommunications companies needs to be provided. Governmental bodies and their relationships to media/communications companies should be more filly xploted. Public media/communication institutions need to be considered, and civil society groups a8 wel as alternative media activities should continue to receive attention, particularly the ways in which the activities of these groups relate to the media giants and other institutions ‘One final qualification might be made about the timelines of the analysis in tis book. As we have continuously noted, specific financial information, ownership arrangements, technological developments and other details will undoubtedly change after this book's publication. But while there will be change, there also will be continuity. We trust that this collection will be a model for understanding such change, as well as identifying ongoing tendencies in the evolution of corporate media power. In closing, then, we would like to re-emphasize our view that power is always shaped by and defined by social relationships. Overtime, these relationships are reproduced in certain ways, while at other times these relationships can be broken or may diverge from seemingly predictable patterns. ‘And since communication is fundamentally a social process, understanding the contours of power 3s itis perpetuated throughout social, economic, political, and cultural relationships lies at the heart of critical media studies. In this volume, the authors interrogated these relationships to expose the ways that media corporations exercise power as well as reproduce their power over time. “What emerged from the study was a complex and dynamic view of power. In other words, just as the specific strategies and practices of media corporations can change at any time, so too can the contours of media power. They are not mutually exclusive. And, just as we stressed that the contours of media power are constant in need of rethinking, renewal, or outright disposal, perhaps the same could be said of those media corporations who exercise such power. Notes 1 John D. H. Downing, Iuematonalizing Media Theory (London: Sage, 1996). 2 See the special edition of Journal of Communication ftom 1983: “Ferment in the Field," Jornal of ‘Conomuniation, 333), 1983 3. Des Freedman, The Conradiaions of Media Power (London: Bloomsbury, 2014) 4 See Kat Polanyi, The Great Transomation: The Pail and Eznomic Origins of Our Time (Boston, MA: Bescon Press, 1957) Clifford G Christians, Theodore L. Glaser, Denis MeQuail, Karle Nordenstreng and Robert A. White, [Nonnatve Theorie ofthe Medi: Joumaliom in Democratic Siete (Champaign, IZ: Universi of tlinois Press, 2009) 34 6 See Janet Wasko & Eileen R. Meehan, “Critical Croscoads or Parallel Route: Political Economy and ‘New Approaches to Studying Media Industries and Cultural Products,” Cinema Jounal 52 (3), Spring 2013. 7. One can eal think of number of platform shows that have been adapted to diferent national contexs. Examples include talent shows (ike the .. ol... Got Tale, or even The Voice series), daytime women's talk shows like The View, or the Big Brother realcy seis.