7v36g The Business of Entertainment 3 Volume Set

The Business of Entertainment
This page intentionally left blank
The Business of
Entertainment
VOLUME 1
Movies
Edited by Robert C. Sickels
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The business of entertainment / edited by Robert C. Sickels.
p. cm. (Praeger perspectives)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978 0 275998387 (set: alk. paper) ISBN 9780275998400 (vol. 1 : alk.
paper) ISBN 9780275998424 (vol. 2 : alk. paper) ISBN 9780275998448
(vol. 3 : alk. paper)
1. Performing arts. 2. Performing artsEconomic aspects. I. Sickels, Robert.
PN1584.B87 2009
790.2dc22
2008030435
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.
Copyright 2009 by Robert C. Sickels
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be
reproduced, by any process or technique, without the
express written consent of the publisher.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008030435
ISBN: 9780275998387 (set)
9780275998400 (vol. 1)
9780275998424 (vol. 2)
9780275998448 (vol. 3)
First published in 2009
Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881
An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
www.greenwood.com
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this book complies with the

Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National
Information Standards Organization (Z39.481984).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
I stop somewhere waiting for you.

Walt Whitman
Contents
Preface by Robert C. Sickels

Acknowledgments
1
2
3
xiii
Behind the Greenlight: Why Hollywood Makes the
Films It Makes
Jeffrey Hirschberg
The Six Faces of Piracy: Global Media Distribution

from Below
Ramon Lobato
15
KingKong.com versus LOLTheMovie.com: Toward

a Framework of Corporate and Independent Online
Film Promotion
Mary P. Erickson
Reacting Synergistically: Batman and Time Warner

Kimberly A. Owczarski
You believe in pirates, of course . . .:

Disneys Commodification and Closure of
Pirates of the Caribbean
Anne H. Petersen
ix
The Business of Race in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Sue J. Kim
37
55
77
93
viii
7
8
9
Contents
Dream Worlds: Film-Game Franchising and

Narrative Form
Harry Brown
111
Co-Opting Independence: Hollywoods

Marketing Label
Mary P. Erickson
129
Entertainment in the Margins of the American

Film Industry: Orion Pictures Presents a Filmhaus
Production of a David Mamet Film
Yannis Tzioumakis
10 Piercing Steven Soderberghs Bubble
153
179
R. Colin Tait
11 Celebrity Juice, Not from Concentrate: Perez Hilton,

Gossip Blogs, and the New Star Production
Anne H. Petersen
195
12 Big Bucks and Fake Tears: Celebrity Journalisms

Hyperreality
Zachary Snider
217
About the Editor and Contributors
233
Index
235
Preface
The business of entertainment has always been in constant ux, but at the
present moment the speed at which change is occurring is singularly unprecedented. As the entertainment industry seeks to evolve and adapt in light
of the ascendance of all things digital, 100 years worth of structures and
systems appear to be falling away like so much dross. The concomitantly
nascent era of new media, so the assumption goes, must also by denition
mean the death of old media. And in some ways this is true, at least as it concerns the various physical forms of older media such as records and cassettes,
VHS tapes, analog television broadcasts, and newspapers actually made of
paper. These sorts of things are either already long dead or at best replicating the experience of Homo habilis laying eyes on Homo erectus for the rst
time; the new era most certainly will not go well for them. In place of the
old totems come the new onesiTunes, HDTV, TiVo, Digital Cinema, and
so onseemingly disparate but unied by their digital make-ups. And this
digital nature and the accompanying ease with which music, lms, and TV
shows can be accessed and made portable allows the new media to be free.
But free in what sense of the word? Certainly free as concerns the unfettering of the former corporeal state of media. While we need something tangible on which to view itmade unbelievably simple by the proliferation of
iPods and like devicesmedia can be converted into digital ones and zeroes
and delivered via the ether almost anywhere in the world at any time. New
media is portable and near innitely accessible and only becoming more so as
technology improves, just as the devices upon which we store our information
Preface
grow increasingly innitesimal (e.g., the iPod Nano). But of greater concern,
at least to the giant international media conglomerates that own the rights to
so much of what the entertainment industry produces, is the perception that
media is actually free that payment is neither required nor necessary, that
the natural state of entertainment is that it should be wholly accessible entirely without cost. This way of thinking is increasingly prevalent in younger
consumers, who bristle at paying 99 on iTunes for a song or $4 to their cable
provider for a movie. Why bother paying for things when you can download
them for nothing online with any number of free, very user-friendly, and increasingly hard to trace technologies? And this line of thinking rightfully
scares the bejeezus out of the media congloms whose nancial lifeblood emanates from their stranglehold on the distribution of their subsidiaries products. If, as Michael Wolff claims, [t]he age of media-distribution monopolies
is over,1 then what comes next?
And so the rush is on to answer this and other questions, although I would
argue that the desire to bury the old business methods as being somehow
inapplicable to new media is, as yet, premature. Yes, it does seem as though
the old models arent efcient in the present moment and that companies are
struggling to hit upon new ones that will be equally protable. This is especially true as concerns just how the Internet will earn income for content
providers. And, in fact, perhaps with the exponentially burgeoning number
of opportunities for consumers to acquire and view their media, even the
attempt to replicate what worked before is questionable. And yet it persists.
The ubiquitously adopted concept of media convergence when a company
spreads the promotion and sales of a product across multiple subsidiaries
has yet to prove as protable as had been hoped, but its not like money
hasnt been made. When Sony can make all the Spider-Man movies, which
feature music by Sony BMG recording artists, and then sell soundtrack CDs
or digital downloads, which can be played on Sony CD players, or ripped for
play on a Sony MP3 Walkman, or converted into ring tones for use on a Sony
Ericsson cell phone, and sell DVDs to be played on Sony DVD players, and
sell video games to be played on Sony PlayStations, and license the images
of Spiderman and accompanying characters to be featured on toys, fast food,
and any number of other objectsall of which equals billions for the parent
companys bottom linesomething is working out as planned. So, its no
surprise that new media is quickly being bought up not just by other new
companies but by the old ones as wellfor example, Google owns YouTube
while Fox News Corp. now counts MySpace among its subsidiaries. And
while theyve yet to capitalize on just how to maximize prots from these
kinds of things or to corner the market on the distribution avenues for new
media, its impossible to dismiss out of hand the idea that they will. After
all, previous innovations and revolutions in the entertainment industry that
were supposed to make the companies of old uncompetitive dinosaurs in the
Preface
xi
end only resulted in their becoming bigger and more omnivorous than ever.
Whos to say it wont happen again?
And while its fascinating to prognosticate what kinds of industrial changes
the latest moment of revolution will result in for the companies involved,
what often goes unmentioned in so many breathless glossy magazine features
on industry tycoons is what this means for the many artistic folks working in
the industry. The same tensions that have always been present between creators and companies remain, none more vivid than the question of whether
or not the eternal conict between art and commerce can ever be peaceably
resolved, especially in light of the awesome international dominance of the
so-called big six contemporary media conglomeratesFox, Disney, General Electric, Viacom, Time Warner, and Sonywhich control upwards of
90 percent of the U.S. entertainment industry. The creation of entertainment
media is the provenance of the artistically minded, whereas the widespread
dissemination of their work is the bailiwick of so many Ivy Leaguetrained
MBAs. But the digital renaissance has allowed creators more control over
their work, especially as concerns making and distributing their art outside
of traditional systems. As artists gain more control over their work, how will
the media conglomerates, which are always looking to increase the size of
their piece of the pie, seek to consolidate their power, and how will this effect what gets made and seen and heard and what doesnt? How will art and
commerce intersect differently in the digital age? And what will the results
of their collision ultimately mean for consumers, whose lives are increasingly
ensconced in an omnipresent and immediate entertainment industry?
While its clear that the entertainment industry is once again going
through one of its periodic upheavals, what that means is only now beginning to be debated. Are we really going into a new era in which all the old
models cease to apply, or will the old behemoths weather yet another storm
only to once again emerge intact and even larger than they were in previous
incarnations? And how will artists trying to maintain their integrity and beliefs reconcile their visions with those of the corporate entities for which they
must almost certainly work should they want their creations ever to be seen
by a larger audience? Its the answers to these questions with which the various authors contributing to The Business of Entertainment: Movies grapple.
In the opening chapter, Behind the Greenlight: Why Hollywood Makes
the Films It Makes, Jeffrey Hirschberg lays out what motivates the thought
process behind the kinds of lms that Hollywood most often produces. This
is followed by Ramon Lobatos The Six Faces of Piracy: Global Media Distribution from Below, which eloquently argues that piracy is not only a
form of deviant behavior but may also offer routes to knowledge, development, and citizenship. Next is Mary P. Ericksons KingKong.com versus
LOLTheMovie.com: Toward a Framework of Corporate and Independent
Online Film Promotion, in which she explores the history and meaning of
xii
Preface
online marketing campaigns for studio lms and their independent counterparts. Kimberly A. Owczarskis Reacting Synergistically: Batman and Time
Warner examines a representative case of how a major media conglomerate uses a tent-pole lm to spread product throughout its various subsidiaries. Likewise, Anne H. Petersens You believe in pirates, of course . . .:
Disneys Commodication and Closure of Pirates of the Caribbean details
how Disney combined history and fantasy to create a new agship corporate
commodity rooted in societys psyche. In The Business of Race in The Lord
of the Rings Trilogy, Sue J. Kim discusses ways in which the LOTR lms
exemplify problems with our understanding of race and how the business
of lmic entertainment relies on such distortions. Harry Browns Dream
Worlds: Film-Game Franchising and Narrative Form fascinatingly discusses the convergence of Lucaslms lmmaking and game design branches
and what that might mean for the future of entertainment. Ericksons CoOpting Independence: Hollywoods Marketing Label comes next, and in it
she elucidates the mirage of independent lmmaking, which she convincingly claims is now more often than not just a part of the marketing plans of
major studios. But independent lms nanced primarily by studios outside
the dominant system surely did once exist, as is clear in Yannis Tzioumakiss
Entertainment in the Margins of the American Film Industry: Orion Pictures Presents a Filmhaus Production of a David Mamet Film, in which he
skillfully recounts the story behind the making of Mamets seminal indy lm.
And perhaps theres hope for independent lm yet, as convincingly posited in
R. Colin Taits Piercing Steven Soderberghs Bubble, in which he discusses
the possible industrial impact of the multiplatform day and date release of
Soderberghs lm. Finally, the books last two essays, Petersens Celebrity
Juice, Not from Concentrate: Perez Hilton, Gossip Blogs, and the New Star
Production and Zachary Sniders Big Bucks and Fake Tears: Celebrity
Journalisms Hyperreality, forcefully, and at times hilariously, offer insight
into what celebrity has come to mean in contemporary culture.
Ultimately, it is our hope that these essays will serve to introduce their
readers to the rich and myriad array of issues facing the contemporary lm
industry and how they might play out on a worldwide cultural stage. And
perhaps they will also contribute to new ways of thinking about and researching the business of entertainment as it applies to the movies and what
they continue to mean in a rapidly changing industry and world.
Robert C. Sickels
NOTE
1. Michael Wolff, The Best of Enemies, Vanity Fair, April 2008, 134.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks are due to my editor at Praeger Publishers, Jeff Olson, for his
patience, invaluable input, and quality baseball talk, even if he is a Red Sox
fan. Thanks are also due to Praegers Nick Philipson and Lindsay Claire, who
helped immensely in getting this project off the ground and seeing it through
to completion. Special thanks are also due to all the authors who contributed
their pieces to these collections; I am very grateful and appreciative. Id also
like to thank Professor Michael Branch of the University of Nevada, Reno,
for his tireless guidance, inspiration, and friendship over the years; he showed
me a sterling path that Ive tried my best to follow. Thanks to Whitman College and the support of my colleagues and friends here, especially Robert
Withycombe and Jana Byars. And thanks to my dad, who taught me to always
do your work and dont make excuses, and to my mom, who always had time
to take me to a movie or buy me a book. Lastly, thanks to my kids, Tallulah
and Dutch, who put up with me throughout what was a long and arduous
process.
chapter 1
Behind the Greenlight: Why Hollywood

Makes the Films It Makes
Jeffrey Hirschberg
CUTTING THE $100 MILLION CHECK

Have you ever sat in a movie theater and quietly asked yourself, How in
the world did this lm get made? Me, too. Thats why I wanted to delve
into the underbelly of the studio system to explore that all-elusive decision
to place a feature lm into production, aptly called a greenlight. Put simply, when a studio issues a greenlight for a feature lm designated for wide
release in North America (typically, there are only one or two executives at
each studio who yield such power), the studio is pledging, on average, over
$100 million.1 Thats quite a sum, especially when one considers the abysmal
failure rate experienced by the average Hollywood feature lm. (According
to Daily Variety, the research rm Global Media Intelligence says that production costs for mid- to big-budget movies have risen much faster than
revenues over the past few years, leaving the studios business model deep
in the red.)2
It should be noted there are different decision-making processes employed
when television and cable networks decide whether or not a series or Madefor-TV movie goes into production or when a studio decides whether or not
to make a movie designated Direct to DVD. This chapter, however, will focus
on feature lms intended for theatrical release in North America and beyond.
THE BLUEPRINT
It often is stated that the blueprint for any lm is the screenplay. A featurelength screenplay, which typically runs between 90 and 120 pages, is the
Movies
linchpin for a studio lm project. It is the screenplay that inevitably attracts

elements (a director and/or a star) to a project, and those elements in their
totality assist a studio in deciding whether or not it is prepared to write that
astounding check for $100 million.
Even though screenplays are frequently the starting point of a feature lm
project (some projects simply begin with an idea, predictably referred to as a
pitch), the journey a script takes from 120 pieces of paper to an internationally released feature lm is as unique as the screenplay itself. In fact, some
scripts are purchased with the understanding that a studio is interested not
only in greenlighting the project but also putting it on the fast track.
For instance, on April 14, 2004, Daily Variety reported that a screenplay
titled The Passion of the Ark sold for $1.5 million against $2.5 million to Columbia Pictures (in this case, the writers were paid $1.5 million for their script and
would receive an additional $1 million if the script went into productionan
extremely high sale price in the world of Hollywood screenwriters). The
script, written by Bobby Florsheim and Josh Stolberg, is a modern-day tale
of a man approached by God to build an ark to save the world from a second
ood. A month later, Daily Variety ran the following story:
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures and Spyglass are in talks
to mount a Bruce Almighty sequel based on the Bobby Florsheim/Josh Stolberg script The Passion of the Ark. Talks are just getting under way, but the
plan is to court Jim Carrey to reprise and to have Tom Shadyac return
as director . . . Turning a free-standing script into a sequel is not unprecedented. After fruitless attempts to make a third installment of Die Hard,
Fox nally took the Jonathan Hensleighs script Simon Says and redrafted
it as a vehicle for Bruce Willis John McClane cop character.3
In this case, even though The Passion of the Ark was written as a standalone original script, Universal Pictures saw the potential to modify the screenplay into a sequel for Bruce Almighty a comedy that grossed $485 million
worldwide.4 The studio undoubtedly sensed that the screenplay for The Passion of the Ark could benet from a built-in audience (discussed later in this
chapter) and thus gave the picture a greenlight. But Universal did not get the
star they originally wanted. Jim Carrey passed on the project, and the studio
instead hired Steve Carell in the starring role. While not as bankable a star
as Carrey, Carell was on a positive career trajectory, mostly due to a hit series
on NBC (The Ofce) and a well-reviewed and nancially successful recent
feature lm (The 40 Year Old Virgin). But did the greenlight pay off ?
On Monday, June 25, 2007, Daily Variety provided its assessment of the
lms opening weekend:
Evan is the rst sequel of the summer to open well below previous installments. Pic, starring Carell instead of Carrey, bowed to $32.2 million, less
Behind the Greenlight
than half of the $68 million Bruce took in its 2003 opening. Still, the lm is
hardly sunk. Evan did nish the weekend at No. 1 and, pointing to positive
exit polls and cinema scores, U execs say they expect the lm to have good
word of mouth and strong legs. They also report that auds were fairly
evenly divided between families and adults, as well as between the religious
and nonreligious. Whats causing U the biggest migraine is Evans cause
celebre status as the most expensive comedy ever made. The minute word
of the budgetestimated to be $175 millionbegan circulating, the studio knew it would be ghting an uphill battle, despite the fact that U had a
co-nancing partner in Relativity Media.5
It is worth noting that Relativity Media is one of several new private lm

nancier/hedge fund partners that help defray the cost of big budget studio
pictures. According to The Hollywood Reporter, The emergence of the hedge
fund, a form of investment company that enjoys wide latitude as to where
it can place its money, has created millions of dollars in capital that is now
being made available to the entertainment industry. Experts also note that
the recent slowdowns of real estate and the stock market in delivering solid
returns on investment have helped shift Wall Streets focus to Hollywood.6
So, what happened to Evan Almighty? As of August 15, 2007, the lm has
generated only $97 million in its U.S. theatrical releasean enviable gross
for most lms, but a disappointment for a lm that reportedly cost $175 million to produce, excluding marketing costs.7 Having said that, Evan Almighty
will still generate revenue from other countries as well as alternate distribution outlets (e.g., DVD rentals). So, did Universal Pictures make a prudent
decision in greenlighting Evan Almighty? The proverbial jury is still out.
As you have seen, a million dollar script does not necessarily equate to a
nancially successful lm. And, what about the value of a major movie star
in a lm? Today, Julia Roberts may be the most likeable, bankable female
star in the world, but thats today. Tomorrow, no one knows for sure. In any
event, the total value of the elements attached to a screenplay play an enormous role in a studios decision-making process.
This high stakes Texas Holdem game of motion pictures begs the obvious questions: Why do Hollywood studios choose to make certain lms and
deny others the light of day? What screenplays are worthy of attaching a
check for $100 million? Is it as simple as, Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts are
onboard? Or, The rst two Shrek lms grossed over a billion dollars. How
can we not make Shrek The Third ?8
In some cases, greenlighting a lm seems frightfully obvious. Or is it?
Lets pretend you are the president of TriStar Pictures in the late 1980s.
One of your trusted development executives (a generic term for studio folks
who are charged with acquiring and developing screenplays) bursts into
your ofce and merrily exclaims, We got Dustin Hoffman, Sean Connery,
and Matthew Broderick in a three-generation mob comedy. And better yet,
Movies
Sidney Lumet (Dog Day Afternoon, Network, and The Verdict) is going to direct! If you were sitting in the presidential suite of TriStar on that fateful
day, chances are you would have greenlit the lm in question as fast as you
can say, Oscar. But, when the lm nally becomes Family Business (1989)
and generates only $12.2 million in domestic box ofce receipts and primarily negative reviews, one must wonder: Does the concept of an obvious
greenlightin other words, a safe bet for your $100 millioneven exist?9 It
is the goal of this chapter to explore such questions and posit some theories
as to why Hollywood bets tens of millions of dollars on some projects and
passes on others. But rst, as Carl Sagan was fond of exclaiming, You have
to know the past to understand the present.10
A PASSION FOR THE PICTURES
Hollywood was invented, for lack of a better term, by seven men of
Eastern European descent in the 1920s who saw an opportunity to bring
entertainment to the populous while enabling those individuals to assimilate
seamlessly into the upper crust of American society. These visionaries
Harry Cohn, William Fox, Carl Laemmle, Louis B. Mayer, Jack and Harry
Warner, and Adolph Zukorand the story of their rise to fame and fortune
is told meticulously in Neal Gablers award-winning book An Empire of Their
Own.11 What process did these founders of Hollywood use to choose which
screenplays were made into motion pictures and which screenplays would
forever collect dust on a bookshelf tucked away in a bungalow on the studio lot? Is it possible that the global entertainment conglomerates of today
can learn from their forefathers? On Jul 9, 2007, I had the opportunity to
interview Gabler for this chapter. All subsequent quotes from Gabler are
taken from this interview. His insights into the decision-making process of
the Hollywood moguls helps inform us on how motion pictures are greenlit today.
When one looks at the business models of today versus yesteryear, a glaring difference arises in terms of the distribution of feature lms. Years ago,
each individual lm was not sent out into the marketplace with marketing
support to attract an audience, says Gabler. The reason for this was because, with the exception of Universal, virtually every studio owned rstrun theaters in every major market. So, in stark contrast to todaywhere
the Hollywood studios must negotiate with third parties that exhibit their
lmsthe Moguls and the theaters were one in the same.
This business model would begin to unravel with the Consent Decree of
1940 a decision that would eventually prohibit Hollywood studios from
owning theater chains, as expressed in The United States v. Paramount Pictures in 1948. The Decree and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision was
a major blow to the Moguls and a central factor in the fall of the studio
system. The fact that todays business atmosphere requires studios to work
with third-party exhibitors is just one of the many dynamics that separates
decision making in the past from the present.
So, what was the impact of this vertical integrationthe studios ability to control every step along the supply chain? For one, the Moguls were
able to choose the lms they wanted to make without regard to third-party
exhibitors. Because they believed their instincts were in line with what the
public at large wanted, greenlighting decisions were often based on nothing
more than the desires of the founders of each studio. Today, the process is
much more complex (to be discussed later in the chapter).
In addition, there was an emotional, ego-laden element to the Moguls
decision-making process in that their name often was up on the screen. In other
words, when Louis B. Mayer greenlit a lm, he put his personal reputation
on the line. In addition, the Moguls were very interested in making lms that
impacted the status of their studios and, thus, their own personal status. The
Moguls focused on quality pictures, says Gabler, not necessarily because
they had an overwhelming desire to make great movies; rather, psychologically, they understood that great lms were the surest way to raise their status.
If they could raise the status of their motion pictures, they could raise their
own status. They were very concerned with how they would be regarded.
There were two primary ways in which the Moguls were able to achieve
status with their motion pictures: (1) winning Academy Awards (the rst
Academy Awards were handed out on May 16, 1929) and (2) attracting new
audiences. Adds Gabler, When movies began, its no secret that they made
their chief appeal to immigrants and working class. In the 1920s, however,
the major transformation of the motion picture industry was the attraction
of the middle class. Thus, the Hollywood studios were able to grow their audience base and therefore their prominence, or status. The Moguls invented
the concept of motion pictures as mass entertainmenta notion taken for
granted todaywith the goal of legitimizing an industry that previously
was regarded as low-class entertainment. Today, while the executives who
run the major Hollywood studios have much less of an emotional investment
in their lms, they have other pressures that are perhaps more ominous:
namely, to create a perpetual ow of hits that will generate a constant stream
of revenue to their parent companies, thus serving the goals of the corporation and its shareholders.
Finally, the Moguls had a far greater captive audience than the studio chiefs
of today. Says Gabler, Back in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, Americans didnt just
go to a movie, they went to the moviesand often. Back in those days, over
110 million Americans typically went to the movies every week. And, there
werent competitors for their attention like there are today in the form of
television, the Internet, iPods, video games, and the like. In contrast to today,
the studio heads in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s relied more on their instincts
Movies
rather than the multitude of factors that affect studio heads in todays complex global economy. The Moguls were substantial stockholders in the companies they founded, says Gabler, and they had the power and authority to
make the pictures they wanted to make.
And while they relied on their gut instincts to make lms they felt would
increase the status of their studios and themselves, there was another factor
that inuenced the types of lms the Moguls decided to make: movies that
celebrated America and its ideals. According to Gabler, Ever since The Jazz
Singer, many studio lms were explicitly about rejecting ones ethnicity or
religion and accepting America. Assimilation was a topic that was very much
on the minds of the people who ran Hollywood and had an effect on the lms
they decided to make. The Moguls idealized America and then dened the
images of America.
GREENLIGHTING TODAY
The decision-making process in Hollywood has undergone a metamorphosis since the days of the Moguls. Today, the studios are horizontally integrated, global empires with interests in lm, television, the Internet, video
games, and so forth. Consider, for instance, Viacom and its modern-day
mogul Sumner Redstone. According to Redstones ofcial bio, Sumner M.
Redstone serves as Chairman of the Board of both Viacom and CBS Corporation, roles he assumed after the separation of Viacom into two publicly
traded companies, which occurred at the end of 2005. Mr. Redstone is the
controlling shareholder of both companies.12 A careful look at Redstones
media universe (comprised of Viacom and CBS) would make the moguls of
yesteryear green with envy.
Television holdings include:
BET Networks
CBS Television Network
The CW
MTV Networks (including Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Spike TV, TV
Land, and VH1)
Showtime Networks
Filmed entertainment holdings include:
Paramount Pictures Corporation

DreamWorks Studios
MTV Films
Nickelodeon Movies
Paramount Home Entertainment
Paramount Vantage
Publishing holdings include:

Simon & Schuster
While Redstones empire does not include theater chains, his ability to
synergistically produce and market a feature lm via Hollywood studios,
broadcast networks, cable networks, and publishing companies is extraordinary. This is the Hollywood of the twenty-rst centurya Hollywood with
global production and distribution systems across all media; a Hollywood
that lobbies Washington and the world via the Motion Picture Association of
America and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association;
a Hollywood the Moguls could never have imagined.
While the business models of today are far more complicated than the
ones enjoyed by the Moguls, many of the fundamentals in deciding whether
or not a lm gets made are as timeless as storytelling itself: Will this story
hit an emotional chord with a wide audience? Does it feature a hero who
is relatable someone the audience will root for? Is there an overarching
lessona global theme that touches a part of our own morality and core beliefs? Will it make us laugh, cry, think, or sit forward in anticipation of what
will happen next? These are only a few of the questions that studio chiefs
have asked themselves for as long as feature lms have existed.
One of the most signicant factors that affect the studio chiefs of today
before issuing a greenlight is the subject of marketing. Prior to issuing a
greenlight, studios want to understand how to market the lm and to whom.
One of the tools employed is the Four Quadrants (see Table 1.1). These
Quadrants, as depicted in Table 1.1, are critical for studios to determine how
they will spend their marketing dollars, often referred to as P&A (prints &
advertising).
As one can imagine, the ultimate lm in terms of potential for nancial
success is one that effectively hits all Four Quadrants. For instance, consider
the library of lms created by Pixar Entertainment. Pixar has created eight
of the most successful animated lms of all time: Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy
Story 2, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, and Ratatouille. The
studio has won 20 Academy Awards, and its seven lms have grossed more
than $3.5 billion at the worldwide box ofce to date.13 All of the companys
lms have had one key aspect in common: They successfully hit all Four
Table 1.1 The Four Quadrants

Male
Female
Under 25
Over 25
Under 25
Over 25
Movies
Quadrantswhich means that Pixar has effectively produced more than just
childrens movies (that appeal to the Male and Female Under 25 Quadrants).
They have produced family lms that children and adults enjoy equally. A
simple concept? Denitely. A difcult goal to achieve? An understatement of
epic proportions.
To the president of a Hollywood studio, a lm that successfully targets
all Four Quadrants equals revenue . . . and a lot of it. So, if a studio chief truly
believes she has a Four Quadrant lm on her hands, cutting a $100 million
check may not be as risky as one might think. Having said that, studios often
make many lms that do not hit all Four Quadrants. For instance, Lionsgates
popular Saw franchise (Saw, Saw II, and Saw III ), has generated over $400
million in box ofce receipts and sold over 15 million DVD units while primarily being targeted toward the Male Under 25 Quadrant (and, to a lesser
extent, the Female Under 25 Quadrant).14 Clearly, the modest budget of a
horror lm sans major stars (who often require gross prot participation)
was an attractive combination for Lionsgate that has paid off.
While the studio bosses of yesteryear listened more often to their own
instincts than market research, todays global publicly traded entertainment
conglomerates must answer to higher authorities: impatient Boards of Directors and anxious shareholders. The nancial stakes are simply too high . . . and
they are only getting higher. So, when it comes to greenlighting lms, what
is the impact of a corporate structure that is beholden to daily stock prices
and quarterly reports? If you ran a Hollywood studio, would you bet your career on greenlighting Script A over Script B without sufcient quantitative information by which you can make an informed decision? Thats where
marketing comes into the decision-making process.
THE POWER OF MARKETING
When it comes to Hollywood marketing, Peter Adee has seen it all. A former executive at The Walt Disney Company, DreamWorks, Universal, and
MGM, Adee currently is the President of Worldwide Theatrical Marketing,
Distribution & New Media for Overture Films (a division of Starz Entertainment). I interviewed Adee for this piece on July 18, 2007. All subsequent
quotes from him come from this interview. Adee states that Hollywood lms
can be divided into three categories: (1) under $30 million, (2) mid-range
lms budgeted between about $30 million and $70 million, and (3) tentpole
lms that typically run over $100 million (e.g., summer blockbusters and sequels that, while expensive, are event movies designed to reach a mass audience and generate hefty ancillary revenue on a global scale). But, if youre
a studio chief, you arent done yet. Added to these production costs are P&A
costs. Adds Adee, For the average theatrical lm that is released wide, you
can usually add another $40 million to the cost of the production on order to
effectively market the picture.
Even though those numbers can be daunting, a studio must not simply
look at a lms nancial prospects in domestic theatrical distribution. Another important factor in assessing a lms success is the global shelf life of
the property. For instance, says Adee, how much revenue will be generated
from home entertainment, free TV, pay TV, international outlets, and payper-view in hotels and airlines? All of these issues will inuence a studios
decision-making process to greenlight a lm.
The Hollywood studios of today truly serve an international audience.
According to Adee, about half of the average lms revenue is generated from
countries other than the United States. So, how does a lms international
prospects impact studio decision making? As an example, says Adee, we do
know that action lms play better internationally, especially in Asia.
While the marketing department plays an important role in the greenlighting of lms, marketers are not usually brought to the table until the
screenplay has been purchased and there is potential talent attached. Adee
explains, What the studios do is develop projects for a long period of time,
then have a greenlight meeting where marketing (as well as other groups)
give their opinions as to how much revenue they feel the particular project
will generate. That said, greenlighting a lm is a process that is constantly
in ux.
Even if marketers dont necessarily have the last word, that doesnt mean
the discipline is not critical to greenlighting. Studio chiefs generally have a
marketing point-of-view going into the decision-making process, says Adee.
They have to know if they are going to reach an audience, so studios will
often make a movie with a specic audience in mind or they think they will
get all audiencesthus, a Four Quadrant movie. The bottom line is that if a
studio greenlights a movie, they better have a very good understanding as to
who they think is going to see it.
The frenetic pace created by the greenlighting, production, and marketing processes must be executed with perfect precision because there is little
room for error. If a large consumer company spends $100 million on a new
product, there is usually time to build and grow the products brand with
consumers. Not the case in the high-stakes world of Hollywood. In Hollywood, we dont have the luxury of building a brand over a long period of
time, says Adee. We have Friday night of the opening weekend. Thats it.
The rst few days of a lms release will determine if that movie is going to
be successful. By utilizing exit pollingwhich tells the studio how much
the audience likes the lmand historical models, the studio has a pretty
good sense of how much a lm will make during its run based on the rst
weekends gross.
Studios can make such predictions because of the historic rst weekend
gross multiplier that has been used. For instance, according to Adee, the
multiplier used to be about four for the average movie. So, if a lm enjoyed
an opening weekend of $25 million, it should have expected to gross about
10
Movies
$100 in the domestic theatrical market. That number, however, is shrinking.

Today, the multiplier is about three, adds Adee, and no one is sure if the
industry has trained more of the audience to go to a movie on its opening
weekendthus precipitating a larger fall-offor if there is another factor
we have yet to discover. It should be noted that occasionally there are lms
that defy this methodology by starting modestly and actually building an audience over time. Adee points out My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which grossed
over $240 million domestically) as a lm that deed the multiplier theory,
but he acknowledges that the lm was an anomaly.15
It has been said that the planets must align in order for a lm to be packaged with the right elements, greenlit, and successfully marketed to a wide
audience. An example of this synergy came to fruition with Universal Pictures The Fast and Furious (2001). Adee, who was the head of marketing for
the lms campaign, explains: The picture was not made for a great deal of
money. But, when we test screened it in Sacramento the audience loved it. We
originally had planned to release the movie in the spring, but after the test
screening, Stacey Snider [the Chairman of Universal] decided to move the
release date to June, which is a very competitive time of the year. Since we
had to compete against all of the other summer releases, we signicantly
upped our marketing spend for the lm, which resulted in a strong box ofce [The Fast and the Furious earned over $175 million in global box ofce
receipts].16 This project was even more satisfying, in light of the fact that the
lm did not even feature any major stars at the time. Marketing really had an
impact on the lms performance.
The bottom line is that even with the right script, talent, budget, and marketing campaign, getting a movie made will always be a Herculean achievement. Its so hard to keep all of the parts moving in the right direction,
says Adee. Everything is in ux. There are a lot of people who have a vested
interested in a movie being madeproduction executives, producers, actors,
writers, and directors to name a fewso these constituent groups will always be pushing the studio to say yes, and ultimately it is up to the Chairman
of the studio to greenlight a lm. The process is part collaborative, part dictatorial. Still, very few aspects of a potential lm increase its likelihood of
going into production more than an idea with a built-in audience.
THE BU ILT-IN AUDIENCE
To illustrate how the concept of a built-in audience can affect a studios decision to greenlight a lm, consider the following oversimplied hypothetical
scenario. Picture you are the newly minted president of Warner Bros. You
still need to prove yourself to the creative community, your Board of Directors, and the shareholders. The stock price of Time Warner (the parent company of Warner Bros.) has been depressed, and the CEO is pressuring you
11
to produce more blockbusters. In addition, you have been receiving demands

from the creative community to greenlight more quality lms (a grossly
overused term that is truly in the eye of the beholder).
Fortunately, two screenplays have landed on your desk. The rst script
(Script A) has been highly lauded by your entire management teamone
of the best they have read in years; the other is Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters
Unleasheda script that is not as highly regarded. Both scripts have similar
budgets. Script A does not yet have an element attached (although your
team says that it will easily attract an A-list actor and/or director), and the
second script has commitments from the cast of the original Scooby-Doo lm.
Your instincts tell you that Script A just may be good enough to earn one or
more Academy Awardsa mark of distinction you and your team have been
striving to achieve. Lets continue the scenario and suppose that your budget
only allows you to greenlight one more lm for the scal year. What to do?
You call a meeting of your management team and ask, How much did the
original Scooby-Doo gross in its worldwide theatrical release? The answer?
Over $222 million.17 The sequel, you reason, has the same cast, the same
director, and that all-important built-in audience. (For the purposes of this
discussion, let us dene a built-in audience as a signicant population that is
predisposed to attend a lm, based on the success of the lms source material: for instance, the original lm on which a sequel is based, a novel, comic
book, television program, or play.)
That stated, you and your team believe that the overall quality of Script
A far surpasses the Scooby-Doo script. And, one cannot overstate the importance of industry recognition if Script A attracts the right elements.
Finally, your head of production argues that Script A will have moderateto-high box ofce potential. Your head of marketing, however, respectively
disagrees, exclaiming, While this script will undoubtedly attract an A-list
star and director, it is likely to appeal only to women over 25, thus limiting
its overall revenue potential. In addition, the subject matter of Script A is
uniquely Americanthus, the outlook for international sales seems minimal.
If we make a modest box ofce prediction for Scooby-Doo 2, say, 50 percent of
the original, we are looking at a guaranteed worldwide theatrical gross of at
least $111 milliona far better risk.
Sufce to say that this scenario is completely ctitious and overly simplied, but as a rule, studio chiefs are faced with situations like this on a consistent basis. We may never know what discussions went on behind closed
doors when Warner Bros. decided to greenlight Scooby-Doo 2, but the fact
that the property had a built-in audience surely played a large role in the
studios decision-making process. Incidentally, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed earned over $140 million in worldwide box ofce receipts, not including ancillary revenue such as DVD sales and licensing (achieving over 63%
of the original lms gross).18
12
Movies
Times have certainly changed since the days of Louis B. Mayer and his
Mogul counterparts. Today, the motion picture industry is a complex, global
enterprise with a multitude of factors inuencing those who run Hollywood
studios. With production and marketing costs outpacing ination, studios
will continue to operate in a way that best mitigates its risks. And while committing $100 million to the average lm is in of itself a considerable nancial
risk, studio chiefs always will look to proven talent and built-in audiences to
increase their prospects for success.
It is difcult to predict how an increasingly connected society will impact
Hollywood studios regarding the lms they produce in the future. Clearly, the
advent of YouTube, MySpace, and countless Web sites devoted to motion pictures has had a signicant effect on how movies are marketed and consumed
today, but it is still unclear how the power of the Internet affects studio greenlighting. One guess is that lm concepts (and trailers) will be tested more in
the marketplace on the Internetin essence, creating a 24/7 international
focus group. As we have discussed, Hollywood studios are always looking for
ways to increase their potential for protability and mitigate risk.
Finally, a note about the quality of motion pictures in todays American
multiplexes (one could argue that this topic could be a book unto itself ).
While this chapter has focused on the factors that go into the greenlighting
process, little has been mentioned about the qualityor lack thereofof the
nal product. Because of the structure of the Hollywood studios in the 1920s,
30s, and 40s and the relative stature of the Moguls, it can be argued that
during that period of time, a greater emphasis was placed on quality than
in todays complex, high-stakes environment. Having said that, common
sense would suggest that in a business as competitive as the entertainment
industrywith so many more individuals vying to write, produce, direct,
and act in lms than there are slots availableone reasonably could conclude
that the entertainment industry must be a meritocracy and that only the best
lms would be greenlit. As any savvy consumer knows, unfortunately, that
is not the case. Studios cannot afford simply to select the best scripts to
go into production. It is a cruel reality of the entertainment industry and
one that ultimately hurts the very people who have kept the movie business
thriving for almost a centurythe moviegoers.
NOTES
1. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, the average negative
cost for a feature lm (including marketing) in 2006 was $100.3 million.
2. Daily Variety, November 12, 2007.
3. Daily Variety, May 13, 2004.
4. Ibid.
5. Daily Variety, June 25, 2007.
13
6. The Hollywood Reporter, April 11, 2007.

7. EDI FilmSource.
8. According to EDI FilmSource, Shrek and Shrek 2 grossed over $1 billion in
worldwide box ofce receipts.
9. EDI FilmSource.
10. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 2002).
11. Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York:
Anchor Books, 1988).
12. http://www.cbscorporation.com.
13. http://www.pixar.com (2007).
14. Lionsgate Films (2007).
15. EDI FilmSource.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
chapter 2
The Six Faces of Piracy: Global Media

Distribution from Below
Ramon Lobato
The VCR is to the American lm producer and the American public as

the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
Former Motion Picture Association of America president
Jack Valenti
Rip, mix, burn.
Apple iTunes marketing slogan
The public prole of debate around intellectual property (IP) issues has
never seemed higher than in the last decade. Newspapers regularly feature
coverage of piracy prosecutions, columnists debate the pros and cons of copyright extensions, studio-funded antibootleg promos appear on DVDs and
in cinemas, and Hollywood trade papers overow with updates on changes
in copyright law, international trade regulation, and studio IP policy. A familiar cast of characters appears again and againthe teenage downloader, the
corporate bigwig, the struggling independent artist, the foreign pirate-cumterrorist.
In most public discourse, piracy either looms large as scourge and scandal
or is talked up as the way of the future, but rarely is it analyzed systematically or contextualized historically. Rarely is the focus shifted away from the
ethics of piracy and toward its broader contextsits legal history, its economic functions, and its implications for knowledge and information distribution on a global scale. Through a series of six critical readings of piracy,
I argue that we should understand it as, among other things, an alternative
16
Movies
distribution system for media content, one of considerable complexity and potential. Piracys cockroach capitalism seeks out prot in markets untouched or
underserviced by existing media institutions, providing in many instances
the only available forms of lm culture.1 From this perspective, piracy is
not only a form of deviant behavior but may also offer routes to knowledge,
development, and citizenship.
DEFINING PIRACY
Piracy networks can be considered part of the informal sector, that subterranean zone of the economy that is largely untaxed, unregulated, and
unmeasured.2 However, piracy is distinct from other areas of the informal
economy, such as the drug trade, because pirate goods are not technically
illegal in their own right. Rather, the illegality of pirate products is usually a
function of their reproduction and sale.
The U.S. lm industrys agship lobbying body, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), denes piracy as the unauthorized taking,
copying or use of copyrighted materials without permission,3 and is keen
to remind us of its economic and social cost by invoking dramatic statistics
such as these:
The major U.S. studios lose $6.1 billion globally each year as a result of
piracy.
Losses to audiovisual industries worldwide are estimated at $18.2 billion
annually.
More than 34 million illegal discs and 3,362 burners were seized in antipiracy operations in 2005.
80% of global piracy originates from outside the United States, with
especially high levels of pirate audiovisual consumption occurring in
China (90%), Russia (79%), and Thailand (79%).
Piracy operations have links to terrorist outts, prostitution rings, drug
smugglers, and other organized crime syndicates.4
Other industry bodies such as the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA) dene piracy more broadly, as any form of revenue leakage from any point in the value chain5a denition that perhaps
highlights the way in which piracy often functions as a scapegoat for the
industrys own structural problems.
It is important to note that piracy is as old as cinema itself. Every new distributive technology has given rise to its own bogeyman. In the early years
of the medium, U.S. distributors were plagued by bicycling and jackrabbiting, whereby lm prints were screened in unapproved venues or extra
screenings were put on without the distributors permission.6 The market for
16 mm bootleg prints and private projection equipment that emerged in the
The Six Faces of Piracy
17
postwar period also irritated the studios. And with the invention of the VCR,
home-based illegal dubbing became the biggest nightmare yet for the movie
industry, which feared that its entire existence was under threat. As ludicrous as this sounds today, it tells us something interesting about both the
history and the future of the war on piracy. While the studios strategically
play up their purported nancial woes when it is useful to do so, global theatrical revenues in fact rose 20 percent in 2006, which suggests that despite all
the hype piracy is having little impact on the industrys bottom line.7 A recent study by the criminologist Majid Yar supports this conclusion, arguing
that the piracy epidemics decried by industry moguls are often a product of
PR campaigns by the studios combined with legislative changes that declare
more and more everyday audiovisual activity illegal.8
I shall have more to say later about the extent to which piracy threatens
or bolsters the existing power structures within the entertainment industry.
However, to fully appreciate the implications of piracy, we must rst examine
the legal framework against which it is dened.
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT
Copyright law is conventionally understood as a common-sense way of
protecting the rights of cultural producers, rewarding them for their efforts
and fostering future innovation. The extent to which copyright in its present
form does these things is open to some debate; however, what I would like to
suggest here is that, as well as being a legal framework, copyright is also a
historically and culturally specic ideology, one founded upon modernist notions of innovation and deeply embedded in capitalist thought and practice.
For this reason, it is important not to take its normative claims as gospel.
The history of copyright is a long and convoluted one and has been the
subject of numerous scholarly works from across the disciplines.9 Interestingly, one of the earliest forms of copyright was a de facto form of state
censorshipin sixteenth-century England, a group of publishers known as
the Stationers Guild were granted the right to publish commercially on the
condition that they steer clear of anything critical of the Crown. Other precedents can be found in ancient Greece, Italy, and The Netherlands. However,
most scholars trace the origins of modern copyright to early eighteenthcentury Englandand specically to the passing of the Act of Queen Anne
in 1710. The Act of Anne provided authors and publishers with the rst
enforceable period of monopoly control over their intellectual labor (for a
period of 14 years, extendable once only), after which a work would enter
into what would become known as the public domain. This was considered to
be a fair trade-off between the competing demands of individual authors and
civil society, which was presumed to benet from a freely accessible archive
of cultural production.
18
Movies
The globalization of copyright law has been underway since the late nineteenth century. In 1886, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was signed by a number of European nations and
would go on to become the key template for global copyright regimes of the
twentieth century.10 An Anglo-American agreement was also signed in 1891,
harmonizing some of the discrepant traditions in both nations. This process
was consolidated and extended with the 1948 Brussels Convention (which
granted copyright protection to cinema) and the 1994 Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which formed part
of the nal Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT). The GATTs successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO),
has been a prime disseminator of the new world order in knowledge ever
since, supporting policies that tend to favor established players in the agribusiness, information technology, entertainment, and other IP-based industries.11 Those few recalcitrant states that have attempted to water down their
copyright protectionsa group that has included, at various times, Hong
Kong, China, and Brazilhave generally either been bought off with trade
incentives or disciplined with restrictions and embargoes.12
Three key points can be extracted from this potted history of copyright.
First, copyright regimesparticularly in their current hard incarnation
function to convert knowledge into capital. Copyright is thus inextricably
linked to the development of free-market capitalism and what is sometimes
dubbed information capitalism. Furthermore, we should be aware that
copyrights reach extends beyond the realms of the economic and the legal
and into the cultural: It designates forms of cultural production as either
legitimate or illegitimate based upon a set of values that privilege progress and innovation. In contrast, the public domain is always dened
negativelyas that which is left over after all other rights have been dened
and distributed.13
Second, copyright terms have been steadily increasing, meaning that knowledge and cultural production are kept out of the public domain for longer and
longer periods. Copyright terms now extend up to 70 years after the death of
the creator in many territories. Term extensions have been a key feature of recent U.S. trade deals, such as the 2004 U.S.Australia Free Trade Agreement,
which required that Australia fall into line with the restrictive IP framework
outlined in the U.S. 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. (As
one would expect, this Act was the result of intensive lobbying on the part of
American software and media corporations. Disney led the charge, motivated
by the fact that its copyright on the innitely protable Mickey Mouse was
set to expire. For this reason the Extension Act is commonly referred to as
the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.) Similar agreements have recently been
signed with many other nations. The U.S.Korea FTA is expected to have a
particularly harsh effect on the Korean lm industry, which has been booming
19
over the last decade, as it mandates the partial dismantling of one of the key
drivers of the industrys success: a domestic screen quota. Finally, wherever
IP industries have political clout, constant pressure for further extensions
exists. For example, an alliance of British record companies, with the help of
aging rock stars such as The Whos Roger Daltrey, mounted a high-prole
campaign in 2007 to lobby for legal changes in the European Union (EU)
with the aim of instituting a new music copyright term of 90 years.14 This
proposal was eventually rejected by the British governmenthowever, it is
only a matter of time before it is put back on the agenda.
Third, it is important to note that art and business are not always diametrically opposed in IP debates. The history of copyright is full of examples of
cultural producers who, understandably, have been more interested in their
incomes than in the future of the public domain. Wordsworth, Twain, and
Dickens were all champions of copyright, as are the band Metallica and the
director George Lucas contemporarily.15 Even Spike Lee, a radical lmmaker
acclaimed for his uninching analyses of contemporary racial politics, has
been a vociferous defender of his own IP rights.16 We should also note that
copyright law has on many occasions been used as a legal tool to protect
the rights of individual artists against corporate interests. For example, the
moral rights (droit dauteur) provision of European copyright law (to which
the United States has long objected) was the basis for John Hustons court
victory over MGM in relation to the colorization of the 1950 lm The Asphalt
Jungle.17
This complication duly noted, the implications of current copyright regimes
for many types of cultural production are quite alarming. One frequently
cited example concerns an independent lmmaker whose documentary on
opera stagehands unintentionally included four seconds of The Simpsons.
(During one take, the program had been playing on a TV set in the background.) Despite obtaining the personal blessing of Simpsons creator Matt
Groening, the lmmaker was threatened with a lawsuit by the copyright
holder, Fox, which demanded a whopping $10,000 clearance fee. The lmmakers legal advice suggested that even though the sequence would probably be covered by Fair Use provisions in U.S. copyright law, which allow
the use of copyrighted material in certain circumstances, the potential court
battle would most likely be decided by the size of each sides legal teamand
given the resources of Foxs parent News Corporation, the lmmaker had
little chance of success.18
As this episode suggests, copyright has strayed a long way from its original purpose, and Fair Use provisions cannot always be relied upon to protect
the rights of cultural producers. So where does this leave piracy? Violations
of an ethical/legal system can only be considered inappropriate if we believe
in the principles and the efcacy of that system to begin with. Thus, if we
accept that copyright is a awed system built around a specic political and
20
Movies
economic worldview, does this not occasion a reappraisal of pirate reproduction? Given the high visibility of current debates around le-sharing and
digital IP law, is it not time to complicate the common-sense assumptions
that inform our understanding of copyright and, in so doing, to open up a
series of vantage points on its opposite numberpiracywhich do not necessarily involve its reex condemnation?
With this aim in mind, what follows is a series of critical readings of piracy from six different perspectives.
RETHINKING PIRACY: SIX CONCEPTUAL MODELS

Piracy as Theft
Let us begin with the most common understanding of piracy. As I have
outlined so far, IP regimes understand creativity to be a form of capital.
Copyright is the regulatory mechanism that oversees this property system,
ensuring that markets remain healthy and that levels of protection for IP
rights-holders are on a par with those extended to other property owners,
such as land owners or car owners. From this perspective, it is suggested,
copyright is something that should be not only defended but also legislatively boosted and pedagogically entrenched. Piracy, on the other hand, is
imagined as a parasitic act of social and economic deviance.
Writers such as Pat Choate and Paul Paradise are representative of this
conventional reading of piracy, which is in line with mainstream political and
legal thought throughout the West.19 In the arena of lm, this approach to
piracy is best exemplied by the aforementioned Motion Picture Association
of America. The MPAAs antipiracy activities have been the envy of other
sectors of the IP industries because they resulted, at least until the emergence of peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies, in the virtual eradication of largescale commercial movie piracy in the United States, Australia, Canada, and
most of Western Europe. No one has been more vocal in their denunciations
of piracy, nor more orid in their rhetoric, than the MPAAs former president Jack Valenti. A former aide to Lyndon Johnson, this powerful lobbyist
ran the MPAA from 1966 until 2004. He contributed signicantly to several
landmark legal offensives, including the failed 1984 Sony Corp vs. Universal
City Studios (the Betamax case), which sought to stamp out the booming
home video industry, and the much-maligned Digital Millennium Copyright
Act in 1998.
Now deceased, Valenti was a legendary orator in his day. During Congressional hearings for the Betamax case, he famously quipped that the VCR
is to the American lm producer and the American public as the Boston
strangler is to the woman home alone. He regularly referred to piracy as
a pandemic that robs IP industries of what is rightfully theirs, and he was
21
also fond of making (frequently unsubstantiated) connections between piracy

operations and terrorist groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Al
Qaeda, and Lashka-e-Toiba.20
The MPAAs war on piracy has sought to embed an ethics of copyright
in the global mindset. In the past, MPAA ad campaigns have attempted to
counter the widely held belief that piracy only harms the stock options of
studio moguls by presenting the audience with stories from Hollywood technicians and tradespeople regarding the threat posed to their livelihoods
by illegal copying. MPAA competitions such as the Xcellent Xtreme Challenge offer DVDs and Hollywood studio trips to children who submit antipiracy essays. The organizations Web site even promotes a cheerful Copyright
Kids game (www.copyrightkids.org) where children can familiarize themselves with the virtues of IP by registering their own poems, paintings, and
drawings for protection.21
However, much of the MPAAs rhetoric unravels upon closer inspection.
Statistics from the MPAA on piracy losses tend to defy the most basic tenets of economics because they are often based on calculations that presume
that for each movie accessed illegally a legitimate version of the same lm
goes unsold. This logic is fundamentally awed, for it ignores the inuence
of pricing levels and distribution in media consumption. For example, legal
VHS/VCD hire in Korea has traditionally been very cheap and accessible
thanks to an extensive network of local family-run stores.22 As a result, piracy levels have been very low for much of the last few decades. In China,
however, where cinema admission and legal movie purchasing is much more
expensive in comparison to average wage levels, piracy is rampant.23
Furthermore, reports of industry losses are usually based on gross
rather than net gures and are necessarily suspect given that piracys subterranean and disreputable nature means attempts to quantify it are speculative
at best.24 And even if such gures were reliable, the purported piracy boom of
recent years has as much to do with increasing amounts of everyday activity
being criminalized as with veriable increases in illegal activities. As Majid
Yar argues, piracy statistics tend to function as self-fullling prophecies:
[ H ]igh gures put pressure on legislators to criminalize, and on enforcement agencies to police more rigorously; the tightening of copyright laws
produces more copyright theft as previously legal or tolerated uses are
prohibited, and the more intensive policing of piracy results in more seizures; these in turn produce new estimates suggesting that the epidemic
continues to grow unabated; which then legitimates industry calls for even
more vigorous action.25
Like the music industrys campaigns against illegal downloading, the lm

industrys war on piracy is in many senses a public relations exercise aimed
22
Movies
at reinforcing a deferential relationship to copyright at the level of everyday

consumption and showing the vulnerable side of a protable and quasioligopolistic industry. However, this rhetoric is somewhat disingenuous, for
piracy is still above all a form of lm consumption, and this consumption can
often be made protable for the studios in other ways. As Toby Miller has
argued, piracy breeds a Hollywood habit, familiarizing global audiences
with American product and softening up markets for future exploitation.26 It
also adds value to prenegotiated product placement deals, increasing revenue
streams via the back door. Finally, it is worth recalling that digital piracy is
actually Hollywoods own digital Frankenstein: Not only is it a side-effect
of technology developed by the major studios, but it is also made possible in
many cases by DVD preview discs secretly copied by U.S. technicians during
postproductionand even, in one memorable case, by an Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences member.27
Let us move now to another perspective on piracy, one that sees copying
as a potential business model rather than a form of deviant behavior.
Piracy as Free Enterprise
While several of the alternative approaches to piracy that I outline here
involve a critique of capitalism, one does not. This perspectivewhat we
might call the extreme laissez-faire modelreads piracy as the purest form
of free enterprise. Unimpeded by restrictive legislation and monopolistic
market structures, piracy from this vantage point can be appreciated as a
ourishing of commercial activity catering directly to market needs.
For example, certain economists have argued that greater economic efciency can be achieved in a liberalized regulatory environment where the
reduced returns to copyright holders would be offset by the productivity
gains arising from lower prices and wider availability of cultural goods.28
A recent editorial in The Economist (July 2, 2005)which is hardly a bastion
of anticapitalist sentimenteven suggested that copyright terms should be
stripped back to 14 28 years in order to boost innovation. In other words,
a persuasive argument can be made on economic grounds alone that strong
copyright is undesirable. Indeed, if we push this argument to its logical limit,
it becomes possible to read piracy as the quintessential form of free enterprise. This view suggests that the two competing objectives that copyright
seeks to balance collective progress and individual protare in fact collapsible into a brave new world of unbounded capital and information exchange.
Contemporary China provides an excellent example of these contradictions.
The nations thriving pirate economy is often represented as the Mr. Hyde
to global capitalisms Dr. Jekyll, but it is more than this. In many ways, piracy
is a side-effect of the boom in legitimate enterprise that has followed Chinas
accession to the WTO, as it is based upon factors such as increased consumer
23
activity, the rise of digital technology, new levels of commercial autonomy for
Chinese businesses, and the technologization of mass production practices. In
fact, Warner Bros Chinese operation chose as its rst home video licensee a
well-known piracy outt (the Xianke company), which makes a mockery of
the MPAAs moralistic IP rhetoric.29 My point here is that piracy is still a lucrative form of business, that wealth is still created and exchangedits just
that the distribution of this wealth takes a different form.
The recent history of DVD technology offers another example. Consumers shopping for new DVD players are often faced with an interesting choice.
One can buy an expensive brandname unit loaded with all the irritating anticopying mechanisms that make life difcult (region coding, Macrovision,
copy protection, and so on). Or, for half the price, one can choose a generic
brand that will allow you to play what you want, where you want, when you
wantfor, in many cases, the manufacturers of these units are not part of
vertically integrated audiovisual empires and have little to gain from the
extra time and expense that is required to install copy-prevention technology in their players.30
Here we have two competing models of capitalism: on the one hand, an oligopolistic, vertically integrated, top-heavy capitalism that perpetuates itself
through collusion with the state via technical standards, trade deals, copyright regimes, and so on; and, on the other, a less formal, often extra-legal
variety of enterprise that operates between the cracks in existing economic
structures and frequently outstrips its legally sanctioned counterpart in efciency, speed, and exibility. This second model resembles what lm theorists Chuck Kleinhans and Darrel Davis refer to as cockroach capitalism.31
This is an apt metaphor: cockroaches, like pirates, tend to live in cracks and
other dark spaces; they move fast and multiply quickly; they feast on whatever scraps are available; and they are extremely difcult to squash.
Over the years Sony has evolved from cockroach status to pest-killer. During the aforementioned Betamax case, the Japanese electronics giant was still
largely a hardware manufacturer and was thus on the receiving end of the
MPAAs antihome video offensive. It was portrayed by the studios as a rogue
company trying to erode copyright protection and destabilize the industry.
Two decades later, Sony is now in the opposite position. Its recent attempt to
shore up IP protection in the face of cockroach competition involved concealing spyware and data-collection utilities in the copy-protection software on
Sony BMG CDsa sneaky strategy that became a public relations disaster.32
The laissez-faire approach to piracy is gaining traction as the P2P revolution forces the culture industries to develop business models based around
revenue sources other than box ofce admission and record sales. It has precedents in other informal economies. One example is the adult industrya
grey zone that remains one of the more protable sectors of the entertainment
market even though piracy levels may run at up to 85 percent.33 However,
24
Movies
rather than bemoaning the loss of their customers astute porn distributors
accept piracy as a given and build this into their business models. As the
CEO of adult distributor Nectar Entertainment has commented, If someones stealing my stuff, I see it as great PR and great marketing.34
Whereas Valenti sought to damn piracy through discursive connections
to porn and the criminal underworld, the laissez-faire brigade might notice something more productive in this connection. Such is the logic of the
shadow economies. However, this fact reminds us that piracy is always more
than an ethical issueit is at the same time economic, social, and, as we shall
now see, political.
Piracy as Free Speech
Arguably the most effective critiques of current copyright regimes have
been coming from a group of vocal, tech-savvy American liberals. Often
afliated with the open-source movement and such bastions of technolibertarianism as Wired magazine and the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
writers including Lawrence Lessig, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Michael Strangelove, and J. D. Lasica have published popular critiques of copyright culture
over the last few years, helping to give the issue a degree of public visibility.35
They argue that copyrights intended balance between free speech and the
free market is increasingly favoring the latter over the former: Consumer
rights are being compromised, and the future of innovation is under threat.
Furthermore, these writersand many othersfeel that the piracy issue is
inextricably linked to the right of free speech.
The sympathies of Lessig and his contemporaries tend to lie with consumers and creatives. They are concerned, on the one hand, with the harsh
penalties that P2P downloading attracts, with our inability to legally transfer data between different pieces of hardware, with the bugs and spyware
that jam up our computers, with the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, and
with other user-related issues. At the same time, they seek a way through
the copyright mineeld for directors, writers, musicians, DJs, animators, and,
above all, software developers, via legal recognition of appropriative cut n
paste techniques as legitimate forms of expression.
In his book Copyrights and Copywrongs, Vaidhyanathan analyzes the history
of copyright as it has applied to literature, lm, music, and software, arguing
that the current hard-lockdown phase of IP regulation is stiing creativity.
He proposes a system of thin protection as the best way to ensure the fair
compensation of creatives while still fostering a culture of innovation and
freedom of information. Strangelove takes a more anarchic approach in his
study The Empire of Mind, lamenting the Internets devolution from a space
of culture-jamming and activism into a commercialized sphere ruled by IP
autocrats. For Strangelove, piracy is a progressive act designed to take back
25
what should rightfully belong to us allthe liberating potential of digital

technology.
However, it is Lessig, a former Young Republican turned Stanford law
professor and free-speech activist, who is the most prominent gure in this
group. Lessig is the man behind Creative Commons, an easy-to-use alternative to copyright that has been attracting considerable attention within
creative industries circles.36 Creative Commons operates on a some rights
reserved principle. Artists who license a work under the Creative Commons
system may still benet nancially from copyright protection, but they also
give permission for the work to be used creatively by others (as samples, as
source code, and so on) or for nonprot purposes.
Lessigs inuential books The Future of Ideas and Free Culture have become
bibles for the online libertarian movement. The latter is grounded in the
information-wants-to-be-free rhetoric of cyberpunk. It argues that important
forms of cultural production are under threat from the copyright warriors
whose restrictive IP laws are in fact harming free enterprise. In Lessigs words,
Overregulation sties creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity for a
democratic creativity that digital technology enables.37
The sentiment expressed here is libertarian in that, like the laissez-faire

extremists referred to earlier, Lessig sees state regulation as a threat. His
argument valorizes innovation for its own sake; it is a reformist position that
seeks a softening of certain aspects of the existing IP regime rather than
the wholesale overthrow of the political and economic systems of which it is
a component. Lessig is very clear about this, insisting at one point that his
message is absolutely not antimarket.38
Although Lessig notes that piracy has been a constitutive feature of the
content industries since the invention of mass communication technologies,
he shies away from celebrating piracy per se. In fact, he declares on many occasions his opposition to theft, drawing a line in the sand between acceptable
piracy (cut n paste cultural production, culture jamming, remix culture) and
stealing. But as Kativa Philip correctly notes, there is something a little U.S./
Euro-centric about this argument, given that many of the bad pirates Lessig
has in mind are foreign in origin, or at least are constructed as such. This is
a point to which we will return shortly. But in the meantime, let us consider a
fourth reading of piracy, this time from the vantage point of cultural theory.
Piracy as Authorship
While the readings of piracy offered so far have revolved around material
issues of access and economy, it is possible to approach the phenomenon from
26
Movies
other perspectives as well. Postmodern theory, for instance, has critiqued

IP law by attacking a concept at the very heart of the discourse: authorship.
Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes, among others, have
all offered trenchant critiques of such concepts as originality, innovation, and
expression, revealing the ways in which these common-sense notions are in
fact saddled with all kinds of historical and ideological baggage.39 By pushing
some of these ideas to their logical limit, it may even be possible to appreciate
piracy as a form of cultural production in its own right.
However, before examining the postmodern critique of copyright let us
consider how the legal frameworks around IP dene originality. Copyright
law makes a distinction between an idea and its expression. While ideas cannot
be copyrighted, their expressions, in the form of lms, books, poems, songs,
and so forth, can be. This distinction presents several problems. First, the
line between an idea and an expression is often a rather arbitrary one.40 Second, it has also been argued that the denition of authorship that is codied
in copyright law is tipped in favor of those types of cultural production that
are commodiable (and thus marketable and saleable) and that are xed in
certain types of recognized sign systems, such as written language or musical notation. Many other forms of cultural production are excluded from
copyrights scope for example, oral texts and traditions, physical forms of
dance and theatre, and community-based knowledge and information.41 So,
in effect, the kind of authorship privileged by copyright and IP discourse
frequently functions as a
gate that tends disproportionately to favor the developed countries contribution to world science and culture. Curare, batik, myths, and the dance
lambada ow out of developing countries, unprotected by IP rights, while
Prozac, Levis, Grisham and the movie Lambada! ow in.42
As a result, copyright tends to privilege those forms of cultural production

in which Western cultural industries specialize. This is no accident; on the
contrary, it accurately reects the historical, social, and cultural specicities
that have shaped the Euro-American legal traditions upon which copyright
is founded.
Copyright also tends to erect boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate cultural activity. What passes for originality or appropriation,
as opposed to theft or forgery, is in most cases determined by IP law rather
than any universal standards of creative conduct. Some interesting examples
of these tensions can be found in postmodern art of the 1980s. The American
artist and provocateur Jeff Koons was famously sued for producing a sculpture
(String of Puppies, 1988) based on a kitsch postcard image. His contemporary
Sherrie Levine rephotographed the Depression-era images of Walker Evans
and exhibited them under her own name, while the video artist Douglas
27
Gordon screened a slowed-down version of Hitchcocks Psycho (1960) and

called it 24 Hour Psycho (1993). All these works were attempting to make important points about what constitutes an original art work and to highlight
the blind spots of copyright law, which offers many artists little more in the
way of protection than the easy publicity of a ready-made scandal.
A famous attack on conventional notions of authorship was mounted in the
late 1960s by the French semiotician and cultural theorist Roland Barthes,
whose canonical essay The death of the author is one of the key texts of
postmodern theory. Arguing, among other things, that it is language which
speaks, not the author, Barthes seeks to cut the text loose from the anchors
provided by what we understand as authorship. Instead, Barthes sees creativity not as the unique expression of an artists subjectivity but as the selection
and combination of fragments of already-existing discourse:
We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning (the message of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional
space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.
The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of
culture . . .
[ T ]he writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never
original. His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the
others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them.43
This model of authorship has signicant implications for the categories of

originality, innovation, and authenticity upon which copyright law is founded.
If, as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun, and the role of the
artist or writer is simply to rearrange existing discourse in new combinations, then what makes a pirate any different from an artist? Only the fact
that the pirate rests too long on one particular site, resisting copyrights call to
move along in a timely fashion.
Now, this argument may work at a theoretical level, but how useful is it
when applied to todays mediascape? Well, recall the famous Apple slogan
rip, mix, burn, which explicitly situates creativity at the point of reproduction. Or consider the form of originality valued in DJ culture and how
this differs from the modernist model of the self-contained, unied art work.
From here we are only a small step away from the interpretation of piracy as
a creative act in its own right.
This argument is especially pertinent to lm, a profoundly collaborative
medium which is subject to an array of value-adding processes in its voyage
from studio to consumerprocesses that have traditionally swallowed up
the lions share of a lms revenues (distributors retain upwards of 80% of
home video takings, for example)44and that at the level of narrative and style
frequently involve slight variations on a handful of well-worn themes anyway.
28
Movies
Taking all this into account, can we really claim that it is the copyright
holder who is the sole author of a lm?
Piracy as Resistance
While lm industry lobbyists decry piracy, postmodernists read it as an
intrinsic component of authorship, and the IT community sees it as either
a necessary evil or a potential business model, others have read piracy as
a form of subversion. Numerous studies by progressive cultural critics and
Marxist political economists have drawn our attention to issues of ownership, power, and resistance within the media industries. Rather than being
the creative expressions of their copyright holders, lms are understood differently within this traditionas commodities whose value is derived from
the labour that makes them.45 Seen from this perspective, copyright is a legal
institution that converts information and labor into capital for the benet of
a small coterie of multinational corporations. Thus, piracyas a rejection of
this economic orderhas a certain political value.
Some of this may sound similar to the libertarian readings discussed earlier. Key differences exist, however. Unlike Lessig, many political economists
are decidedly antimarket. They consider the media to be a system of control and exploitation that operates in the service of capitalism. Furthermore,
they insist on the importance of class, whether in reference to the IP-rich
capitalist barons or the workers whose surplus value they extract.
For example, Ronald Bettigs authoritative 1996 study Copyrighting Culture argues that copyright represents a strategy of property regulation and
market colonization. He provides a detailed history of copyright law, highlighting the essential connection between the rise of capitalism, the extension of commodity relations into literary and artistic domains, and the
emergence of the printing press.46 He notes how the U.S. government, in
close consultation with industry bodies like the MPAA, has institutionalized
copyright culture globally through such means as trade sanctions against
recalcitrant nations, FTAs with built-in IP boosters, multilateral initiatives
such as GATT and the WTO, and increased infringement penalties and enforcement efforts.47 For Bettig, pirate circuits are spheres of commercial activity that have yet to be recolonized by transnational audiovisual empires.
Bettig thus implicitly positions piracy as a practice that, in its obstruction of
capitalist domination, represents a form of resistance.
A similar argument is posed by Toby Miller and others who, in their inuential book Global Hollywood, opened up a new area of class analysis within
media studies by exploring the political economy of lm labor. Their interpretation considers not only the creative talent but also the below-the-line
workers who paint the sets and drive the delivery vans. They argue that
intellectual property laws are one of the key enablers of the major studios
29
exploitative practices: IPs transformation of knowledge into property traditionally prioritizes ownership over use, creators over audiences and production over reception.48 Global Hollywood lists numerous examples of
heavy-handed IP enforcement, such as Disneys lawsuit against a Florida
school over the copyrighted cartoon characters painted on its buildings.
They argue convincingly that the MPAAs war on piracy is about markets
rather than morals: In their eyes, IP law is a strategic weapon used to
lubricate international exhibition and open up new areas of information
management.49 Here, as in the work of Bettig, piracy is implicitly valorized
for its challenge to Hollywoods hegemonic new international division of
cultural labor.
The Hong Kongbased lm theorist Laikwan Pang puts forward an extreme version of this argument in her recent book Cultural Control and Globalization in Asia. In what often amounts to a romanticization of piracy, Pang
attempts to theorize pirate media as a critical interrogation of todays international cultural politics.50 She argues that Hollywood pilfers content
(styles, stars, and so on) from Asian cinemas while hypocritically waging
rhetorical war against the East on the grounds of copyright infringement.
For Pang, the only difference between the two forms of piracy is the technical issue of legality, which is itself dened according to legal structures that
favor Hollywood.
However, Pangs totalizing rhetoricand the propiracy argument in
generalcan tend to obscure more than it reveals. There is little point
exalting all pirates as subversive agents, just as there is little to be gained
from blindly damning Hollywood and all it represents. We should not only
be thinking of piracy in terms of theft and resistance, of right and wrong;
we also need to start thinking about what it can do for communities across
the globe by assessing its social, cultural, and economic effects as well as its
moral implications.
We need to think in terms of access.
Piracy as Access
Recent work from postcolonial, legal, and development studies has offered
a compelling, new interpretation of piracy, one that is concerned less with its
ethics than with its potential. This approach is interested in the transformative aspects of piracyin piracys capacity to disseminate culture, knowledge, and capital. It interrogates the relationship between technology and
development, asking not whose property? but whose future?
Earlier on, I referred to the familiar cast of characters that populate the
debates around piracy: the teenage le-sharer, the struggling cultural producer, the corporate bigwig, the pirate-terrorist syndicates, and so on. Missing from this picture are those forms of everyday piracy that take place in
30
Movies
the developing world. For instance, many communities arent included in the
kind of Marxist or libertarian critiques outlined previously because they may
not belong to a working class per se, much less the creative class to whom
Lessig addresses his arguments. Political economys binary division between
owners and workers has less to offer those who exist beyond the boundaries
of the latter category and who may indeed have something to gain from the
technological modernity of pirate media.
In a compelling essay, the feminist/postcolonial theorist Kativa Philip unpacks some of these issues. Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, Philip
invites us to reconsider the familiar narrative of technological authorship
from the perspective of sites in the global south which are perceived, in
the liberal democratic discourse of development stages, to be mired in the
not yet.
What does it mean that, at the very historical moment that technological
authorship seems to become widely accessible, the law marks off certain
authorial spaces as transgressive? What difference does it make that a particular kind of ripping off happens on the margins of the industrialized
world, among the less developed members of the WTO, at the apparent
edges of the reach of western liberal democratic law, where the lines between authentic original and corrupted copy are being blurred by street
vendors and high-tech entrepreneurs?51
Philip thus suggests that the libertarian reading of piracy exemplied

by Lessig uses the type of commercial piracy practiced in Asia as a kind of
black sheep against which the free-software movement can dene itself. In
other words, she argues that the war on piracy is also about the struggle for
authority and power on the global stage. In this geopolitical arm wrestle,
copying has a double meaning: On the one hand, Asia is encouraged to
imitate the West by replicating its political and economic systems and by
promoting responsible digital citizenship; but on the other hand, alternative forms of copying (pirate reproduction) are strictly forbidden. Such an
argument pushes debates around piracy into a whole new territory. By connecting everyday piracy to development and global politics, Philip makes a
compelling case for taking piracy seriously as a route to social, economic, and
political change.
One of the inspirations of Philips critique is Lawrence Liang, a legal
scholar based at Bangalores Alternative Law Forum (www.altlawforum.
org) whose work has also been inuential in this debate. In the essay Porous
Legalities and Avenues of Participation, Liang develops this argument by
emphasizing the fact that legality itself is a relative concept. He notes that
millions of Indians live in a state of illegality every day of their lives, forced
by socioeconomic circumstances to bribe ofcials for essential services or to
31
steal electricity because no ofcial sources exist. According to Liang, the

porous legalities that characterize life in much of the developing world
may be the only routes through which contact with the modernity that the
West takes for granted may be realized. Piracy is therefore not solely about
morality, freedom, or even resistance; its also about ways through which
people ordinarily left out of the imagination of modernity, technology and
the global economy [nd] ways of inserting themselves into these networks.52
A third and nal writer who has been able to give some experiential detail
to these arguments is the Indian new media theorist Ravi Sundaram. In the
absorbing essay Recycling Modernity: Pirate Electronic Cultures in India,
Sundaram denes recycled pirate modernity as an urbanized, everyday,
nonlegal sphere characterized by speedy, small-scale practices of circulation
(rather than production). This is a culture of cassette-based music trade, DIY
computer networks, cheap mobile phone repairs, and pirate VHS/VCD movies; a world of informal technological knowledge existing in most parts of
India, where those excluded from the upper-caste, English-speaking bastions
of the cyber-elite learn their tools.53 Sundarams recycled modernity is a
set of practices that conform neither to the boosterist hype of economists
(India as a brave new world of service-sector innovation) nor to Marxist
models of economic imperialism (India as a source of cheap labor and an
object of exploitation). It is founded upon a variety of piracy that is not by
denition oppositional or countercultural and has little in common with the
kind of cut n paste postmodernity fetishized by Western academics. Instead,
Sundaram presents recycled modernity as a strategy of both survival and
innovation on terms entirely outside the current debates on the structure
and imagination of the net and techno-culture in general.54
These three theorists alert us to the fact that there is a great deal at stake
in debates around piracy, more than just the revenues of Hollywood studios
and the leisure options of metropolitan elites. They help us to see that consumer rights issues, important though they are, tend to pale in comparison to
piracys potential as a productive force. As a form of information distribution,
piracy has made a plethora of new social practices possible: grass-roots organization through pirated spreadsheet software, photocopied technical manuals, bootleg copies of banned novels, online activism facilitated by cheap IBM
PC knock-offs, new forms of youth culture based around illegally procured
CDs and tapes, and so on. In other words, piracy is a distributive technologyit
enables ideas, knowledge, and cultural production to circulate in and through
societyand should be recognized as such.
Film is particularly important in this regard. As the most prestigious
of the culture industries (if no longer the most protable), cinema is still
an enormously inuential educative technology. It teaches us how to think
and feel; it offers pleasures of immeasurable power and value. This is why
32
Movies
the issue of lm distribution is as important as access to software or books.

Pirate circuits disseminate all kinds of media, from Hollywood blockbusters
to more localized forms of cultural production. A prime example of this can
be found in Nigerias enormously successful video-lm industry. Sometimes
dubbed Nollywood, this network of producers and distributors pumps out
hundreds of lms a year, none of which get shown in cinemas (most cinemas
in Nigeria have shut down or been turned into churches). Instead, lms are
shot quickly on video or on digital and distributed cheaply on VHS and VCD.
Operating completely outside conventional channels of lm production, distribution, and exhibition, Nollywood has become the countrys most vibrant
form of popular culture, not to mention a booming economic force in its own
right. It has its own star system and a rising international prole. But the
keys to its success have been low production overheads and efcient distribution networks that, as the anthropologist Brian Larkin has documented,
evolved from pre-existing pirate circuits radiating out from the city of Kano, circuits that had previously moved bootleg Indian and American movies around
the country and into neighboring nations.55
This is a powerful example of the productivity of piracyof how illegal
lm distribution cannot only redistribute existing content according to market demand but also open up a space for whole new industries, new economies, new forms of cultural production, and new possibilities of change and
survival.56
CONCLUSION
Bearing in mind the maxim that those who engage in crystal-ball gazing
end up eating crushed glass, I would like to conclude by offering some tentative speculations as to the immediate future of the war on piracy. It seems
likely that the protections offered to rights-holders by global IP law are unlikely to be diluted in any meaningful way in the short term, notwithstanding the odd reprieve for early-adopting Western consumers. IP debates will,
however, become increasingly visible in public discourse and will continue
to function as a crossover issue for development NGOs (nongovernment
organizations), antiglobalization activists, technolibertarians and consumer
groups. As broadband penetration and technological literacy levels rise, digital piracy will ourish despite the obstacles that studio-funded digital rights
management (DRM) technology will place in its way. In the wake of iTunes,
digital technology will present the entertainment industries with new distributive models, but it is likely that these will tend to favor the established
players or to replace old corporate giants with new ones. In other words, the
distribution bottleneck will continue to be the primary obstacle for both consumers and producers, even as our cultural industries become increasingly
complex and interconnected.
33
In highlighting piracys productive potential, let me reiterate that I am not

mounting a moral defense of piracy per se. Piracy does indeed hurt (some)
lmmakers and artists, but given the extremely low rates of return offered
to independent artists by most existing market structures, which privilege
distributors over producers, it is worth taking all other alternatives seriously.
In other words, we should be open to the possibility that pirate distribution
often functions as an enabling energy rather thanor as well asa form of
economic parasitism.
The open-source movement is helping to show that prot and ethical information management are not necessarily incompatible, but this alone is unlikely to lead to progressive forms of copyright law. Instead, what is required
over the medium to long term is a deeper interrogation of the very foundations
upon which our proprietary models of IP are constructed. This is by nature an
interdisciplinary project, one in which academics, lmmakers, programmers,
economists, lawyers, artists, consumers, and community groups may all nd
a voice. After all, there is more at stake here than entertainment. Skirmishes
over DVD ripping and music downloading are linked in important ways to
debates over affordable AIDS drugs, agribusiness patents, the evergreening
of pharmaceuticals, and the future uses of the human genetic code.
As the most visible tip of this IP iceberg, the piracy debate may well inuence outcomes in these related elds. For this reason, media scholars have
both the opportunity and the obligation to become more involved with issues
of distribution and to contribute in some small way to the debates taking
place around one of the most pressing issues of our time.
NOTES
Many thanks to Kyle Weise, Polona Petek, Audrey Yue, Sean Cubitt, and Sun
Jung for generous feedback and assistance.
1. Darrel William Davis, Compact Generation: VCD Markets in Asia, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 23, no. 2 (2003): 16576. Davis credits lm
theorist Chuck Kleinhans with usage of this term.
2. Philip Mattera, Off the Books: The Rise of the Underground Economy (London:
Pluto Press, 1985).
3. Anti-piracy, Motion Picture Association of America, http://www.mpaa.org/
piracy.asp.
4. MPAA Asia/Pacic Piracy Fact Sheet, Motion Picture Association, http://
www.mpaa.org/AsiaPacicPiracyFactSheet.pdf; LEK Consulting, The Cost of Movie
Piracy (Singapore: Motion Picture Association, 2005).
5. Magz Osborne, Pirates Find More Ways to Plunder, Variety, June 30, 2003, 21.
6. Kerry Seagrave, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry (Jefferson, NC: MacFarland
and Co., 2003); see also Jane M. Gaines, Early Cinemas Heyday of Copying: The
Too Many Copies of Larroseur arros (The Waterer Watered), Cultural Studies 20,
no. 23 (2006): 227 44.
34
Movies
7. Global Theatrical Revenue Rebounds in 06, The Hollywood Reporter, July 25,
2007, n.p.
8. Majid Yar, The Global Epidemic of Movie Piracy: Crime-Wave or Social
Construction? Media, Culture and Society 27, no. 5 (2005): 66796.
9. See, for example, Ronald V Bettig, Copyrighting Culture: the Political Economy of Intellectual Property (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996); Laikwan Pang, Cultural Control and
Globalization in Asia: Copyright, Piracy, and Cinema (London: Routledge, 2006); John
Frow, Public Domain and the New World Order in Knowledge, Social Semiotics 10,
no. 2 (2000): 17385; Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and
the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (New York: Penguin, 2004), and The
Future of Ideas: the Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House,
2001); Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property
and How it Threatens Creativity (New York: New York University Press, 2001/2003).
10. Interestingly, the United States was not a party to the Berne Convention until
1989. Bernes moral rights (droit dauteur) provisions were not recognized by the
United Statesthough some legal protections for creators can be found in other
areas of U.S. lawand were phased out in the nal version of the GATT. This fact
is as a reminder that Americas championing of unied global copyright regimes has
been rather selective in nature.
11. Frow, Public Domain.
12. See Bettig, Copyrighting Culture; Shujen Wang and Jonathan Zhu, Mapping Film
Piracy in China, Theory, Culture and Society 20, no. 4 (2003): 97125.
13. Frow, Public Domain, 182.
14. See Katie Allen, Musicians Copyright Pleas Fall on Deaf Ears, The Guardian,
July 24, 2007, http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2133762,00.html.
15. Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs. Lucas, on record as a strong defender
of IP regimes, is nonetheless considerably more lenient than his contemporaries when
it comes to Star Wars fan activity, and his championing of digital technology has had
some positive implications for alternative models of lm production and distribution.
16. When Mr. Lees lm Malcolm X came out in 1992, he took some of his friends,
muscle, he calls them, to 125th Street with baseball bats to clean the bootleg copies off the street. Linda Lee, Bootleg Videos: Piracy with a Camcorder, New York
Times, July 7, 1997, D1.
17. Toby Miller et al, Global Hollywood 2 (London: British Film Institute, 2005).
18. Lessig, Free Culture.
19. Pat Choate, Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization (New
York: Knopf, 2005); Paul Paradise, Trademark Counterfeiting, Product Piracy, and the
Billion Dollar Threat to the US Economy (Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books, 1999).
20. Miller et al., Global Hollywood 2; Nitin Govil, War in the Age of Pirate Reproduction, Sarai Reader 4 (2004): 37883, http://www.sarai.net/publications/readers/.
21. Tipping Hollywood the Black Spot, The Economist, August 20, 2003; Govil.
22. The VCD (Video Compact Disc) format has an interesting history, though most
people outside Asia and certain parts of Africa and Latin America are oblivious to its
existence. Essentially, the VCD is a CD-rom containing a single MPG le that can be
played on standalone VCD players, often around the size of a Discman, as well as on
most DVD players and computers. They can store 74 minutes of audiovisual content,
35
which means that two or three separate VCDs are required for most feature lms, and
offer audio and video of slightly lower quality than a VHS cassette. VCDs have no
menus, copy protection, or region coding. Invented in the early 1990s by Philips and
Sony, who soon abandoned the format, VCD technology went on to become especially
popular in Asia (except Japan) during the mid-1990s. See Kelly Hu, The VCD Experience, in Asian Media Studies: Politics of Subjectivities, eds. John Erni and Siew Keng
Chua (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2005), 5572; Davis, Compact Generation, 173.
23. Asia Fights Piracy with Govt, Corporate Help, Variety, November 13, 2000, 88.
24. Wang and Zhu, Mapping Film Piracy in China.
25. Yar, The Global Epidemic of Movie Piracy, 690.
26. Toby Miller, Hollywood 2010, address to the Centre for Screen Business, Australian Film, Television and Radio School, May 2006, available at http://csb.aftrs.
edu.au/.
27. Carmine Caridi, who once played a cop on NYPD Blue, was investigated by the
FBI in 2004 for copyright infringement. An Academy member (and thus an Academy
Awards judge), he had reportedly been selling his Oscar screener DVDs to a pirate operation. See Danny Birchall, Thieves Like Us, Sight and Sound, October, 2000, 3236.
Similar links between ofcial lm industries and the pirate underworld also exist in
other countries: In Hong Kong it is widely known that producers sell nished copies
of their own lms to piracy outts in order to recoup tax-free prots. The Triads and
the Hong Kong Film Industry, BBC World Service, April 2006, 22 minutes, http://
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/ram/globalperspective/part4.ram.
28. Bettig, Copyrighting Culture, 1036.
29. See Shujen Wang, Framing Piracy: Globalization and Film Distribution in Greater
China (Lanham, Mass.: Rowman and Littleeld, 2003), 87; Douglas Clark, IP Rights
Protection will Improve in ChinaEventually, The China Business Review, May
June, 2000, 2229.
30. Cheap Chinese VCD and DVD hardware is not entirely outside the established
circuits of transnational audiovisual industry capital as chip and component patent
licenses have to be leased from the likes of Time Warner, Hitachi, Sony, and Philips.
Wang, Framing Piracy, 5153.
31. Davis, Compact Generation.
32. Miller et al, Global Hollywood 2, 246; How Sony Became an Ugly Sister, The
Observer, Dec 18, 2005, 6, Business section.
33. This gure is an estimate by Australias Adult Industry Copyright Organisation
Limitedsee http://www.aico.org.au/accessand thus is likely to be somewhat exaggerated; however, the fact that the porn market is subject to higher levels of piracy
than other sectors of the entertainment industry is commonly accepted.
34. Dana Harris, Porn Pirates Go Unpunished, Variety, January 24, 2005, 8.
35. Lessig, Free Culture; Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs; Michael
Strangelove, The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Capitalist Movement
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005); J. D. Lasica, Darknet: Hollywoods War
against the Digital Generation (Hoboken, NJ: J Wiley and Sons, 2005).
36. See, for example, Tony Flew, Creative Commons and the Creative Industries,
Media and Arts Law Review 10, no. 4 (2005), http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/
malr/contents104.html; Brian Fitzgerald, Creative Choices: Changes to the Cre-
36
Movies
ative Commons, Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy 114
(2005): 8386.
37. Lessig, Free Culture, 199.
38. Ibid., 227.
39. This eld of literary theory has been the subject of enormous debate across
several decades, and it is impossible to do any kind of justice to the argument here.
However, the following texts are good places to begin: Roland Barthes, The Death
of the Author, in Image-Music-Text, trans. Stephen Heath (London: Fontana, 1977),
142 49; Michel Foucault, What is an Author? in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice:
Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and
Sherry Simon (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 11338; Jacques Derrida, Limited inc a b c, in Postmodernism: Critical Concepts, ed. Victor E. Taylor and Charles E.
Winquist (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1977/1998), 416503.
40. Pang, Cultural Control and Globalization in Asia.
41. For an interesting discussion of the relationship between Western IP law and
Maori cultural production, see Barry Barclay, Mana Tuturu: Maori Treasures and Intellectual Property Rights (Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2006).
42. James Boyle, cited in Miller et al., Global Hollywood 2, 224.
43. Barthes, The Death of the Author, 143, 146.
44. For details on home video royalty structures, see Edward Jay Epstein, The Big
Picture: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood (New York: Random House,
2005); Janet Wasko, How Hollywood Works (London: Sage, 2003). For further information on the cultural dimensions of lm distribution, see Ramon Lobato, Subcinema:
Theorising Marginal Film Distribution, Limina: A Journal of Cultural and Historical
Studies 13, http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/59120/Lobato.pdf.
45. Miller et al., Global Hollywood 2, 5 (emphasis added).
46. Bettig, Copyrighting Culture, 9.
47. This argument is especially pertinent at the present moment given the U.S.
governments ongoing attempts to combat piracy in China and to bring the PRC into
the global IP fold.
48. Miller et al., Global Hollywood 2, 226.
49. Ibid., 216.
50. Pang, Cultural Control and Globalization in Asia, 82.
51. Kativa Philip, What is a Technological Author? The Pirate Function and Intellectual Property, Postcolonial Studies 8, no. 2 (2005): 207.
52. Lawrence Liang, Porous Legalities and Avenues of Participation, Sarai Reader
5 (2005): 12, http://www.sarai.net/publications/readers/.
53. Ravi Sundaram, Recycling Modernity: Pirate Electronic Cultures in India,
Sarai Reader 1 (2001), 93, http://www.sarai.net/publications/readers/.
54. Ibid., 96.
55. Brian Larkin, Degraded Images, Distorted Sounds: Nigerian Video and the Infrastructure of Piracy, Public Culture 16, no. 2 (2004): 289314.
56. Ibid; Sean Cubitt, Distribution and Media Flows, Cultural Politics 1, no. 2
(2005): 193214.
chapter 3
KingKong.com versus
LOLTheMovie.com: Toward
a Framework of Corporate and
Independent Online Film Promotion
Mary P. Erickson
The Web phenomenon of The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Snchez, 1999) during the movies theatrical run in 1999 was heralded
as revolutionizing the entire structure of movie marketing. The fan-driven
Web campaign generated buzz around this low-budget lm, propelling it to
garner over $140 million at the domestic box ofce. Movie studios hurriedly
created Web sites for their lms, hoping to cash in on what Christopher
Grove called the Holy Grail of Web marketing.1 One industry insider predicted, Currently, Hollywood studios only spend a few percent of a movies
total budget on Internet promotions. Blair Witchs surprise performance will
increase that commitment tenfold.2
Since Blair Witch, major studios have, for the most part, included Web sites
as a medium in their marketing campaigns, although the degree to which
they rely on Web sites for promotion varies from lm to lm. Despite steady
growth over the past several years, Web sites and other online promotions
account for only 3.7 percent of major studios advertising costs.3 Independent
lmmakers, meanwhile, tend to hinge their entire lm marketing campaigns
on the use of Web sites for promotion. As we examine who uses Web sites for
movie promotion, we must also examine to what end they are used. How do
these Web sites, for example, reect the promotional objectives of a lmmaker
or studio? How is the Web site visitor expected to interact with the site?
38
Movies
An examination of various components of a given Web site begins to reveal these objectives and expectations, particularly when we compare Web
sites across the spectrum, from those Web sites for major Hollywood blockbusters to ones for independently produced microbudget lms. Varieties of
Web marketing activity, as applied to online movie marketing by Adam Finn
and others, demonstrate a range of purposes, including communication, sales,
content, and networking, that vary depending on the objectives of the producer.4 One can locate some combination of these characteristics within most
movie Web sites, but the degree to which emphasis is placed on each one
indicates which aspects and functions of the Web site are considered most
useful. In particular, there are accentuated differences between corporate and
independent movie promotional goals; while major studios and independent
lmmakers both seek to promote lms via movie Web sites, they do so in
signicantly different ways. This chapter presents an examination of various
Web sites in order to highlight how major studios approach the Internet at a
fundamentally different level than do independent lmmakers.
The Internet is an appropriate site for an exploration of the differences
and similarities of corporate and independent lm promotion because it is
one of the few promotional vehicles through which independents and majors can be assessed with similar criteria. The nature of the Internet is such
that anyone with a computer and Internet access (and we can say that most
lmmakers in the United States have these) can create a Web site. Indeed,
this leveled playing eld was the catalyst for the success of The Blair Witch
Project, prompting major studios to join the online competition for audiences.
The major studios had to adapt their traditional marketing practices to encompass new technologies; oftentimes, they have found the Internet particularly conducive to locating target audiences, giving those audiences multiple
ways in which they can interact with an entire lm brand. Independent lmmakers, for whom traditional marketing practices might be out of reach, have
also been able to locate their target audiences. For them, the Internet is a
useful and cheap marketing tool and is considered, according to The Ultimate
Film Festival Survival Guide, as the most important promotional tool for the
independent lmmaker.5
MAJOR STUDIO AND INDEPENDENT FILMS
Major studio lms (also termed corporate or Hollywood) are those produced within or distributed by major Hollywood studios; these studios include
Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Brothers, Universal
Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Sony Pictures. Janet Wasko describes
the Hollywood lm industry as an industry that produces and distributes
commodities, and thus is similar to other industries that manufacture and
produce products for prot.6 Thus, major studios are concerned primarily
KingKong.com versus LOLTheMovie.com
39
with generating revenues and maximizing prots, which is not surprising

given the fact that these companies are part of multinational entertainment
conglomerates.7
One must note that there are other production and distribution studios
that exist outside the majors, but they are not classied as independents.
Such studios are Lucaslm and Lionsgate Films, which, although they maintain some level of autonomy from six major studios, also seek to maximize
prots in order to compete with their major studio competitors. It is estimated that Lucaslm generated over $1 billion in annual revenues in 2005.8
Lionsgates acquisition of a British lm distribution company in 2005, for
instance, according to Lionsgates CEO Jon Feltheimer, is consistent with
our commitment to make accretive, strategic transactions to accelerate our
growth and enhance margins in our core businesses.9 This frank admission
of corporate objectives prompts me to categorize Lionsgate as a corporate
studio.
Applying a solid denition to independent is a less precise task. The
term has been dened in myriad ways: a lms source of nancing; the
industrial afliations of the lms distributor; the sites in which the lm is
exhibited; the status of the talent in relation to Hollywood; and the spirit of
the lm (usually interpreted to mean its aesthetic or generic ties to commercial or alternative media traditions).10 Tzioumakis proposes that independence used in the context of describing lm has developed into a discourse
to reinforce power dynamics, particularly those that manifest in industrial
or economic relations.11 We can witness appropriation of the term independent by major studios to create meaning that suits corporate objectives of
prot-seeking. This manifests most obviously in the so-called indie or specialty divisions of major studios, which specialize in art-house or foreign
fare. While these labels (such as 20th Century Foxs Fox Searchlight, Disneys Miramax, or Warner Brothers Warner Independent Pictures) produce and/or distribute quite different lms from their mainstream studio
counterparts, they still face the same prot imperatives as their sibling and
parent divisions. Therefore, even though these divisions very often acquire
independently produced lms, the investment of money and labor into these
lms marketing campaigns drastically changes the tone and nature of promotional Web sites as these are vehicles through which the company can
draw revenue.
Independent lms, on the other hand, generally have small budgets (as
low as a few hundred dollars) with unknown cast and crew and rely on alternative and more readily accessible modes of promotion (the Internet or the
lm festival circuit, for example) to secure interest and, possibly, eventual
distribution. An independent lmmakers access to resources will determine
the function and style of the Web site in ways that are very different from
major studio counterparts.
40
Movies
MOVIE WEB SITESA RANGE

OF PROMOTIONAL APPROACHES
As mentioned previously, Adam Finn and others examined movie Web
sites according to four characteristics, modifying four levels of general Web
marketing activity to apply to movie promotion. These characteristics are:
1. Communication: Web sites communicate promotional messages about the
lm using movie reviews, links to lm listings in newspapers, or ticket
purchase sites such as Fandango.com or Movietickets.com.
2. Sales: Web sites sell traditional products, such as DVDs, soundtracks, or
lm-related merchandise.
3. Content: Web sites provide content as a supplemental service for narrower
market segments, which might include behind-the-scenes footage or interviews with cast and crew.
4. Networking: Web sites provide an arena for networking among audiences
through online chat rooms or discussion boards.
The characteristic of sales, coupled with many of the parameters that dene
the communication category, reect overall promotional goals of generating
revenue through the sale of theatrical tickets, home videos, and lm-related
merchandise. Therefore, I have collapsed them into one category: sales. The
second two, content and networking, reect goals of maximizing audience interaction to develop demand for the lms themselves. I have expanded the
content characteristic to incorporate those portions of the communication
category that do not explicitly address sales, which include the use of movie
reviews. Therefore, my adapted framework does away with the communication category altogether.
While Finn and others framework encompasses a general range of possible movie Web site activities, it was not originally used to identify differences
in the motivations of Web sites producers. Finn et al. compare how Canadian
and American producers/distributors use the Internet as a promotional vehicle, concluding that Canadian lms might perform better at the box ofce
if they took advantage of the potential of Web marketing. Fred Zufryden also
concludes that a well-designed movie Web site is an important component of
a lms promotional strategy.12 However, both of these studies assume that
all movie Web sites set out to achieve the same goals; I contend, however,
that major lm studios and independent lmmakers differ greatly in their
motivations for Web site function. This reverberates to the intended role of
the Web site visitor as well, in that producers have certain audience expectations and assess the value of the audience in very different ways.
An analysis of 50 Web sites for American narrative feature lms provides
the basis for my evaluation of motivations and intended audience interaction.
By paying particular attention to the characteristics of sales, content, and
41
networking, we can examine Web sites in terms of written content, links, and
graphics. What is the tone of the content? Can we tell who wrote it? How sophisticated is the Web sites design? The users initial contact with the Web
site is a key element because it provides clues as to the Web site creators
expectations of the Web site user. The links on the main page, for example,
indicate how the user is supposed to interact with the site.
We can observe three streams of Web sitebased promotional efforts, two
of which serve primarily corporate goals of maximizing revenue through
saturated merchandising and fan devotion through monetary gestures, while
the third relies on organic viral marketing. The elements featured on corporate Web sites (or those residing within the rst two streams) indicate an
overarching goal: to maximize revenue generation. Therefore, Web sites for
major studio lms contain a multiplicity of purchase opportunities. Every
content- and networking-based feature works toward reinforcing sales. Even
when fan interaction is a Web sites chief feature, with content and networking features serving that interaction, prot maximization is still the Web
sites primary function. Conversely, independently produced Web sites (in
the third stream) favor content and networking and tend to offer very few
purchase opportunities. These sites focus on building relationships with fans
in order to build audiences for their lms. While I do not intend to say that
all Web sites t into one of these three categories, these three types, as outlined in the following table and later, do provide a useful way of thinking
about how a given Web site operates and what its design and content might
say about its producers.
Table 3.1
Type of Film
Website
Types of Websites for Online Film Promotion

Function
Focus (according to
revised Film et al. model)
Examples
Extension of
Traditional
Media
Opportunities to
buy merchandise
saturate
the website
Sales
King Kong, Fun

With Dick and Jane,
The Guardian
Controlled
Interactivity
Fans prove their

devotion through
the purchase of
merchandise
Networking and
content in service
of sales
The Chronicles of
Narnia, Star Wars
Organic and
Word-ofMouth
Marketing
Filmmaker relates Networking and

personal journey content
of the process of
lmmaking
The Last Romantic,

LOL, Deadroom
42
Movies
EXTENSION OF TRADITIONAL
MEDIASATURATED MERCHANDISING
The Internet as an extension of traditional media is the most prominent
way in which major studios use the Internet to promote movies. Within Finn
et al.s framework, major studios primarily sell products on their lm Web
sites. They do use such interactive features as supplemental content and
networking in order to entice and retain audiences. I contend, though, that
these Web sites include such content only to support the central objective of
generating sales. Appealing to a broad audience is a subordinate effort. The
underlying assumption is that if more people visit a lms Web site and make
repeat visits, more tickets and related merchandise will be sold, thereby serving the central objective of maximizing sales.
Major studios incorporate Web sites into their promotional strategies as
a method of reaching targeted audiences. Studios movie Web sites typically
feature the same content as they would offer in other promotional mediums:
trailers, cross-promotions and tie-ins, and reminders to buy movie-related
merchandise. These are all used to feed studios main objectives, which are,
according to Janet Wasko and other lm industry scholars, to generate as
much revenue as possible for a given movie.13 The Internet simply allows
major studios to provide this content in a more synergistic package; instead
of offering purchase opportunities in piecemeal newspaper or television ads,
the Internet provides a one-stop shop for studios to entice consumers with a
complete arsenal of purchase opportunities. Regardless of whether the lm
is currently being released in theaters or on home video, the Web site is consistently used to promote merchandise; the focus merely shifts from buying
tickets to preordering or ordering the DVD.
Universal Pictures 2005 lm King Kong is an example of how a major studio created an all-inclusive Web site to encourage audience interactivity
with a lms Web site with the goal of buying tickets and lm-related merchandise.14 From ones very rst interaction with the King Kong Web site
on its home page, a visitor to the site notices that opportunities to purchase
movie-related items are continually reinforced. The site features no less than
four reminders that the DVD of King Kong is available for purchase; one of
these reminders links to the Universal Studios Home Video and DVD Web
site. Should the visitor be reticent to purchase the DVD, the lms trailer
plays automatically as the page loads as temptation to see the lm. The home
page is also rife with cross-promotions, from Papa Johns pizza to The Sci-Fi
Boys (another of director Peter Jacksons feature lms) to a King Kong game to
a King Kong MasterCard offer. Clicking on Enter the Site, the visitor is led
to another page that includes more reminders that the DVD is available for
purchase. Links line the bottom of this page: Mobile links to Gameloft.com
where cell phone ringtones, games, and wallpapers are available for purchase;
43
Trailer features the theatrical trailer, enticing visitors to want to see the
full lm; Game links to Peter Jacksons King KongThe Ofcial Game of the
Movie, available for purchase for all major game platforms; Soundtrack links
to the music composers Web site, where visitors can purchase the movie
soundtrack from Amazon.com or iClassics.com, a division of Universal Music
Classics Group; Kongisking.net, a production-related forum; Partners,
which brings up links to various companies involved in cross-promotions
and tie-ins (Nestle Crunch, Papa Johns Pizza, and Kodak EasyShare Gallery,
among others); and Own the DVD now!, which yet again gives the site visitor the opportunity to own one or all of six versions of the lm.
The Kongisking.net forum presents itself as a Web site for fans to interact with the lm. However, one cannot help but be overwhelmed with
purchase opportunities: the King Kong DVD Countdown lists the number
of days, hours, minutes, and seconds until the Deluxe Extended Edition
DVD and Deluxe Extended Limited Edition DVD are released. If fans cant
wait for the release of these versions, they are encouraged to purchase other
DVDs, such as The World of Kong: A Natural History of Skull Island, the lms
Production Diaries, the 1933 King Kong 2-Disc Special Edition, and The King
Kong Collection, all conveniently linked to Amazon.com for easy purchase.
One can also apply for the King Kong MasterCard here.
While King Kong can be cited as one of the most blatant examples of saturated merchandising, we can examine the Web sites of various other major
releases to see similar trends. The Web site for Sony Pictures Fun With
Dick and Jane, for example, continually reminds the visitor that the movie is
available for purchase on DVD and PSP (PlayStation Portable).15 A graphic
of the actual DVD case is prominently displayed as reinforcement of this
message, and visitors are able to click a link, About the DVD, in order to
nd out more information about the product they will be buying. Production
notes, photographs, and other content-related items are featured on this Web
site; a prominently displayed graphic reminding the visitor to purchase the
DVD or PSP version of the lm never leaves the top right quadrant of the
Web page.
Similarly, the Web site for The Guardian (distributed by Disney-owned
Buena Vista Pictures) features a permanent heading, during the lms theatrical release, that encouraged the visitor to be First in Line, Online! by
buying tickets from an online ticketing service.16 Once the DVD was released, The Guardians Web site began to prominently display advertisements
to purchase the DVD, including notications that an alternate ending for the
movie is but one of many special features on the DVD. Also, the Mobile
page sells various ringtones and wallpaper for cell phones. Granted, this Web
site does feature quite an extensive collection of content that reminds us that
the lm is about Coast Guard rescuers. No matter which area of content the
site visitor chooses to view, however, there is never any question as to when
44
Movies
the movie will be released in theaters or, later, on DVD. Each of these content
pages has an announcement: The Guardian. Risk Everything 9/29. Soon,
this statement is replaced with a similar announcement: The Guardian. On
DVD January 23.
We can observe similar trends on the Web sites for lms released through
the specialty divisions of major distributors, such as The Thing About My
Folks, released by Picturehouse (a company formed by New Line Cinema
and HBO, both owned by Time Warner).17 These lms are marketed to specialized and often discerning audiences interested in the quality of the lm
in terms of acting and writing. Web sites for these types of lms still reect
the overall goal of maximizing revenue. The Web site features the lms actors, Peter Falk and Paul Reiser, bantering about the Web sites usefulness
in nding out where to see the movie. A DVD case of the movie sits in the
very center of the screen, reminding the viewer that the lm is now available
for purchase; a link to a New Line Cinema store facilitates that purchase.
These sites reveal the overall objectives of major studios to turn lms
into havens of merchandise possibilities. With regards to Finn et al.s rubric,
these Web sites encourage viewing of the lms in all of their various formats;
indeed, they actively sell tickets and home videos. More prominently and,
arguably, fundamentally important to the lms distributor, these sites offer
limitless opportunities to purchase movie-related merchandise. King Kong, as
a highly marketed blockbuster movie, represents an intense display of purchase opportunities that outweighs the merchandising on many other studio
lm Web sites. It is, however, not unreasonable to say that if the market for
merchandise afliated with other lms such as The Guardian or Fun With
Dick and Jane existed in as many forms as it does for King Kong, these Web
sites would feature more merchandise.
CONTROLLED INTERACTIVITYSELLING
DEVOTION
Some lms are more conducive to maximizing site visitor interaction in
that they encourage fan participation. Web sites for these lms continue to
encourage sales of tickets and merchandise, but they are more rmly couched
within interactive features. These lm Web sites enable studios to secure a
loyal fan base in such a way that fans feel less manipulated and therefore
more like integral participants in the lms success.
Often, these lms are blockbuster franchises (high-budget lms with sequels) with a pre-existing dedicated fan base that has carried over from the
texts previous incarnation as another media form, such as a book, graphic
novel, comic, or video game. Web site visitors are reminded again and again
that the text exists in a variety of formats, whether it is a lm or book or
game, and they are encouraged to choose their preferred format through
45
which to interact with the text. They are also encouraged to express their
own interpretations of the text through lms and blogs.
The Star Wars franchise is the quintessential example of a franchise that is
promoted online to cultivate fan loyalty and interaction in order to sell tickets and merchandise. Lucaslm established the ofcial Star Wars Web site in
1996 as the studio recognized the promotional potential of the Internet well
ahead of its contemporaries and even before the success of The Blair Witch
Project.18 It built a large and sophisticated community of Star Wars-afliated
Web sites and generated a giant web of fan sites dedicated to some aspect of
Star Wars, of which the latest installment of the series, Episode IIIRevenge
of the Sith (George Lucas, 2005), is part. The main features of this Web site
emphasize membership and community rst and foremost.19 Visitors are encouraged to sign in to the site as recognized members of the community; if
they are not yet members, they are encouraged to become members. A selection of fan blogs is featured on the home page, as are proles of artists who
have worked in some capacity with the Star Wars universe and fan-created
lms. A Community button provides links to news and events, fan clubs,
message boards, and blogs, among others.
Fan involvement is free of cost if one is content to participate on a basic
and minimal level. Fans are, however, given plentiful opportunities to interact with the lm franchise by purchasing services and merchandise that provide what can be perceived as a much more fullling experience. At $39.95
for an annual membership, the Ofcial Star Wars Fan Club, Hyperspace, has
been created to unify and spotlight worldwide fan activity, give exclusive
inside access to the cast and crew of the movies, provide a way to buy really
cool exclusive stuff, and most of all . . . to celebrate Star Wars.20 This membership also permits fans to create an ofcially sanctioned Star Wars blog,
which is linked on the Star Wars Web site. Fan involvement of this nature
was, in 2001, offered gratis; with an estimated minimum of 12,000 blogs at
the time of this writing, this type of fan involvement has turned into a guaranteed moneymaker for Lucaslm.
Film franchise Web sites are deft at reminding its audiences that they are
indeed franchises and that there are multiple other ways to interact with a
text. Because many of these lms derive from other media (novels or games,
for example), there are many different ways in which a potential audience
member might learn of the franchise. Lucaslm is adept at exploiting these
multiple points of entry, both to garner new audiences and to expand a fans
engagement with the text to include various formats, be they books or lms
or collectibles. A quiz on the Web site asks, What do you know of Shadows of
Empire? (Shadows of Empire is a novel that builds on the Star Wars lm saga.)
Visitors are prompted with answers such as: I read the novel, I read the
comics, I played the game, and I collected the toys. The fan is alerted that
this story exists not only in the form of a novel but also as a comic, a game,
46
Movies
and various toys. Therefore, a fans interaction with a text is dened by their
interaction with commodied products.
And regardless of ones point of entry, the Star Wars Web site assumes that
fans will want to display their devotion monetarily. This is why, months before the release of The Phantom Menace, Lucaslm produced a poster-sized,
color-coded chart circulated among the hundreds of Star Wars licensees that
details, month by month, every merchandising and marketing event related
to Star Wars from early last year [1996] until the millennium.21 This admission of the use of formalized marketing strategies indicates expected results
and has even been called the most ambitious attempt to date to exploit a
lm franchise.22
Other lm franchises have arguably modeled their Web sites on Star Wars
foray into online fan involvement. Disneys The Chronicles of Narnia: The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is another such example.23 Based on a series
of childrens books, this franchise released its rst lm in 2005, with a second
lm in the series to be released in 2008. Disney, the Web sites producer, assumes an already dedicated audience base that has grown up with the Narnia
book series; the Web site also seeks to cultivate a new generation of fans by
introducing them to the series through the lm adaptation. As is the case
with Star Wars, there are multiple points of entry to access the text, and the
Web site enables the site visitor to interact in any number of ways. A window
in the center of the screen cycles through various options that the Web site
offers (buy the DVD, play the game, read the books, etc.); these options are
also all available along the toolbar at the top of the screen and alongside this
center window. No one item is emphasized more than the othersnot even
those options that encourage the visitor to purchase merchandise.
The Narnia Web site seeks to engage fans through an Ultimate Fan Contest, the winner of which will visit the production set of the second Narnia
lm and have their experience documented and posted on the Narnia Web
site. While certainly not as interactive as Star Wars fan participation, Narnia
fans can submit photographs or videos of themselves that illustrate their
dedication to the series. Nick, from Astoria, New York, submitted a picture
of himself dressed as a character from Narnia and writes: I made my outt
for a Halloween party, and Ive taken it to a rain forest in Puerto Rico to take
additional photos.24 This level of fan dedication is rewarded; Nick became a
nalist in the Ultimate Fan Contest.
While not as complex as Star Wars or even Narnia in terms of participation, the Web site for Saw II, one lm in a four-part franchise, also incorporates many of the elements of this Web site model.25 The terminology used
on the Web site connotes an interaction on the part of the fans; visitors are
invited to engage, experience, and participate. An example of participation is the Post Your Fear section, which is a discussion board on which
visitors can post entries about things that scare them, upload accompanying
47
pictures, and leave their email addresses, which serves to, presumably, verify
the authenticity of the postings. There is also a link to the Saw III message
board, on which fans can interact with each other.
It is assumed, however, that fans will express their interest in the franchise by purchasing merchandise, and there are endless opportunities to do
so. Half of the home page screen is taken up with a graphic of the Saw II
DVD case (Own it on DVD!). When the Web site invites fans to engage
with the movie, it means that fans will buy the DVD, mobile phone ringtones,
the soundtrack, and iPod downloads. Truly dedicated fans will even seek collectible items; thus, an auction is offered in which props, autographs, and
other items are open for bidding.
Film franchises, with their origination often in other media forms, tend
to have built-in audiences, and it is the exploitation of these audiences that
provides studios with the means to achieve their promotional ends: to maximize sales. Finn et al. deem the use of the Internet for networking and to
relay content as signicant in movie marketing campaigns. It is obvious that
lm franchises like Star Wars use the Internet for these purposes. One must
remember, though, that Lucaslm and others do so in subservience to the
overarching objective of maximizing revenue. Their strategy is somewhat
different than that employed for nonfranchise lms because they must cultivate audience loyalty and sustained interest in the franchise as more lms
in the series are released. Therefore, these Web sites tend to emphasize the
availability of multiple points of entry in order to maximize the reach of
potential audiences. Essentially, they are saying that the fans do not need to
interact with the lm, per se; any interaction with the franchise as a whole is
sufcient, so long as a purchase is made.
ORGANIC VIRAL MARKETINGA PERSONAL
JOURNEY
With comparatively fewer resources at their disposal than their corporate
counterparts, independent lmmakers and small distributors must nd ways
to connect with lm audiences so that those audiences serve as lm promoters themselves. One can say that this is the independent lmmaker and small
distributors primary promotional goal. Thus, these lmmakers are drawn
to the sort of campaign modeled by The Blair Witch Project; this campaign,
initiated by fans, was allowed to develop organically and virally and turned
out to be an inexpensive and extremely efcient mode of promoting the lm.
Networking and content are key characteristics in the design and structure
of these Web sites because their intended audiences seem to be drawn to the
do-it-yourself nature of independent lmmaking.
While a precise denition of the term viral marketing has been contested,
several agree that viral marketing is a process of encouraging honest
48
Movies
communication among consumer networks.26 The word organic is attached

to viral marketing to denote a natural development of the communicative
and networking process. The independent lmmaker relies primarily on
Web site visitors to promote the lm; as such, he or she places a great deal
of trust in the role and activity of the audience. In contrast, while major lm
studios often incorporate viral marketing into their promotional campaigns,
they do not rely solely on this tactic to promote their lms. As mentioned
earlier, television and newspaper advertising still represent the majority of a
lms marketing budget.
Independent lmmakers often wear many different hats: They design the
lms Web site, conduct promotions, and interact personally with fans. All
this happens, often, while they continue working to nish the lm for which
the Web site exists. Independent lmmakers emphasize their personal journeys on their Web sites; with relatively limited resources, there is little else
to include. This entre into the lmmakers world, via the Web site, is often
met with active fan support of the lm. Fans will then often spread word
about the lm in various online and ofine venues. Thus, one promotional
strategy of the independent lm Web site is to make the lm and the lmmakers accessible to audiences.
The Web site for the lm LOL is such an example.27 Made for $3,000,
LOL enjoyed its theatrical debut at the 2006 South by Southwest (SXSW)
Film Festival in Austin, Texas. Joe Swanberg, the lms director (and writer/
producer/cast member), has maintained a production journal blog since the
lms inception. The blogs entries carry an informal tone, giving the impression that the reader is participating in a comfortable conversation with
Swanberg as he relates the ups and downs of independent lmmaking. I am
really excited about the fact that LOL has no real cringe areas for me. Im
sure I will notice plenty of cringe-worthy things as I spend more time with
the nished cut, but its nice and fresh right now, and Im able to watch it and
almost enjoy it.28 Similarly, the Web site for Deadroom encourages its audience to visit the directors personal blogs, which offer a glimpse into their
lives.29 These blogs serve to not only promote this lm; they also document
the lmmakers musings about other lm projects. And the blog for The Cassidy Kids monitors every stage in the lms production, from its submission
to the Sundance Film Festival (Sundance turned down the lm) to colorcorrecting the lm print to recapping a radio interview with the director
prior to the SXSW Festival in 2006.30
On the LOL Web site, Swanberg gives site visitors other opportunities
to get to know him. They can communicate directly with him by posting responses to his blog, and Swanberg also posts a link to the lms MySpace online community Web site. In addition to delivering lm-related information,
this site also features links to the lms actors personal MySpace proles
(as well as Swanbergs prole) and allows others to connect their MySpace
49
proles back to the LOL MySpace site.31 The producers of The Last Romantic
also utilize MySpace to provide a more comprehensive Web site about the
lm; in fact, the movies ofcial Web site is fairly minimalist, while the directors personal blogs are updated through MySpace.32
A signicant element differentiating the organic and viral marketing Web
site from that of a major studio lm is the distinct lack of focus on sales. Unlike studio sites, which are saturated with merchandise purchase opportunities, LOL does not feature any links to merchandise. The lmmakers would
rather their lm is seen rather than make money: [We are] all trying to
gure out ways to get the movie into as many hands as possible. We all agree
that giving out free DVDs is a good start, so keep checking in to nd out how
to get your free copy of the movie in April.33 There are products that the
LOL Web site could sell but that are instead available for free; 12 songs from
the lms soundtrack, for example, are downloadable without cost, and the
site offers a free subscription to an iTunes video podcast. Even intentions to
sell merchandise fall short and with seemingly little concern; the Deadroom
Web site notes, This lm should be available for purchase in early 2006, but
the home video was still not available months later.34 While these freebies
do often serve as calling cards of sorts for independent lmmakers hoping
to break into the mainstream industry, they also signal a common belief that
lms should be accessible to their communities of audiences. Independent
lms especially are community efforts that continue to rely on their communities even after production has wrapped.
Only when an independently produced lm is picked up for distribution
does its Web site begin to change tone. The extent to which it changes, however, is reected in the kind of company that distributes the lm. For example, The Oh in Ohio is distributed theatrically by Cyan Pictures, a small New
Yorkbased distribution company. Its Web site retains the feel of other independently produced Web sites, with links to festival appearances and critical
accolades.35 The option of buying tickets to the movie is the only purchase
opportunity on this Web site; one must click to another Web site in order to
do so. The Web site for Boynton Beach Club features the independent aesthetic
even more prominently.36 After this lm secured distribution from the partnered independent distributors Samuel Goldwyn Films and Roadside Attractions, this Web sites home page was redesigned to reect a more stylish
approach to promotion, with ash animation and a trailer that automatically
plays when the page is loaded. When one clicks on Enter Website, however,
we are led to what one can assume is the original Web site used prior to the
lms distribution deal. With amateurish design, a mish-mash of fonts, and
text-heavy pages, the Web site relies on content to ll its pages. There are
no purchase opportunities; there are no networking opportunities either. It
is a purely functional Web site, linking to production notes and cast and crew
biographies, as a supplement to the lm.
50
Movies
Lacking the nancial wherewithal of their corporate counterparts, independent lmmakers rely on the cultivation of relationships with audiences
to generate support for their lms. They also use the Internet to offer information to potential distributors and lm critics. The Internet has been the
most effective tool with which to do so, particularly because of its accessible,
affordable, and interactive characteristics. In accordance with Finn et al.s
model, Web sites are used for networking and to offer content, so that lmmakers like Swanberg can develop a rapport with fans. Purchase opportunities are almost nonexistent on these Web siteswhile the lmmakers may
have little to sell, they may also prefer to give unlimited access to a project of
love. The independent lmmakers long-range marketing plan tends not to
include color-coded charts la Star Wars; in fact, a lms promotional timeline often does not extend beyond lm festival submission.
CONCLUSION
As movie attendance in theaters takes a hit (the Motion Picture Association of America reports that ticket sales have declined 11.5% from 2002 to
2006), major studios continually seek ways to reach audiences in order to
draw them into theater seats.37 And as theater attendance declines, the reliance on ancillary markets continues to rise, and major studios pour even
more resources toward sales of home videos and lm-related merchandise to
generate revenue. The potential for some lm properties is huge; New Line
Cinema has reportedly generated upwards of $2.5 billion from worldwide
sales of The Lord of the Rings merchandise that includes home videos, action
gures, videogames, and apparel, among other goods.38 Certainly, few lms
promise this phenomenal level of prots, but with DVD sales dipping (2007
saw the rst decline of DVD sales by 4.5% since the format was introduced
10 years prior), studios look to expand all opportunities for revenue; this
objective centrally underlies most major studio lms Web sites.39
The major studios witnessed the success of The Blair Witch Project and
thought they had found the secret ingredient to harnessing audiences and
ensuring a successful theatrical and home video run. They have tried to emulate the most successful elements of the online promotional campaign, failing
to realize that some of the most successful parts are successful because of
something that is difcult for major studio sites to replicate: The lmmaker
relates his or her personal journey taken with the lm. Hollywood has undoubtedly tried to utilize this element, as studio lm Web sites often feature
production notes and directors commentary. One cant help but wonder,
however, who is behind the production of these features and if they are created primarily to be included on special edition DVDs.
Major studio-backed directors such as Peter Jackson, who directed the
2005 version of King Kong, face a different set of problems with lmmaking
51
than their independent counterparts, which makes them less accessible to

the average audience member. While one can say that Peter Jackson is traveling a personal journey with his lm (which he does do on the King Kong
Web site), he does not face the same trials as Joe Swanberg, for whom lmmaking is more nancially risky. In an online video production diary, Jackson counts down the time before King Kong is released in theaters around
the world. When he then attends the lms world premiere in Wellington,
New Zealand, Jackson thanks the thousands and thousands of people who
helped with his lm, as fans hug giant inatable bananas.40 Joe Swanberg, on
the other hand, counts down the days until a given lm festival submission
deadline, to which his lm may or may not be accepted. The lm is nally
accepted and so Swanberg relates the experience of his lms world premiere
at the SXSW Film Festival in 2006: We had the World Premiere. It was
great. Were all sick and tired and doing our best not to fall asleep at the
parties. This is really the rst bit of time I have had to sit down and write
anything. Its been non-stop since we arrived in Austin.41
The categories of Web sites set forth here serve to begin the process of
understanding how lm studios and individual lmmakers use the Internet
for promotional purposes. They highlight how disparately the Internet is approached depending on the entity that creates the Web site, for differences in
resources and expectations of the audience alter the purpose of Web site promotion. The categories are not intended to be the denitive voice on Internet
movie marketing; they can only describe the state of movie Web sites as they
appear today. With rapidly evolving technological features and equipment,
tomorrow may yield an entirely new approach to using the Internet in a lm
promotion campaign. As illustrated by the Web site for LOL and other independently produced lms, we can observe that the social networking Web
site MySpace is a signicant component of the promotional campaign. The
major studio lm Web sites examined here did not utilize this feature; only
very recently has MySpace been incorporated as a vital component for major
studios. We are now starting to witness the integration of YouTube, a videosharing Web site, as a marketing tool, primarily for independent lmmakers.
Susan Buice and Arin Crumleys lm Four Eyed Monsters (2005) became the
rst feature lm to be premiered in full on YouTube.
It has been the trend for independent lmmakers to rst explore alternative modes of online lm promotion. Only once these alternative modes
have proven successful do major studios copy those tactics, translating strategies into those that t more rmly within major studios promotional
goals. Whether or not those strategies translate to encompass corporate objectives, such as maximizing sales to benet the bottom line, is often subject
to interpretation.
Because there is relatively little research on online lm marketing, there is
much room for the development of ways to analyze promotional campaigns.
52
Movies
This study denotes ways in which both independents and majors have adapted
their practices to encompass new technologies. We can extend the distinctions
made here to analyze Web sites of other kinds of movies not explored here;
how do we understand activist-oriented Web sites for some documentaries?
Where do foreign-produced lm Web sites t, given a range of resource
availability and more practical, ofine modes of promotion in other regions
of the world? This structure can also perhaps be used to analyze other media
through which lm is promoted. Where and how do we observe the promotional objectives of sales, networking, and content in other media? Just
as important, though, is the distinction between corporate and independent
promotion. The Internet provides a chance for majors and independents to
compete with each other on the relatively level playing eld; their success is
determined by how they are both able to hone their strategies. How, then,
might we analyze other circumstances of corporate versus independent promotion in other media?
This study is intended to initiate a more structured conversation into how
the parameters of lm promotion are dened. With technology constantly
changing the online promotion landscape, these parameters are constantly
shifting, but here, they are frozen for a moment in time so that we may examine them a little more closely.
NOTES
1. Christopher Grove, Web Gaming has Revenue Potential, Variety, February 29,
2000, http://www.variety.com/summit/article.asp?articleID=1117776054 (accessed
November 2000).
2. Michael Stroud, Blair Witch Casts Strong Spell, Wired Online, August 2, 1999,
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/21045.html (accessed November
2000).
3. Motion Picture Association, U.S. Entertainment Industry: 2006 Market Statistics
(Los Angeles: Motion Picture Association Worldwide Market Research and Analysis,
2006), 19.
4. Adam Finn et al., Marketing Movies on the Internet: How Does Canada Compare to the U.S.? Canadian Journal of Communication 25 (2000), 36776.
5. Chris Gore, The Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide, 2nd ed. (Hollywood: iFilm
Publishing, 2001), 80.
6. Janet Wasko, How Hollywood Works (London: Sage Publications, 2003), 2.
7. Viacom is the parent company of Paramount Pictures; News Corporation heads
up Twentieth Century Fox; Time Warner is the parent company of Warner Brothers; General Electric is the parent company of NBC Universal, which runs Universal
Pictures; Sony Corporation runs Sony Pictures; and the Walt Disney Corporation
owns Walt Disney Pictures.
8. Laura M. Holson, Is There Life After Star Wars for Lucaslm? The New York
Times, May 1, 2005, Section 3, 1.
53
9. Lionsgate, Lions Gate Entertainment Acquires Leading UK Filmed Entertainment Distributor Redbus Film Distribution Limited, Lionsgate Films press release,
October 18, 2005, http://www.lionsgate.com/investors/pdf/redbus.pdf (accessed
March 2, 2006).
10. Alisa Perren, A Big Fat Indie Success Story? Press Discourses Surrounding the
Making and Marketing of a Hollywood Movie, Journal of Film and Video, 56, no. 2
(2004), 20.
11. Yannis Tzioumakis, American Independent Cinema: An Introduction (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006).
12. Fred Zufryden, New Film Website Promotion and Box-Ofce Performance,
Journal of Advertising Research (JanuaryApril 2000), 5564.
13. Janet Wasko, Show Me the Money: Challenging Hollywood Economics, In
Toward a Political Economy of Culture: Capitalism and Communication in the TwentyFirst Century, ed. Andrew Calabrese and Colin Sparks (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littleeld, 2004), 13150.
14. King Kong, directed by Peter Jackson, 2005, Universal Pictures, http://www.
kingkong.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
15. Fun With Dick and Jane, directed by Dean Parisot, 2005, Sony Pictures Releasing, http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/funwithdickandjane/index.html (accessed October 28, 2006).
16. The Guardian, directed by Andrew Davis, 2006, Buena Vista Pictures (Disney),
http://theguardian.movies.go.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
17. The Thing About My Folks, directed by Raymond de Felitta, 2005, Picturehouse
Entertainment, http://www.myfolksmovie.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
18. Sally Kline, ed., George Lucas: Interviews (Conversations with Filmmakers Series)
(Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1999).
19. Star Wars: Episode IIIRevenge of the Sith, directed by George Lucas, 2005,
Lucaslm and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, http://www.starwars.com
(accessed October 28, 2006).
20. Lucaslm, Hyperspace Frequently Asked Questions, Star Wars Hyperspace, 2006,
http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/about/faq.html (accessed October 15, 2006).
21. James Sterngold, The Media Business: Advertising; The Return of the Merchandiser, The New York Times, January 30, 1997, D1.
22. Ibid.
23. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, directed by
Andrew Adamson, 2005, Buena Vista Pictures (Disney), http://disney.go.com/
disneypictures/narnia (accessed October 28, 2006).
24. Ultimate Fan Contest Finalists, The Chronicles of Narnia, http://disney.go.com/
disneypictures/narnia/fanclub/fanclub_winners.html (accessed October 28, 2006).
25. Saw II, directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, 2005, Lionsgate Films, http://www.
saw2.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
26. Joseph E. Phelps et al., Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email,
Journal of Advertising Research 44, no. 4 (2004), 33348.
27. LOL, directed by Joe Swanberg, 2006, Washington Square Films, http://www.
lolthemovie.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
54
Movies
28. Joe Swanberg, Working Full Time, LOLThe MovieProduction Journal,

December 6, 2005, http://www.lolthemovie.com/archive/2005_12_01_archive.html
(accessed March 24, 2006).
29. Deadroom, Directed by James M. Johnston, David Lowery, Nick Prendergast,
and Yen Tan, 2005, Unauthorized Productions and Red Dog Films, http://www.
deadroommovie.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
30. The Cassidy Kids, Directed by Jacob Vaughan, 2006, Switchlm and Burnt
Orange Productions, http://switchlm.com/blog/the_cassidy_kids (accessed October 28, 2006).
31. LOL, MySpace prole, http://www.myspace.com/lolthemovie (accessed October 9, 2007).
32. The Last Romantic, MySpace prole, http://www.myspace.com/thelastroman
ticmovie (accessed October 9, 2007); The Last Romantic, Directed by The Brothers
Nee, 2006, August Films and Pop Fiction, http://www.augustlms.tv/lastromantic/
index.html (accessed October 28, 2006).
33. Joe Swanberg, Its Finished (Its Just Getting Started), LOLThe Movie
Production Journal, February 23, 2006, http://www.lolthemovie.com/archive/2006_
02_01_archive.html (accessed March 24, 2006).
34. The Web site itself was unavailable in early 2008, signaling the end of Deadrooms online promotion. News, Deadroom, 2006, http://www.deadroommovie.com
35. The Oh in Ohio, Directed by Billy Kent, 2006, Cyan Pictures, http://www.theohin
ohio.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
36. Boynton Beach Club, Directed by Susan Seidelman, 2005, Samuel Goldwyn
Films and Roadside Attractions, http://www.boyntonbeachclubthemovie.com (accessed October 28, 2006).
37. Motion Picture Association, U.S. Entertainment Industry: 2006 Market Statistics
(Los Angeles: Motion Picture Association Worldwide Market Research and Analysis,
2006), 6.
38. Janet Wasko and Govind Shanadi, More than Just Rings: Merchandise for
Them All, in The Lord of the Rings: Popular Culture in Global Context, ed. Ernest
Mathijs (London and New York: Wallower Press, 2006), 29.
39. Sue Zeidler, DVD Sales Fall for First Time, ABC News.com, January 3, 2008,
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/wireStory?id=4082841 (accessed January 10, 2008).
40. Peter Jackson, The Final Production Diary, The Kong is King.netThe History
of King Kong, 2006, http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/PPD-00Weeks
ToGo_qt6_high.mov (accessed March 24, 2006).
41. Joe Swanberg, Absolutely Crazy, LOLThe MovieProduction Journal,
March 14, 2006, http://www.lolthemovie.com/archive/2006_03_01_archive.html
chapter 4
Reacting Synergistically: Batman

and Time Warner
Kimberly A. Owczarski
The rst extended look at Warner Bros. Batman Begins (Christopher

Nolan, 2005) immediately followed the May 2005 season nale of Smallville
(2001 2005), a television drama that centers on the life of young Clark Kent,
otherwise known as the alter ego of Superman. This synergistic moment illustrates the power of contemporary media conglomerates in three distinct
ways. First, a single media conglomerate was responsible for the production
and airing of both the lm and the television show. Produced by Warner
Bros. Television, Smallville, like Batman Begins, was produced by a subsidiary
of Time Warner. The airing network (the WB) was also owned by Time
Warner. Second, the two superheroes histories have intertwined numerous
times in multiple media forms, particularly in comic books because they were
both created by DC Comics, another Time Warner subsidiary.1 Earlier in the
decade, the two superheroes would have been pitted against each other in a
feature lm directed by Wolfgang Peterson had separate scripts relaunching each individual franchise not been preferred by Warner Bros. executives.
Finally, the event was publicized highly through other arms of the conglomerate, including the magazine Entertainment Weekly, produced by a subsidiary of the company, Time Inc. The news of the Superman/Batman crossover
was ushered in through the Entertainment Weekly Web site, often accessible
through Time Warners Roadrunner high-speed Internet service.
As this example demonstrates, the nature of media integration in contemporary Hollywood has grown increasingly complex as synergy takes
place in the production and marketing aspects of the industry, as well in
56
Movies
actual narrative construction. Synergy is a companys attempt to bring together groups of information and entertainment media that could be used to
cross-promote each others products.2 The key driving force in the pursuit
of synergy is the franchise lm, a specic branch of the blockbuster than can
be exploited in multiple variations across media formats. The franchise lm
functions as a two-hour promotion for a multimedia product line, designed
with the structure of both the parent company and the diversied media
marketplace in mind.3 The franchise lm is meant to be a launching pad for
future movies, tie-in video games, and merchandise available at local department stores. The development of media conglomerates since the 1980s has
ushered in an era of larger and larger franchises, in an effort to capitalize
on a lms success through (nearly) every arm of the company. In its 1993
Annual Report, Time Warner used the Batman franchise as its example for
synergy. Radiating from the iconic Batman symbol used for the 1989 lm
were examples of the other media formats through which the property could
be pushed: Comics, Licensing, Theatrical, Video, Pay TV, U.S. Network, Animation, Syndication, Theme Parks, and Music.4 Nearly each of these formats
had a corresponding subsidiary within Time Warner. The Batman franchise
thus exemplied Time Warners World-Class Marketing and Distribution
capabilities across multiple media.5
While the Time Warner 1993 Annual Report uses the Batman franchise
as its example of synergy, it does not directly state how that is achieved
within the multimedia corporation other than to list the (potential) divisions
involved in the process. This chapter is a case study of how the Batman franchise initially was used synergistically by Time Warner and how it continues
to be a synergistic endeavor. In 1989, the successes of Batman at the box ofce
and across multiple media functioned as a blueprint for synergy for the newly
formed Time Warner. By the time Batman Begins was released, the companys synergistic enterprises were working more in synch than anyone had
anticipated in 1989, especially as the lms promotions expanded into new
media technologies. Ultimately, the Batman franchises provide an excellent
case study of how the divisions of a conglomerate react synergistically to
create and promote its key products.
THE AMAZING FUNCTIONS OF BATMAN
Each product only contains one component. The elements react synergistically, in combination. Hair spray wont do it alone. But lets say . . . hair
spray and perfume and lipstick will be toxic anduntraceable.
Batman to Vicki Vale in Batman
As Batman tells photojournalist Vicki Vale, one product is not enoughit
is only in combination with other products that their greatest potential can
Reacting Synergistically
57
be achieved. It is an apt insight about synergy by Batman given his place in

Time Warner history. In 1989, a few months before the blockbuster Batman
was released, Time Inc. and Warner Communications, Inc. ( WCI) announced
the merger of the two companies, a merger that would create the largest
multimedia corporation in the world. In the wake of this announcement,
journalists and media analysts struggled with the meaning behind the spate
of media mergers that occurred in the last half of the 1980s.6 In an article for
The Nation in June 1989, Ben H. Bagdikian stressed:
Each of these planetary corporations plans to gather under its control
every step in the information process, from creation of the product to all
the various means by which modern technology delivers media messages
to the public. The product is news, information, ideas, entertainment and
popular culture; the public is the whole world.7
For Bagdikian, this trend was a worrying one particularly in regard to

the product, for the corporations grand strategy of synergism, increases
what already is a drug on the market: commercially safe, generic, all-purpose
books, lms and TV programs.8 In Bagdikians view, synergy stood as the
base strategy of these newly forming and ever-increasing media conglomerates. Using the Batman franchise, Time Warner rst put this strategy into
action.
With its theatrical release in June 1989, Batman became the rst lm to reach
the $100 million mark at the domestic box ofce in only 10 days. In fact, the
lm shattered several box ofce records as it opened. In its rst weekend at
the box ofce, Batman broke the record for biggest Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
and weekend openings ever.9 And by the end of its theatrical run, Batman
emerged as second on the all-time domestic box ofce gross list, just behind
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Steven Spielberg, 1982) and just before Return of
the Jedi (Richard Marquand, 1983), with a domestic gross of $250 million.10
Batman also was a powerful merchandising vehicle, with over $500 million
in retail sales by the end of the year.11 The two tie-in soundtracks performed
solidly, and Batman comic book sales increased as a result of the lms
popularity. In reviewing the box ofce statistics for the lms of the summer
of 1989, David Ansen of Newsweek referred to Batmans success as a merchandising, musical and motion-picture grand slam of unprecedented proportions.12 Although Time and Warner had not quite merged by the time of
its theatrical release, Batman was the conglomerates rst triumph, integrating synergy into every aspect of the production process.
For example, in the preproduction process, producers Peter Guber and
Jon Peters were concerned about the lms eventual merchandising function.
The producers wanted the screenplay to reect more of Batmans traditional
gadgets, presumably to tie-in to merchandise and toys being developed in
58
Movies
connection with the lm. In regard to a scene where Bruce Wayne used a
Filofax to stop a bullet, the producers asked for a Bat-gadget to be used
instead, claiming that The point of a movie called BATMAN is to see BATMAN using a Bat device to be used to save him. In a scene where Vicki Vale
discussed bats with Batman, the producers noted: Lets make sure we see the
various amazing functions of his cape. When the Bat-signal was removed
from the ending of the lm, the producers asked, [I]s it possible to use it
elsewhere? Finally, the producers were very concerned with the appearance
of the Batmobile and responded to a scene where it was unclear what happened to the vehicle: We would really like to see it drive out unscathed.13
Clearly, the producers emphasis on Batmans gadgets was tied to issues of
merchandising.
Besides seeing to the merchandising aspects to the lm, the producers
also were involved in the creation of the lms primary tie-in soundtrack by
bringing in pop music star Prince. In addition to being a highly successful
recording artist, Prince was also a key Warners commodity. He had released
several albums through Warner Records, and Warner Bros. had also released
his protable lm, Purple Rain (Albert Magnoli, 1984). The lm featured a
popular soundtrack by Prince it was number one on the music charts for
24 consecutive weeks and spawned several music videos.14 The origins of
how Prince became involved with Batman are unclear; director Tim Burton
was not sure if he was just interested in the project or if studio executives
asked him to do it:
Im not sure how this happened. If it was from the producers, or
Prince . . . wanted to do music for the lm. That was probably my rst introduction into the studio world of other things. . . . He was so prolic, and
he just had done all of these songs. And a few of them felt like they were
really good for the Joker. They were very Joker-esque kind of, kind of
songs. So, but it was sort of a separate thing from, I mean, you know,
Im there making the movie, and then they had this whole idea for a concept album or whatever. . . . That was my, you know, rst thing, rst movie,
where, and it was probably kind of the early beginnings for them in terms
of marketing and things, you know. Like I had never heard the term franchise before, they never used it.15
What is clear is the synergy of the collaboration, even if Burton was not aware
of those intentions.16 Princes concept album as well as the single Batdance
and its music video were released before the lm arrived in theaters. The
video, described by one journalist as the aural equivalent of a movie trailer,
featured Prince as a Gemini-type character whose costume reects Batman on
one side and the Joker on the other, both modeled on actual costumes worn by
the characters in the lm.17 Batdance also featured lines of dialogue taken
directly from the lm. In this regard, the use of the artist Prince, his tie-in
59
soundtrack, and the music videos spawned by the album illustrated how WCI
could push a product across multiple arms of the company.
Another indication of WCIs ability to push products across its multiple
arms was its merchandising division, the Licensing Corp. of America (LCA),
which licensed over 300 Batman items to 100 companies with products ranging from toys and clothes to sheets and other domestic products such as
Batsoap on a rope.18 Because WCI had an in-company licensing source with
LCA, each product sold in the marketplace earned the company between 6
and 10 percent of its wholesale price.19 Producers Guber and Peters decided
to hold back many of the toys based on equipment featured in the lm (including a utility belt, Batarang, and Batwing) until after the lm opened
in an attempt to build anticipation for the products. Indeed, merchandisers
visited the production in order to view the sets, costumes, and props and also
worked closely with production designer Anton Furst to develop toys that
reected the overall look of the lm and characters.20
In preproduction meetings for Batman, producer Jon Peters told screenwriter Warren Skaaren that he would use his rst draft as a prototype of
how I want things to be on all pictures before we go into production.21 As the
success of Batman reached from the box ofce to video sales to hundreds of
millions of dollars in merchandise sales, it became clear that the lm would be
a prototype for other franchise lms to follow, particularly with any Batman
sequels. While waiting for the rst forthcoming sequel, Time Warner needed
to keep Batman at the forefront of popular culture. The company also continued to expand its media outlets, not only to push Batman and other corporate
products in new dimensions but also to compete with rival conglomerates
such as the Walt Disney Company. Throughout the 1990s, Time Warner engaged in a number of measures to promote its key properties, such as Batman,
as well as to continue its status as the worlds largest media conglomerate.
A year after the merger was completed, Time Warner as a whole encountered large losses as several divisions underperformed and the nancial
fallout from the merger was felt. Time Warners net losses in 1990 were
$227 million, or approximately $13.67 per share.22 In 1991, the company
lost $99 million, approximately $9.60 per share.23 In contrast, the smaller
conglomerate of Disney earned $824 million in prots for 1990 and $817 million in prots for 1991, the second highest of the diversied service companies for both years.24 Key to Disneys prots during those two years were
synergistic franchises like The Little Mermaid, an animated lm with a highly
successful soundtrack and merchandising campaign. Clearly, Disneys multimedia strategies for its key products were working for the company.
In order to compete with one aspect of Disneys dominant performance
during this two-year period, Time Warner launched Warner Bros. Studio
Stores in four malls in late 1991. Disney had opened over a hundred of its
own retail stores over the past four years, and executives at Time Warner
60
Movies
believed there would be a similar market for their companys products. Disneys stores were selling more than double the national average per square
foot of retail space and provided an additional venue for synergy.25 Indeed,
the Disney stores were the perfect opportunity to merge the studios various
interests in its theme parks, television offerings, and lms into one (consumable) retail space. Time Warners foray into the retail business had a similar
goal. The rst store, which opened in Beverly Hills in September 1991, featured larger-than-life gures of Batman and Superman, as well as a crawling
space underneath Bugs Bunny for young children, and offered products ranging from animation cels to t-shirts to home furnishings. Sales at the 4 stores
during the holiday season were so robust that the company pushed ahead to
create 17 more retail stores within the next year. The opening of the Warner
Bros. Studio Stores provided Time Warner with a direct retail space for the
selling of products related to their key properties. According to Peter Starrett, Warner Bros. Senior Vice President and Director of Retail at the time,
this was the main purpose for launching the stores: [ T ]here was nothing
that placed all the properties under one roof, into one cohesive state. . . . The
studio stores bring us one step closer to the customer with the highest quality of Warner Bros. property.26
In another attempt to compete with Disney, Time Warner also ventured
into theme parks. In 1991, Time Warner joined with two other rms to take
over the debt-ridden Six Flags Amusement Parks, creating Six Flags Entertainment. According to Robert Pittman, the Chairman and Chief Executive
Ofcer of Six Flags Entertainment, the corporate backing of Time Warner
was a step to push the amusement parks in a more protable direction by
using the companys key assets as promotional tools: Now that it has an entertainment company behind it, we can reach into our movies, TV shows and
characters the way Disney does.27 In June 1992, the Six Flags Magic Mountain Park in California launched the Batman Stunt Show and Batman Nights:
Fireworks & Laser Show. On the two shows impact on the parks, Pittman
claimed Batmans presence was a substantial benet:
Bringing Six Flags into the Time Warner family offered us an opportunity
to take Batman, one of Time Warners premier properties, into an entertaining new sphere never available to us. . . . This is an example of how the
brand inuence of Time Warner holdings will be working together and
helping each other.28
Indeed, Warner Bros. did benet from this arrangement because the presence of the two shows provided further promotion for the next Batman lm,
which opened in June 1992.
The presence of Batman at the Six Flags parks also helped spur admissions for 1992. In the Annual Report for 1992, Time Warners Chairman and
61
Chief Executive Ofcer Gerald Levin composed a letter to shareholders that

reiterated how properties like Batman work across the various arms of Time
Warner, including Six Flags:
Copyright protection makes our mission possible. With it, we are able
to take the words and images we produce and sell them over and over,
through many different media, in many different markets, for the lifetime
of the copyright. Six Flags, for example, the theme-park company in which
we own a 50% interest, made increasing use of Time Warner copyrights
such as Looney Tunes, Batman, and Sports Illustrated to help achieve 1992s
record attendance.29
In addition to the two shows at the Magic Mountain Park, Six Flags had also
initiated a highly successful Batman ride at its Great America theme park in
Chicago in May 1992. Advertised as the rst suspended, outside-looping
roller coaster, Batman the Ride provided not only the thrilling experience
of the ride itself but also of the property as well. With lines running over
an hour and a half before boarding, visitors were enmeshed in the Gotham
City environment as they waited.30 For a similar roller coaster that opened
a year later at AstroWorld in Houston, Texas, George Ladyman, the Design
Director of Six Flags, claimed that this environment was part of an immersive experience with the characters world: We design a lot differently from
a lm. . . . A lm is purely visual, but here its three-dimensional. You can
actually walk through ours. You can knock on the penguins.31 The environment for the AstroWorld roller coaster, Batman: The Escape, was modeled on
the 1992 lm Batman Returns, and designers for the roller coaster actually
visited the lms sets.32 Indeed, both roller coasters used aspects of the lms
soundtracks in the waiting areas, either from the orchestral scores created by
Danny Elfman, pop songs created by Prince, or snippets of dialogue from the
lms themselves. Thus, Time Warner merged aspects of its lm, music, and
amusement park capabilities through these Batman rides.
In September 1992, a new animated program about Batman premiered on
the Fox television network. Produced by Tim Burton, Batman: The Animated
Series (1992 1995) mimicked the dark and foreboding atmosphere of the 1989
and 1992 lms.33 The show was initially geared toward older teens and
young adults, which informed the approach taken for the animation style as
well as the narrative construction. In December 1992, Fox began to premiere
episodes of Batman: The Animated Series in prime time because reruns of the
show that had aired in that time slot did better in the ratings than previously
offered fare. Although the show was aimed at an older audience, Batman: The
Animated Series did well with younger audiences, too. In Time Warners 1992
Annual Report, the show was highlighted as the top-rated daytime childrens
show for ages 211 as well as for commanding the highest priced advertisement ever for an animated show aired during the day time.34
62
Movies
All of these additional venues for Batman helped promote the lms
sequel, Batman Returns, when it was released in theaters in June 1992 and
on video in October of the same year. Burton did not imagine the lm as a
sequel and referred to it as a further episode of the Batman story in interviews about the lm. In the foreword to Batman Returns: The Ofcial Movie
Book, Burton explained this point clearly:
So let me begin by saying that Batman Returns is not really a sequel to Batman. It doesnt pick up where the rst lm left off. The sets for Gotham
City are completely new. There are lots of new elements in the visuals and
storyline that havent been seen before. Even Batmans costume has been
revised.
The point was to make it all feel fresh and new. It was the only way I
could envision the movie.35
Because of his success with the rst lm, Burton was given much more freedom with the sequels production. Executives at Time Warner treated the
project as Burtons personal lm, hoping that a hands-off attitude would
result in another Batman lm that broke box ofce records. Rather than focus
on Bruce Wayne or Batman, who are barely seen in the rst 40 minutes of the
lm, he centered the story on the villainous exploits of the Penguin and Catwoman. Many reviewers remarked on how close these characters were to the
outsider characters in previous Burton lms and repeatedly used the word
personal in their reviews to stress that they saw this lm as an auteurs,
rather than a studios, work.36
Burton chose to include the song Face to Face from punk band Siouxie
and the Banshees (of which he was a self-described fan) rather than music
from a more accessible, mainstream artist, especially one that recorded for
one of Warners many record labels. His choice not to select a Warners recording artist highlighted his refusal to engage in the synergistic wishes of
the company. Although representatives from toy companies and other merchandising partners did have access to the Batman Returns set, as they did
with the rst lm, Burton did not particularly welcome this aspect of the
business. Indeed, he viewed it as a problem and distraction:
[B]eyond that, the other aspects of it, the, you know, the, the merchandising, all that stuff that is now become such commonplace stuff was not
a thing that I probably handled well, or dealt well with, or liked. So, the
movie is the movie . . . You got a huge job just to make the movie. And, eh, so
all of this other stuff is, is necessary to them, the studio and all the people,
but for me its just more of a problem and distraction. And, eh, you know,
its hard for me to tell, you know, a toy company what somethings going
to look like when I dont even know myself. You know, you get into that
kind of stuff. And, eh, you know, then you keep wondering why you make,
63
you know, a movie in like several months and it takes, you know, them the
same time to make a T-shirt. You know, theres a weird juxta . . . its a weird
time warp, you know, with like how long you have and how long they have
and need.37
His refusal to cooperate fully with the needs and desires of the merchandising partners may have helped spur the companies backlash against the franchise after Batman Returns opened.
Before Burton had even agreed to direct and produce the second lm,
Time Warner had secured many high-prole merchandising deals for the
Batman franchise. Directly after the success of Batman and its associated
merchandise in 1989, representatives from Time Warner began to approach
potential merchandising partners. Warner Bros. Worldwide Consumer Products, formerly LCA, had signed over a hundred licenses in the United States
before the lm opened with companies such as Kenner Toys, Ralston Purina
(for a Batman-centered cereal), and Sears (for Batman boutiques in some 300
stores). Dan Romanelli, the president of Warners Consumer Products Division, believed this to be the logical next step in Batman merchandising:
This is probably the strongest alignment of promotional and licensing
agreements in history. . . . I think that 89 was unprecedented, and I think
this is going to be bigger. We didnt have the animated series in 1989 and
with that, the retail community and the licensees are very happy with that
support.38
Indeed, Time Warner provided an additional forum for pushing Batman Returns products through advertising on the newly created Batman: The Animated Series, which was set to air on the Fox television network in the Fall.
With the number of child-oriented licenses and the pending arrival of a
new Batman-centered cartoon, Batman Returns was poised to be a lm acceptable for young children. Like the rst lm, Batman Returns was rated PG -13
and many families brought younger children to see it. No doubt, the lms
tie-in toy and merchandising partners such as McDonalds emphasized it as
a lm acceptable for smaller children. However, its graphic violence and content
(which included electrocutions, a deformed baby, a mutant gang, and Catwoman dressed in fetishistic leather and wielding a whip) hardly seemed appropriate for younger viewers. As parents and parents groups complained to
Time Warner and merchandising partners, it became clear that Burton had
led the lm franchise in a direction incompatible with the commercial interests of the company. As a result of the complaints McDonalds received for
its involvement with Batman Returns, the fast-food company changed its merchandising practices signicantly, requiring extended looks at lms before
partnership agreements would even be considered. Toy sales were slow, and
64
Movies
comic book sales were not positively affected by the lm. Rather than driving
the revenues of other divisions of Time Warner as the rst lm had done,
Batman Returns became a public relations nightmare.
THE TOYETIC BATMAN
Although Batman Returns was Time Warners top lm for the year and
second in terms of domestic box ofce grosses for the entire industry, it was
not considered a success. Batman Returns grossed $163 million at the domestic box ofce and propelled Warner Bros. to rst place in market share for
1992, but its earnings were less than two-thirds of the rst lm. After the
backlash Batman Returns suffered, Time Warner executives knew that a new
direction for Batman was necessary if the franchise was to continue. Their
rst decision was to keep Burton from doing a third lm even though he
had been entertaining the thought of staying on for one more lm. Instead,
a director who had worked faithfully for the studio before, Joel Schumacher,
was chosen to lighten up the series.39 Claimed Romanelli: We knew we had
a problem. . . . We knew that people felt the last lm was kind of dark. We really turned around the feeling about Batman as a movie franchise, and Joel
was key to that strategy.40 In the lms preproduction stage, Schumacher
met with many potential merchandising partners to emphasize how he was
changing the course of the franchise, and he also went to the Toy Fair with
the same message.41 As a result of Schumachers and the studios efforts to
convince partners that the lm would have a lighter tone, Batman Forever
attracted over 200 sponsors from products ranging from fast food to toothpaste. Even McDonalds came back for the third lm, convinced that the lm
would be more appropriate for younger viewers.
Schumachers take on Batman worked. Batman Forever was the top grossing
lm for 1995, earning more than $184 million at the domestic box ofce. It set
a new opening weekend box ofce record at $52.8 million. It was not just the
box ofce gures, however, that made the lm a success. Unlike the previous
lm, Batman Forever pushed its success across multiple arms of Time Warner.
After its opening weekend, the companys stock rose $2.50 per share to $43.12,
a high it had not seen in over a year.42 The soundtrack, featuring songs by
Seal and U2, had sold over a million copies by July. Attendance at Six Flags
Parks, several of which had received new Batman rides and a few had Batmancentered entertainment shows that year, was up signicantly. Warners retail
stores, which had temporarily changed their name to Batman Headquarters,
had doubled their sales from 1994.43 Videos by both Seal and U2 were popular
on MTV, further promoting the lm. The lm itself also featured references
to other Time Warner entitiesparticularly, two key magazines that were part
of Time Inc. In Chase Meridians apartment, Bruce Wayne thumbs through
her Batman-related research materials and nds a Times and a Persons
magazine, each replicating the look of Time and People magazines, respectively.
65
Batman Forever thus integrated multiple arms of Time Warner not only in
terms of its promotional activities but also within the text itself.
Batman Forever was also the rst time a Batman lm had a Web site. The
Web site, however, did not just promote the lm; it also promoted other arms
of the company. The Web site took three months to complete and was part
of a campaign integrating traditional and new media outlets for advertising. The lms ABC television special, MTV documentary, and posters all
featured the Web address, and posters placed in subways and bus stations
simply featured the Batman logo with the address.44 The main page was set
up to reect the streets of Gotham, and this hub provided opportunities for
users to go to the Gotham Cinema, where trailers of Batman Forever were
available; the Gotham Library, which held sneak peaks at several forthcoming Batman comics by DC Comics; Gotham Radio Station, where sound clips
from the tie-in songs could be heard; and the Gotham Art Gallery, where
photographs from the lm could be accessed.45 Although the use of the Internet as a promotional device was new to lm studios, Warner Bros. used
the Web site for Batman Forever as a new way to target its core audience and
promote multiple products related to the Batman franchise.
As a company, Time Warner continued to expand into other media for
additional venues to push its key products, such as Batman. In August 1995,
Time Warner announced that the company would purchase Turner Broadcasting System from mogul Ted Turner. Through this deal, Time Warner
would gain cable networks CNN, TNT, TBS, the Cartoon Network, and
Turner Classic Movies as well as studios New Line Cinema, Castle Rock
Pictures, and Hanna-Barbera Cartoons Inc. A key focus of the merger was to
strengthen brands already owned by Time Warner through the additional
media outlets provided by Turner Broadcasting. In the 1996 Annual Report
for Time Warner, the company states that Global distribution in traditional
and electronic media strengthens and popularizes powerful brands.46 The
next page features four of Time Warners and Turners driving brands
Batman, Sports Illustrated, CNN, and Looney Tunesand provides examples
of how these brands are carried through multiple components of the company. The brand of Batman, for example, is characterized by TV animation,
comics, lm, merchandise, theme parks, and soundtracks. In the Warner
Bros. Entertainment section of this annual report, the relationship between
these arms is spelled out clearly: Retailing, licensing and theme parks reinforce the power of Warner Bros. brands, turning hits into entertainment
franchises that become more valuable over time.47
Given the success of Batman Forever in terms of box ofce grosses and
merchandising dollars, another sequel was inevitable for the Batman franchise. Immediately after the third lm hit theaters and broke box ofce records during the summer of 1995, the fourth lm was put on the fast track for
a 1997 release, which provided less than two years for the lm to be planned,
shot, and released. Indeed, theaters were booked for its release before a single
66
Movies
frame was even shot. Wanting to avoid a public relations debacle like Batman Returns, the fourth lm was set up using the highly successful Batman
Forever as its blueprint. As with the previous lm, Schumacher was charged
with lightening up the franchise. According to Schumacher, [ T ]here was
a real desire at the studio to keep it more family-friendly, more kid-friendly.
And, a word I had never heard before, more toyetic, which means that what
you create makes toys that can sell.48 Toy manufacturers had a considerable
hand in designing the costumes, Batmobile, and Bat-gadgets used in Batman
and Robin. Schumacher worked closely with representatives from Kenner,
[R]obbing each others ideas to create stronger sets, props and costume
elements for both the lm and licensed products, from villain Mr. Freezes
(Arnold Schwarzenegger) Freezemobile to Robins cycle. One result of
the[ir] early collaboration is six times the number of action gures with
the latest installment than with the previous one.49
Many of these toys were sold through the Warner Bros. Studio stores, which
changed their design to reect a freeze from the lms main villain through
icicle-laced dcor, life-sized copies of the Mr. Freeze character, and prop ice
oes.50
In relation to the release of Batman and Robin, Time Warner enlisted a
slew of tie-in partners. Executives at Time Warner secured $125 million
worth of promotional partners, from companies such as Frito Lay, Taco Bell,
Kelloggs, and Amoco.51 Frito Lay placed images from the lm on several of
the companys leading chip brands as well as on in-store displays, while Taco
Bell offered collectible cups and dressed the fast food chains restaurants with
promotional images on its windows. Kelloggs featured Batman characters on
several cereals, Pop-Tarts, and Eggos wafes, which displayed the Bat signal.
Michael Gough, the actor who played Alfred, pumped gas at an Amoco gas
station in a television commercial, and the gas company featured Batman
images on its pumps across the United States. Bob Schneider, Senior Vice
President of Worldwide Promotions for Time Warners consumer products
division, claimed the purpose of these tie-ins was to add additional promotional opportunities for the lm; it is a process that creates a billboard effect,
whether youre driving past a Taco Bell or down a supermarket aisle.52 Indeed, given the vast number of promotional tie-ins for the lm, Schumacher
quipped: Ive become a total Batman slut.53
BATMAN AND HIGH-TECH SYNERGY
Batman and Robin did not only rely on traditional media sources as promotional devices; like the previous lm, it also made extensive use of the
Internet. The Web site had many of the same features as the site for Batman
67
Forever audio les from the lms soundtrack, trailers, photographs of

the cast, games, and downloadable posters. However, the online marketing
campaign for Batman and Robin expanded beyond the lms Web site. The
compact disc of the soundtrack, which featured artists such as Smashing
Pumpkins, R. Kelly, Jewel, and R.E.M., also provided software for Prodigy
Internet access. Users who popped the disc into CD-ROM drives on their
computers would be brought automatically to the lms Web site.54 Two
of the lms starsArnold Schwarzenegger and George Clooneychatted
live with fans on Prodigy days before the lm opened.55 The world premiere
of the lm was Web cast via E! Onlines site, and featured interviews with the
stars as well as live audio and video feeds of the stars arrivals.56
While Batman and Robin relied heavily on Internet promotions, the expanding medium offered a few wrinkles to the lms online strategy. Aint It
Cool News, an upstart Web site in Austin, Texas, was fast-developing as one
of the most powerful entertainment sites on the Internet. Aint It Cool News
provided a forum for user commentaries on preview screenings of studio
lms. The sites creator, Harry Knowles, ran a scathing review of Batman
and Robin before the lm even opened in theaters. According to Knowles,
Schumacher derailed the Batman franchise:
First, let me say that Joel Schumacher should be shot and killed. I will pay
a handsome bounty to the man (or woman) who delivers me the head of
this Anti Christ. He has single-handedly destroyed what started out to be
a great series of lms.57
Chris Pula, head of publicity for Warner Bros. at the time, criticized Knowles
running of the review, claiming he had not seen the nished print, and his
review could affect the lms overall reception. Knowles responded by putting 52 separate reviews of the lm on his site all negative. Mass media
outlets, including People, featured the story about the conict between Pula
and Knowles before the lm even opened.58
The negative sentiment about Batman and Robin echoed on this Web site
and others led to an underwhelming run at the box ofce. Although Batman
and Robin was the top lm for Warner Bros. in 1997, it grossed only $107 million at the domestic box ofce and was the ninth lm for the year overall.
The failure of Batman and Robin at the box ofce extended not just to its
grosses but to the companys overall bottom line. Time Warners market
share plummeted to fourth, its worst nish among its rival studios since
1982. Ravaged by lm critics and fans alike, the lms weak performance put
the Batman lm franchise on hiatus for several years.
While the lm franchise was in hiatus, a number of television versions
of Batman emerged. Batman Gotham Knights (19971999) premiered shortly
after the failure of Batman and Robin as part of The New Batman/Superman
68
Movies
Adventures block on Time Warners network, the WB. Batman Gotham

Knights was a continuation of Batman: The Animated Series. Batman Beyond
(1999 2001), also on the WB, was part of the networks popular block of Saturday morning cartoons aimed at children and examines the birth of a new
Batman after Bruce Wayne has retired. In 2002, a live-action spin-off from
the Batman mythos, Birds of Prey (2002 2003), debuted on the WB in primetime and followed the exploits of the Huntress, the illegitimate daughter of
Batman and Catwoman. Finally, The Batman premiered on the WB in 2004,
and as of 2008, it remains on the air on the CW.59 The Batman follows a young
Batman as he attempts to establish himself in Gotham City.
At one point, executives at Time Warner planned on adapting one of these
television versions of Batman Batman Beyond into a live-action lm. Indeed, in between Batman and Robin in 1997 and Batman Begins in 2005, three
high-prole lm sequels were instigated but subsequently abandoned as
Time Warner executives struggled to nd the right approach to restart the
lm franchise. Ultimately, Christopher Nolan was selected to helm the next
Batman lm, and his approach to the franchise mimicked his award-winning
independent lm background, which included Memento (2000), a lm told in
reverse order. Nolans use of an unconventional narrative structure, a realistic aesthetic, and a twist in the third act differentiated Batman Begins from
the other Batman lms and linked directly with the style he had shown in
his previous, independent lm work. By refocusing on the start of Batmans
career as a crimeghter, Nolans lm rebooted the franchise, throwing out a
number of the aspects developed in the previous lms.
Although Warner Bros. entrusted the lucrative franchise to a formerly
independent lmmaker, the company hedged its bets on the lms performance by investing a lot of energy (and dollars) into promoting the lm.
Rumored to have had a $100 million marketing campaign, nearly as much as
the lms production budget, Batman Begins received a substantial amount of
press coverage because of these promotional activities.60 For example, Time
Warner sponsored a NASCAR race at the Michigan International Speedway
called the Batman Begins 400 on June 19, 2005, the rst time a specic
lm had ever been the primary tie-in. According to Romanelli, the sponsorship of the event was about linking the speed and excitement of NASCAR
to the lm:
Were looking forward to pairing the on-screen excitement of Batman Begins to the on-track excitement of NASCAR. . . . A fast car, the BatmobileTM,
and a host of high-tech gadgets have always been key to Batmans success
in ghting his way to victory over crime. As NASCARs nest drivers
take to the track on June 19 for the Batman Begins 400 at Michigan International Speedway, they will utilize all of the high-tech gadgets at their
disposal to take their team to victory lane.61
69
One of the Batmobiles used for the lm worked as the pace car for the event,
and Batman Begins merchandise was available for purchase throughout the
stadium. In another promotional venue, Batman Begins was adapted into a
stunt show at several Six Flag parks. As it opened in early June 2005, the Batman Begins Stunt Show featured special effects, ghting sequences, and a car
chase featuring the Batmobile. According to Del Holland, the Vice President
and General Manager of the Six Flags Magic Mountain Park, it was the most
elaborate stunt show the park had ever produced.62 In addition to these promotional events, Batman Begins also relied on promotional partners such as
Dell. Dell products were prominently featured in the lm, and the June 2005
catalog for Dell features stills from Batman Begins throughout its 50 pages. In
the last few pages of the catalog, Dell products are specically associated with
the lm. Under the headline Awesome movie . . . awesome gear, the copy foregrounds this relationship: Look for DellTM products in the summer blockbuster Batman Begins. And now you can make this equipment your own for
as little as $6 a month proof positive that you dont need to be an orphaned
vigilante billionaire to get your hands on some awesome tech.63 Gear such
as the Dell Axim X50 are described in relation to Batman, [ N ]o utility belt
should be without one, while the Dell Dimension XPS Gen 5 desktop computer is always ready to take on the bad guys.64 The catalog also featured the
lms logo and release date several times, further promoting the lm.
In addition to these promotional outlets, Batman Begins featured a comprehensive Web site. The lms Web site, like the previous two lms in the
franchise, linked together several divisions of Time Warner through tie-in
products. The comic books and graphic novels that inuenced the story and
look of Batman Begins were especially highlighted. In fact, three of these stories were later bundled together for the DVD release of the lm and included
in its packaging.65 Other aspects of the site emphasized the gadgetry used
in the lm, particularly the reimagined Batmobile, all of which became merchandise available at local stores. The lms Web site also promoted a mobile
game, allowing users the opportunity to download a program and play as
Batman on their cell phones.
Unlike Batman and Robin, which received a critical drubbing from hardcore fans prior to its release, Internet fan sites heavily promoted Batman
Begins as a return to the propertys darker roots based on the materials available on the Web site, the trailers, and in promotional materials. This positive
word-of-mouth was also echoed in the critical reviews of the lm once it was
released. Ultimately, Batman Begins became the ninth highest grossing lm
of 2005, with $205 million at the domestic box ofce and another $166 million
from the international box ofce. As the second highest earning lm in the
franchise, the lms direction not only signaled that a sequel would follow
but also that the Internet would play an even bigger role in the next lms
promotion.
70
Movies
With The Dark Knight still in production, and not set for release until the
summer of 2008, Warner Bros. instigated a viral marketing campaign during
the summer of 2007 to promote the lm. A few days after the ofcial Warner
Bros. Web site for the lm launched, Joker cards started appearing in specialty comic shops. The ofcial Warner Bros. Web site featured a campaign
poster for Harvey Dent, running for District Attorney, with the tagline I
Believe In Harvey Dent, while the Joker cards featured the Web site address
IBelieveInHarveyDentToo.com. The same poster appeared at the second
site, but it was defaced. In investigating the page, users entered their email
addresses when prompted and then received an email message that gave the
location of one pixel that was to be removed from the Web site. As more
users investigated the page, provided their email addresses, and clicked onto
their pixels, a new image was revealed. Fans, using sites such as Aint It Cool
News, spread the word about the site, which soon displayed a hidden picture
of the Joker, the rst public image of the character featured in the sequel.
The move to this Internet-centered viral campaign for a major franchise
is part of the companys expanding digital strategy. In the late 1990s, Time
Warner shifted to a more digital focus for the entire company, culminating
in the merger with America On Line, Inc. (AOL). In January 2000, the two
companies announced the merger to create AOL Time Warner, and the newly
combined company represented the rst high-prole junction of old and new
media companies. Levins address to stockholders in the 1999 Annual Report
(released in 2000) stressed that with their combination, AOL and Time Warner together would achieve . . . what neither company could have achieved on
its own: a media-savvy, Internet-intelligent, customer-focused company with
multiple revenue streams from branded subscriptions, advertising and commerce, and content.66 Aligning with the premiere portal and brand on the
Internet was thought to give the company the outlet it needed to ourish in
the new media environment. Indeed, Levin identied this as the key benet
of the merger: This strategic combination with AOL accelerates the digital
transformation of Time Warner by giving our creative and content businesses the widest possible canvas.67 Barry Meyer, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Ofcer of Warner Bros., echoed Levins statement in terms of how
the Internet could aid lm franchises such as Batman: An expanded Internet
platform offers us valuable opportunities for distribution, product promotion
and brand extension now and in the future.68
The merger with AOL has been fraught with setbacks, as both the division
and the entire company suffered enormous losses due to accounting scandals, a decrease in spending for advertising on the Internet, and the substantial loss of subscribers to AOL. Indeed, these problems led to AOL being
dropped from the companys name in late 2003, although AOL still remains
a division of Time Warner at present. However, AOL has provided an expanded Internet platform for the companys many products. For franchises
71
such as Batman, this digital focus has extended the lms promotional activities specically into the Internet and other emerging technologies, such as
mobile communications. Indeed, as Time Warner continues to expand, so
too do the outlets available for promoting key products such as the Batman
franchise.
With Batman arriving in theaters just a few months after the announcement of the merger of Time Inc. and Warner Communications Inc., the lm
franchise and the media conglomerate have been intimately linked from
the very start. As Time Warner has expanded its multimedia capabilities
since 1989, so too have the outlets available to promote the Batman lm franchise and its associated products expanded as a result. In recent years, the
franchise has adapted to engage in emerging technologies, including DVDs,
the Internet, and mobile communications. And as The Dark Knights viral
marketing campaign attests, Time Warner continues to expand its multimedia promotional activities in new directions. The results of this focus have yet
to be seen for The Dark Knight, but if the grosses of Batman Begins are any
indication, this focus on generating buzz a year before its release through the
use of innovative campaigns on the Internet will most likely result in another
protable outing for the Batman franchise.
The Batman franchise was the companys key franchise during the 1990s,
and only after it faltered in 1997 did Time Warner expand its lm franchise
focus to include other properties. In recent years, Time Warners successful
franchises have included a new Superman franchise, The Lord of the Rings
trilogy (through subsidiary New Line Cinema), the Harry Potter lms, The
Matrix franchise, and the Oceans 11 franchise. Together, these franchises
re-established Time Warner as the most formidable lm company, as both
Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema dominated the lm industry. Since
the early 1990s, other studios also have geared up their franchise focus in
order to compete with Time Warner. However, no company has had as many
successful lm franchises as Time Warner since 1999, nor the consistent
prots these lms garner at the box ofce or in terms of merchandising
dollars. Since the merger with AOL in 2000, Time Warner has remained
the top entertainment company on the Fortune 500 list, surpassing other
conglomerates such as Walt Disney and Viacom in total revenues. Led by its
Filmed Entertainment division, Time Warners multimedia capabilities enable its key properties to ourish in the competitive marketplace.
CONCLUSION
By examining Time Warners key lm franchise, Batman, as both it and
the company have developed, its history provides a number of telling details
about the current state of the industry. First, it is increasingly clear that discussing the lm industry separate from other multimedia industries neglects
72
Movies
their integrated nature. Not only are these industries housed in the same
conglomerate through multiple subsidiaries, but also their promotional aspects are becoming more and more enmeshed throughout the life cycle of
the lm property. Second, multiple lm franchises have become an essential
ingredient in the construction of a media companys slate. Where one key
tentpole picture a year may have sufced during much of the 1990s to ensure a companys protability, the competitive nature of the lm industry
now requires the conglomerates to create several franchises simultaneously
in order to be protable. Time Warner, for example, had two franchise lms
in 2005 in the top 10 grossing lms for the year: Batman Begins and Harry
Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell), which emerged as the industrys
second highest grossing lm in domestic theaters with over $275 million.
Finally, the inux of independent lm talent into franchise lms has become
an important ingredient in their protability. Besides Nolan and Batman Begins, talent from independent lm has been a key part of every Time Warner
franchise, as noted previously.
As I discussed at the beginning of this chapter, Ben Bagdikian worried
that the conglomerates growing use of synergy in 1989 would lead to commercially safe, generic, all-purpose books, lms and TV programs. By 2005
and the arrival of Batman Begins, it was clear that synergy did work to create commercially safe lms with a multitude of products available to help
ensure protability. What he could not have predicted in 1989 is the extent
to which synergy was rooted into the lm franchises preproduction, production, and marketing aspects. Nor could he have predicted this turn to independent lm talent in heading these franchises. The unconventional nature
of Batman Begins demonstrates, however, that these lms do not have to be
generic. Indeed, as the lm market becomes more competitive, particularly
with the increase in franchise lms produced in the industry, product differentiation has become an essential aspect of the franchise lm experience.
As Time Warner and the Batman franchise exemplify, the conglomerates and
their key products react synergistically to the challenges inherent in the
developing industry.
NOTES
1. Other examples of the crossover between Batman and Superman can be seen in
graphic novels such as Batman: Hush by Jeph Loeb, Jim Lee, and Scott Williams; Saturday morning cartoons such as Justice League aired on the Cartoon Network since
2001; and issues of 1940s comic books such as All Star Comics.
2. Stephen Prince, ed., American Cinema of the 1980s: Themes and Variations ( New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2007), 51.
3. Thomas Schatz, The Return of the Hollywood Studio System, in Conglomerates
and the Media, ed. Patricia Aufderheide (New York: The New Press, 1997), 74.
4. Time Warner, 1993 Annual Report (New York: Time Warner, 1994), 10.
73
5. Ibid.
6. News Corporation, incorporated in Australia under Rupert Murdoch, purchased
Hollywood lm studio Twentieth Century Fox in 1985 and launched the fourth television network, Fox, in 1986. Japanese company Sony Corporation purchased CBS
Records in 1987 and Columbia Pictures Entertainment Inc. later in 1989 for a strong
base in the production of the cultural software associated with their audio and video
hardware technologies. These mergers and acquisitions were large-scale attempts to
diversify the entertainment holdings of the parent company.
7. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Lords of the Global Village, The Nation, June 12,
1989, 805.
8. Ibid., 815.
9. Joseph McBride, Batman Swoops to Conquer, Variety, June 26, 1989, 2.
10. A. D. Murphy, Bat Has the Speed, E.T. the Endurance; Top Pic to Remain
So, Variety, August 9, 1989, 2.
11. Joanne Lipman, Movie Merchandising Takes Off, Bat-Style, Wall Street Journal,
January 5, 1990, 4.
12. David Ansen, Boffo Box Ofce Big Boost to Biz. Newsweek, July 31, 1989, 61.
13. All quotations in this paragraph from Warner Bros. and The Guber-Peters Company, Inter-Ofce Memo to Tim Burton, August 30, 1988, Warren Skaarren Collection, Series I, Box 2, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of
Texas at Austin.
14. Edna Gundersen, Princes Batting Record: A Big Hit Soundtrack, USA Today,
July 17 1989, D1 in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of
Texas, Austin (accessed February 21, 2006).
15. Tim Burton, audio commentary, Batman, Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology, DVD. Directed by Burton, 1989. Warner Home Video, 2005.
16. In the October 10, 1988, draft of the screenplay, two of the sequences that ultimately used Princes songs (the Flugelheim Museum and parade sequences) simply
state music, with no indication of what music would be played. The screenwriters
themselves were not aware of the collaboration with Prince by this date, which was
the rst day of principal photography. Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren, screenplay
of Batman, fth draft, October 10, 1988, Warren Skaarren Collection, Series I, Box 6,
Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin.
17. Gundersen, Princes New Single: Holy Funk, Batman, USA Today, June 2,
1989, D1, in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas,
Austin (accessed February 21, 2006).
18. Business Week, Holy Bootlegger! What a Lot of Phony Batstuff ! July 17, 1989, 70.
19. John Horn, Batman Merchandise Flys into Town, Associated Press, June 13
1989. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin
20. Bill Barol, Batmania, Newsweek, June 26, 1989, 73 74.
21. Warren Skaaren, Studio Notes, September 7, 1988, Warren Skaaren Collection, Series I, Box 2, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of
Texas at Austin.
22. Fortune, The Service 500, June 3, 1991, 260 61.
23. Fortune, The Service 500, June 1, 1992, 174 75.
24. Fortune, The Service 500, 1991, 260; The Service 500, 1992, 206.
74
Movies
25. Dave McNary, Warner Bros. Opens Studio Stores, United Press International
September 20 1991. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of
Texas, Austin (accessed September 20, 2006).
26. Barbara Hogan, Now Playing at Retail, Billboard, June 13, 1992, 47. Lexis-Nexis
Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed September 19, 2006).
27. Sonia Murray, Six Flags to Take Cue from Mickey, Launch Ad Blitz with Batman, Bugs, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 5, 1992, B1. Lexis-Nexis Academic
Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed September 20,
2006).
28. Quoted in Murray, Six Flags, B1.
29. Time Warner, 1992 Annual Report (New York: Time Warner, 1993), 56.
30. Ibid., 3.
31. Louis B. Parks, Batman the Escape, Houston Chronicle, December 19, 1992, 1. LexisNexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed September 19, 2006).
32. Ibid., 1.
33. The show ran for three years and spawned an animated feature lm released in
theaters in 1993, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, as well as a direct-to-video title, Batman and Mr. Freeze: SubZero, in 1998.
34. Time Warner, 1992 Annual Report, 36 37.
35. Quoted in Michael Singer, Batman Returns: The Ofcial Movie Book ( New York:
Bantam Books, 1992), 6.
36. For example, Eleanor Ringels review for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
calls the lm a personal work, and Todd McCarthy of Variety argues that Burton
has once again managed to pursue his quirky personal concerns in the context of
broadly commercial entertainment. Eleanor Ringel, Caped Crusader Returns: Will
Fans Go Batty Again? Rev. of Batman Returns. Atlanta Journal and Constitution,
June 14, 1992, N1. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of
Texas, Austin (accessed March 26, 2005); Todd McCarthy, rev. of Batman Returns,
Variety, June 15, 1992. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of
Texas, Austin (accessed March 26, 2005).
37. Tim Burton, audio commentary, Batman Returns, Batman: The Motion Picture
Anthology, DVD. Directed by Burton, 1992. Warner Home Video, 2005.
38. Quoted in Anita M. Busch, Batman Makeover Lures Back Promo Partners,
Variety, May 1, 1995, 1+. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University
of Texas, Austin (accessed May 30, 2005).
39. Schumachers previous two lms had been for Warner Bros.: Falling Down
(1993), starring Michael Douglas; and The Client (1994), an adaptation of the popular
John Grisham novel.
40. Quoted in Busch, Batman Makeover, 1.
41. Ibid.
42. Paul Farhi, Holy 52-Week High, Batman! Washington Post, June 20, 1995, D2.
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed March 1, 2006).
43. Music and Copyright, Batman Forever Film Hugely Popular, July 5, 1995. LexisNexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed
March 1, 2006).
75
44. Robert Silverman, Batman Forever World Wide Web Site to Be Center of National Advertising Campaign, Interactive Age, May 8, 1995, 1+. Lexis-Nexis Academic
Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed March 2, 2006).
45. Dave Jewett, Batman Forever: Hitch a Ride On Your Computer to Gotham City,
Courtesy of the World Wide Web and Warner Bros., The Columbian, June 16, 1995,
D13. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin
(accessed March 2, 2006); Silverman, Batman Forever.
46. Time Warner, 1996 Annual Report ( New York: Time Warner, 1997), 4.
47. Ibid., 8.
48. Joel Schumacher, interview, Shadows of the Bat: The Cinematic Saga of the Dark
Knight Part 6: Batman Unbound, Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology, DVD.
(Warner Home Video, 2005).
49. Karen Benezra, Hollywood Wants More Integration, Brandweek, May 26,
1997, 8. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed March 22, 2005).
50. Business Week, Warner Bros. Studio Stores Chill Out in Support of Batman &
Robin, May 16, 1997. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of
Texas, Austin (accessed March 2, 2006).
51. Jeff Jensen, Batman Returns, Armed with $125 Mil Promotion Arsenal, Advertising Age, May 26, 1997, 3. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed March 2, 2006).
52. Quoted in Jensen, Batman Returns, 3.
53. Quoted in Benezra, Hollywood Wants More Integration, 8.
54. Business Wire, Holy Internet Access, Batman! June 5, 1997. Lexis-Nexis Academic
55. Business Wire, Batman Chats on Prodigy, June 5, 1997. Lexis-Nexis Academic
56. Business Wire, E! Online to Produce Exclusive Webcast from the World Movie
Premiere of Batman & Robin, June 6, 1997. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database
online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed March 2, 2006).
57. Harry Knowles, rev. of Batman and Robin, Aint It Cool News, June 18, 1997,
http://www.aintitcool.com (accessed March 6, 2006).
58. Martyn Palmer, The Revenge of the Nerd, The Times, March 16, 2002. LexisNexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed
November 22, 2003).
59. Due to the poor performance of the WB and UPN, the two networks were
merged together by Time Warner and CBS Corporation in 2006 to form the CW.
The CW features a mixture of shows and original content developed for and aired on
both corporations previous networks.
60. Film Review, Essential Summer Preview, Summer 2005, 64.
61. Quoted in Business Wire, Warner Bros. Consumer Products and NASCAR Announce Batman Begins 400 at Michigan International Speedway, April 27, 2005.
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed
May 16, 2005; qtd. in Warner Bros. Consumer Products).
62. PR Newswire, Feel the Thrill This Summer, April 18, 2005. Lexis-Nexis Academic
Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin (accessed May 16, 2005).
63. Dell, advertisement, June 2005, 54.
64. Ibid.
76
Movies
65. Included in the DVD release of Batman Begins were excerpts from the following
comics: Denny ONeil (writer) and Dick Giordano (artist), The Man Who Falls,
1989; Bill Finger (writer) and Bob Kane (artist), The Bat-Man, 1939; and Jeph Loeb
(writer) and Tim Sale (artist), The Long Halloween, 1996. Batman Begins, Deluxe
Edition DVD, directed by Christopher Nolan, 2005; Warner Home Video, 2005.
66. Time Warner, 1999 Annual Report ( New York: Time Warner, 2000), 5.
67. Quoted in Business Wire, America Online and Time Warner Will Merge to Create Worlds First Internet-Age Media and Communications Company, January 10,
2000. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe [database online], University of Texas, Austin
68. Quoted in Time Warner, 1999 Annual Report, 25.
chapter 5
You believe in pirates, of course . . .:

Disneys Commodification and Closure
of Pirates of the Caribbean
Anne H. Petersen
In a 1967 promotional lm for the newest additions to DisneylandPirates

of the Caribbean and New Orleans Square Walt Disney carefully explains the design of the ride to a young imagineering employee. Disney
describes the manner in which all these characters will be life-size, and life-like
in their movement as the pirates discover the towns rum supplies, dunk the
mayor in the well, and observe as women of the pillaged village are auctioned off to the highest bidder.1 As Disney emphasizes, anythings possible
at Disneyland referring not only to the animation of the various models
into life-like characters but also to the fact that pirates, mythical and magical
in themselves, may be embodied and asserted, in the most Disney-of-ways,
as history.
Pirates of the Caribbean, for all its imagineering, is based on what Disney and others hope the public to take as historical fact. Situated beside
New Orleans Square, itself an historically accurate model of nineteenthcentury New Orleans, the unstated yet implicit message of Pirates of the
Caribbean is clear: The ride is magical, but, like many others in the park,
it is also based on history. As Disney states in the promotional lm, the ride
will take [visitors] back into the days of the past, the pirates, you know,
Adapted from Petersen, Anne Helen. You believe in pirates, of course . . .: Disneys
Commodication and Closure of Pirates of the Caribbean. Studies in Popular Culture
29, no. 2 (2007), 6381. Used with permission.
78
Movies
when the whole Caribbean area was full of pirates, and they were always
sacking things. Signicantly, as Disney speaks, the camera focuses on a closeup of the imagineering representative. Her face is young and innocent, and
she eagerly smiles and nods with each word. Here the audience may be interchanged with the young womanwhen Disney playfully asserts, You
believe in Pirates, of course, we nod and reply, oh yes, right along with her.
This interchange exemplies what Baudrillard has termed the Disneyland
simulacrum specically, the fact that Disneys historic re-creation is not
only faulty but recreates a history that never truly existed.
To examine both the park and the ride as such, we must rst acknowledge that the faux history of each Disney ride serves as an open avenue for
capitalism. In Disneyland, history and fantasy intertwine to create commodities rooted in societys psyche. Just as Snow White was initially successful
due to the ubiquity of the tale among the common folk, so too is Pirates
of the Caribbean immediately palatable for its link to, as Walt so suggestively describes, the days of the past, the pirates, you know. Although piracy,
mutiny, and rogue sailors may have certainly existed, the manner in which
they are displayed in the ride as swashbuckling caricatures, bungling and
gluttonous is more a function of exposure to other media, not to factual
pirate accounts. Whether Robert Louis Stevenson novels or Errol Flynn lms,
the ride clearly adheres to Baudrillards description of the progression of the
modern image: it is the reection of basic reality, it masks and perverts a
basic reality, it masks the absence of a basic reality, and thus, as in its present
form, it bears no relation to a reality whatever.2
The Pirates ride, like the rest of Disney, is a fake history. So what? The
real question is how modern-day Disney, the uber-corporation, transformed
an amusement park ride into the second highest grossing lm of 2003, extending that success to the 2006 and 2007 sequels, and successfully commodifying one of the last unsynergized aspects of Disneyland. In folklorian
terms, the answer is straightforward: Disney simply closed the text. In
an interesting twist on McLuhans ballyhooed catchphrase, the medium has
indeed proved the message: A switch of the medium (from amusement park
ride to a fully eshed-out lm) effectively cemented the message of Pirates
of the Caribbean, closing a text once open to myriad interpretations into a
singular closed rendition. With a static message and a concrete text, Disney could effectively commodify and capitalize upon its narrative, its characters, and its sequels.
DISNEY: LAND OF THE CLOSED TEXT
Disneys method of commodication is characterized by its synergistic
relish: Each storyline, movie, or character is vertically integrated through
the tower of Disney mediums. The Lion King, for example, has a Broadway
You believe in pirates, of course . . .
79
stage adaptation, numerous straight-to-video sequels, an immensely successful soundtrack featuring Elton John, and a healthy DVD sales rate, to say
nothing of the products, toys, costumes, and games that boast the Lion King
and Disney name. The Disney parks, beginning with Disneyland but now
expanded to include Disney World, Tokyo Disneyland Park, Euro Disney,
and Hong Kong Disneyland, serve as the capstone of Disney synergy. Hunt
and Frankenberg observe, You have seen the lms, are familiar with the
cartoon characters, and know that their trials and tribulations are humorous,
and will eventually resolve into happy endings. You expect (and know that
an omnipresent but unobtrusive management intends) a similar ending from
the thrills and spills of your own visit.3 This certainly holds for the majority
of Disneyland attractions: Rides reenact The Song of the South (Splash Mountain), Aladdin (Aladdins Oasis), Pinocchio (Pinocchios Daring Journey),
Alice in Wonderland (Mad Tea Party), The Wind in the Willows (Mr. Toads
Wild Ride), and Snow White (Snow Whites Scary Adventures), plus many,
many more. As Jason Sperb notes, each is a commodied, homogenized
version, if any version, of its now distant . . . relative.4 Accordingly, these
rides simultaneously benet from and rely on audience foreknowledge of the
plot of each ride. If each of these lms are themselves Disneyed (i.e., Americanized, stream-lined, and lacking in nuance) versions of the original myths,
folktales, and fairytales from which they sprung, then the rides represent a
third removal from the original source.
In this way, altering the medium of representationfrom oral tradition to
recorded fairytale to Disney cartoon to Disneyland ride likewise alters the
message, not only through technological advances but by closing the text.
Folklorists consider a closed text as one that carefully develops details and
connections, leaving readers or viewers little chance for active participation
and interpretation.5 Whereas an open text, such as an oral narrative, is characterized by a dynamicism that allows cultural variation and nuance appropriate to time and location, the closed text remains constant. Western oral
histories and fairy tales were rst recorded in the seventeenth century, when
Giovanni Strapola and Charles Perrault rst collected their tales, famously
followed by Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm, amongst
others. In recording the narratives, these editors affected the rst level of
textual closure their versions of Snow White, of Hansel and Gretel, and
of Cinderella became the accepted, static norm.
Disney further closed the text through its classic screen adaptations. In
addition to neutralizing potentially offensive elements and reguring the plot
line to mesh with Disney specications (the struggle between good and evil;
narrative closure with heteronormative coupling), the fact that the cartoons
are eshed outgiven a voice, demeanor, and bodyfurther limits potential
interpretations of the text. Moral nuance, ambiguity, and personal interpretation are eliminated in favor of a clear, solid, universally palatable product.
80
Movies
In a closed text, particularly in the Disney universe, there is no need for

imaginationthe Imagineering team does it for you! The face of the heroine,
the look of the forest, the scowl of the evildoerall created and proliferated
to the point of unquestioned cultural acceptance. Put bluntly, Snow Whites
face is the same in every country across the world.
The Disney amusement ride, however, represents the closure of the original open text. Storylines, character arcs, and emotional development are reduced to an eight-minute tour of loosely interpreted vignettes, animatronic
creatures spouting clichd catchphrasesnot from the original text, but from
the Disney-appropriated lm. A dynamic image eludes commodication
its difcult to make a t-shirt of a creature that is interpreted differently
by each audience member but a static one may be readily packaged and
purchasable. Dolls, t-shirts, hats, and games, with the same images and
taglines, may be sold at the park gift shop or thousands of other outlets
around the world. This not only ups Disneys profits but increases the
proliferation of the Disney-generated image, reinforcing its status for generations to come.
The ride is three times removed from the original open text, at best a
skeletal allusion to a tale that once spoke to genuine societal anxieties. Rides
differ very little from park to parkwhether at the Magic Kingdom in Florida or Tokyo Disneyland, the faces, gags, and sound effects remain, for the
most part, consistent. As the Disney catchphrase persists, its a small world
after all, and the small world of Disneys cinematic and theme park creation
is one where rights and wrongs are universally applicable, where beauty that
is snow white endures, and love and marriage present themselves as the
ultimate (and necessary) solution.
Pirates of the Caribbean, however, demands a reexamination of Hunt and
Frankenbergs Disney park thesis. Purportedly sprouted from Walts own
imagination, Pirates differs from the traditional funnel model of folklorefairytale-lm closure. Granted, as previously discussed, Disney subliminally
associates the ride with historical events in the colonization-era Caribbean.
Instead of European fairy tales, the texts that the ride works to close are
general Pirate narratives taken from or inspired by Robert Louis Stevenson, Davy Jones and his locker, and Errol Flynn movies (from the 1930s and
1940s) that were still very much in the public consciousness at the time of
the rides opening in 1967. The link, however, was tenuous: Without a clear
Disney lm or product to serve as referent, Disney was severely limited in
its marketing of the ride and the idea that supported it.
In 2002, The Disney Corporation attempted to solve a similar problem
with another ride Country Bear Jamboree by creating a live-action feature
to esh out the attraction. The lm, The Country Bears (Hastings, 2002), was
a nancial failure. Moira McDonald of the Seattle Times elaborates on its
downfall: You might reasonably expect, from the mighty Disney, that the
81
big-screen bears might be kind of cutting-edge, with stunningly realistic

digital effects. Um, no. Its guys in bear suits, lumbering around with their
big heads and synthetic looking hair, with dubbed voices chiming in from a
sound booth.6 Despite the vocal talents of Haley Joel Osment, Christopher
Walken, and a number of stars from the music industry (Bonnie Raitt, Don
Henley, and Willie Nelson among others), the animatronic bears of the lm
are embarrassingly awkward and pass. The lm failed to fulll Disneys
synergistic goals, hampering the effort to further commodify the ride and
its characters. Nevertheless, creating a lm with an explicit connection to
the ride remained the clearest solution to the dearth of Pirates commercial
synergy. The idea for a full-length, live-action lm was originally pitched in
1992 and languished for over a decade in stages of predevelopmentuntil
Jerry Bruckheimer entered the picture.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is the closest that Hollywood gets to a magicmaker. He rst gained attention as the Mr. Outside to producing partner
Don Simpsons Mr. Insideworking with directors Tony Scott and Michael Bay, they created a succession of tremendously successful, blow-emup lms, paragons of contemporary masculinity: Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop,
Days of Heaven, and Bad Boys. Starting in 1994, Bruckheimer and Simpson
began producing lms for Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures, both owned
and run by Disney. Over the course of the next two years, they shepherded
projects as various as The Ref (Demme, 1994, Touchstone Pictures), Crimson
Tide (Bay, 1995, Hollywood Pictures), Dangerous Minds (John N. Smith, 1995,
Hollywood Pictures), and The Rock (Bay, 1996, Hollywood Pictures). While
these lms generally garnered negative reviews, they made a tremendous
amount of money: As just one example, The Rock, with a production budget
of $85 million, grossed $335 million internationally, with $134 million of that
domestic. When Simpson unexpectedly passed away in 1996, Bruckheimer
continued to produce blockbusters for Touchstone: Con Air (West, 1997),
Armageddon (Bay, 1998), Enemy of the State (Scott, 1998), Gone in 60 Seconds
(Sena, 2000), Coyote Ugly (McNally, 2000), Remember the Titans (Yakin, 2001),
and many others.
Bruckheimers production success may be attributed to his rm, particular
control of his pictures with extreme attention to detail. Instead of interfering
on the set, he does most of his work in postproduction, tinkering with score,
narrative, and length. He refers to himself as the audiencethe typical Joe
Schmoe guy with his hand in the popcorn. The decisions he makes, and
thus the lms he produces, are meant to cater to those very tastes movies
that are the perfect mix of fun, adventure, humor, entertainment, and emotion,
without anything thats too complex, alienating, or sophisticated. There is
very little that is subtle about a Bruckheimer picture: The emotions, narrative turns, and explosions are exaggerated, designed to inate the lms
prots. The international success of his lms (Armageddon, for example,
82
Movies
grossed $553 million worldwide on a production budget of $140 million)

speaks to the international resonance of the Bruckheimer picture: Because
the love stories, action, plot lines, and conclusion are all writ large, they are
easily translatable. Like a cartoon, a silent lm, or a Disney theme ride, they
are equally palatable to a middle-aged middle-American and a Japanese teenager. Ultimately, Bruckheimer is the quintessential Disney producer: The
vision, style, and success of his productions mesh seamlessly with the Disney
business and entertainment philosophy. He closes the text; Disney synergizes it; audiences buy it.
Pearl Harbor (Bay, 2001) was Bruckheimers rst hint of a misstep. While
the lm ended up grossing $449 million internationally, its $140 million production budget was disquieting to Disney. Its original $145 million budget
was, at the time, the largest approved prelming; Bruckheimer and Bay gave
up their $4 million salaries (in return for a cut of the prots) to keep the
budget down; and Bay quit the project four times over various disputes. Then
came Bad Company (Schumacher, 2002), a buddy ick starring Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock, recouping only $65 million of its $70 million budget.
When it came to Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney was, with good reason, wary.
With the recent failure of The Country Bears and Bruckheimers big budget
stumbles, Pirates was a risk especially because it would require lming on
location, in period costume, with massive amounts of computer-generated
image (CGI) work in postproduction. But Bruckheimer was locked in a velm production deal with Disney, and regardless of his missteps, he was still
the best producer for a big-budget, bombastic jobin the words of Richard
Cook, chairman of Walt Disney Studios, Bruckheimer is our bread and butter, Disneys home run hitter.7
Bruckheimer handpicked director Gore Verbinski and recruited heartthrobs Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom (fresh off his role as Legolas in The
Lord of the Rings) for the picture. According to the producer-commentary
included with the Curse of the Black Pearl DVD, Bruckheimer desired a director who could handle what he viewed as the two main themes of the ride: fear
and humor. At rst glance, the Pirates ride is rather horric, as grotesquelooking pirates plunder, capture, and eventually burn an entire village. One
might assume an underlying fear of rape, torture, and general debauchery.
But for the ride indeed, for Disney in generalany such potential anxieties are completely negated through humor and caricature. The Pirates are
dumpy, disgured, and while ostensibly dangerous, they are clearly not a
serious threat. As evidenced in past Disney productions, from 101 Dalmations
(Geronimi et al., 1966) to The Lion King (Allers and Minkoff, 1992), such villains are prime sources of humor. Verbinski, best known for the Budweiser
frog commercials, fear-fest The Ring (2002), and self-declared family classic
Mousehunt (1997), possessed the genuine, innovative sense of both humor and
fear that Bruckheimer viewed as essential to a successful adaptation.
83
PIRATING THE PIRATE FILM

Ostensibly, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl indeed offers a
closed and classical Disney product: Good (the British, Will Turner) triumphs over Evil (the cursed pirates); the heroine (Keira Knightly) is, in current Disney style, both beautiful and adventurous but ends up in the arms of
her true love. The lm overtly references and pays homage to the ride in a
number of places, allowing audience members to easily draw associations between the twothe exact sort of synergy Disney desires. This may be largely
attributed to Bruckheimer, whose producing style ensured that the lms end
vision would mesh with the ride and Disneys underlying intentions for the
production. With that said, Bruckheimer may have inadvertently paved the
path for the lms innovation and subversion. Enabling Depp, Verbinksi, and
screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio to essentially pirate the pirate
movie, Bruckheimer set the stage for the lmic coup that is Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. Here one is reminded of the dual denition
of the word pirate: a sea-faring historical gure who steals and plunders, of
course, but also, in its contemporary usage, one who makes or uses anothers
work without authorization. Following Depps lead, the director and screenwriters fashioned a lm that indeed provides a synergistic compliment to the
Disney ride but adds character ambiguity, a troubled story arc, antiheroes,
and off-color humor to the traditionally chaste Disney text. The text may
be closed, but it is riddled with bullet-holes, with Depp as the lead gunman.
THE ROGUE: JOHNNY DEPP AS CAPTAIN
JACK SPARROW
As every major production requires a bankable star to ensure nancial
backing, Bruckheimer, still with no more than a general idea of a product,
sought and surprisingly recruited Johnny Depp for the role of Captain Jack
Sparrow. Best known for his quirky roles and esoteric performances in collaboration with indies and auteurs (Tim Burton, Jim Jarmusch, etc.), Depp
might seem the least likely choice for a Disney lm. Having settled down
with French pop singer Vanessa Paradis, Depp acknowledged his willingness, after years of antagonism, to accept the Hollywood machine and make
something for the kiddies. Nevertheless, Depps image remains irreconcilable
with that of Disney. He has played a transvestite, a scissor-handed man, a
cocaine-baron, the Earl of Rochester, and Hunter S. Thompson; no doubt:
not Disney. But Bruckheimer, with his sense of blockbuster, saw the necessity of a bit of pirate spice in the essentially straight story of classic Disney
proportions.
Additional spice was added by screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio,
best known for their work on Aladdin (Clements and Musker, 1992) and Shrek
(Adamson and Jenson, 2001). Both lms radiate a sense of tongue-in-cheek
84
Movies
meta-consciousness, acknowledging and reveling in their own self-awareness

as cartoons, lms, and fairytales. Both works are highly referential: think
The Genies (Robin Williams) pop-culture references or Shreks homage to
historical and contemporary fairy tales and lms. Elliott and Rossios work
with Pirates ts this mold, this time slyly poking fun at the very essentialized
pirate narratives and Disneyciation they were enlisted to produce.
The casting of Depp constitutes a small coup in and of itself. Granted, 21
Jump Street made him a teen heartthrob in the late 1980s, a status that continues to attract young and middle-aged female fans.8 Yet, his varied history and
assorted escapades connote scandal, indecency, and even un-Americanness. A
veritable ex-patriot, he has yet to marry his long-term French girlfriend and
mother of his two children. His trashing of several hotel rooms was widely
covered in the early 1990s press; anyone decently acquainted with pop culture will recall that River Phoenix overdosed at Hollywoods the Viper Club,
owned by Depp. Compounded by his list of esoteric lm roles, Depps star
is anything but Disney- and family-friendly. Indeed, Depps character, Captain Jack Sparrow, is intended to be an antihero. Lacking in moral conscious,
he may no longer be a bad pirate (grouped with Barbossa [Geoffrey Rush]
and the rest of the cursed bunch), but he is most certainly not a good one.
The moral, it seems, is a variation on the clichd theme: You can take the man
off of the pirate ship, but you cant take the pirate out of the man.
A Disney hero must clearly come of age, yet, as Depp and Verbinski explain in the DVD commentary, Sparrow (Depp) lacks any sort of character
arc: He merely wants a ship, preferably his own, at the beginning, middle, and
end of the lm. He is unswayed by appeals to emotion, logic, or authority
his goals and character development remain wholly static throughout the
lm. As such, Sparrow is situated as antihero, thus exempted from the normal guidelines for a Disney hero. The role instead falls to Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who plays the lms straight man. These roles are reinforced
in a scene early in the lm, when Captain Jack rst encounters Will Turner.
Having used Elizabeth as his shield to escape the British army, Jack, still
manacled from his previous capture, makes his way to a blacksmith. The
role of the virtuous and the unvirtuous are already clearly delineatedWill
works hard for a living, suffering in silence while his drunken master takes
credit for his work, paying close attention to detail. His dress and demeanor
are pristine; a crisp white shirt is coupled with well-groomed hair and beard.
Jack Sparrow, on the other hand, is devious: He does not hesitate to put a hot
poker to a donkeys rear in order to rid himself of his chains; his hat, like the
rest of his clothing, is soiled and haphazard.
This early impression of Will Turner exemplies traditional Disney
characterizationthe hero, his background, our willingness to root for him,
and his love interest are all neatly set out in the rst 15 minutes of the lm.
Nevertheless, Jack Sparrow severely disrupts the narrative, complicating
85
traditional characterization and leading the audience to root for a far more
ambiguous sort of hero. When the two rst cross the swords, Turner
keeps his sword straight and steady, his gaze focused ahead. Sparrow slides
his sword up and down Turners, playfully declaring that he threatened Miss
Swann only a little. Turners moral vision is black and white either Sparrow threatened Miss Swann or he didntwhile Sparrows is multivalenced.
Sparrows take on the morality of his actions, like his level of engagement
with Turners sword, is liberal.
Despite Sparrows oily and blackened visage, characteristics that would
traditionally establish him as evil, the verbal wordplay that accompanies the
action establishes Jack as a far more nuanced character. When Jack asks who
makes the dozens of swords that surround the two, Turner earnestly replies, I doand I practice with them three times a day! to which Sparrow
replies, You need to get yourself a girl, mate. Turners traditional act of
masculinityhis devotion to his craft and to swordplayare undercut by
Sparrows retort. Sparrows jab bruises the entire notion of the earnest, devoted, dutiful hero, using it for a laugh and rendering it absurd. Sparrow then
postulates that Turner is incapable of wooing said strumpet, questioning,
youre not a eunuch, are you? The line invariably gets a laugh, and it serves
as a turning point in the lm: Sparrow has endeared himself to the audience while explicitly questioning the masculinity of his rival. As the duel
proceeds, Sparrow and Turner are alternately launched into the air. With
one on top, then the other, the nifty stunt serves as a neat metaphor for their
positions in the mind of the audience whos to be our hero? While Turner
gradually begins to accept the piracy of his father and eventually assists in
Jacks ultimate escape from the British, he remains the straight hero and
moral center of the lm. Turner grows less severe in his judgment, more
accepting of others, and slowly wins the affection of the girl he loves. With
the burden of maturation on Turner, Sparrow is free to subvert conventions,
both of Disney and of its appropriated tale of piracy.
Disney purportedly exerted a certain amount of creative control over the
lm, a rumor best exemplied in the oft-quoted story of Eisner requiring
Depp to reduce his mouthful of gold teeth to a more sightly two or three after
the rst day of shooting.9 Yet, several bits manage to elude the proverbial
Disney machine. As shaped by Depp, Captain Jack Sparrow keenly resembles
a queerly effete pirate with a serious drug history. His eyes are lined with
thick, smudged kohl; his face is scarred, pocked, and, if one looks closely,
what appears to be the sign of a venereal disease marks his right jaw. His
beard is long enough to form two rattail-resembling braids, complemented
by a mouth lled with teeth alternating between gold and dead. Beads, gold,
chains, bandannas, and a soiled three-cornered hat serve as accessories. Sparrow alternately exudes heterosexual and homosexual appeal: His effeminacy, both in dress and demeanor, reads queerly, yet he continually brags
86
Movies
of far-ung sexual conquests, with a gaggle of women lining up in Tortuga

to berate him for his philandering ways. Several reviewers refer to him as
pansexualhe bends notions of gender and sexuality, comfortably spanning
the distance between societal denitions. Accordingly, Depp repeatedly credits two inuences on his creation of Sparrow: guitarist Keith Richards and
cartoon character Pepe Le Pew.10 In other words, he is a composition of a
drug-addled, hot pantswearing, rather debauched rock star and an unsuccessful yet oblivious ladies man, compounded by a tendency toward thievery
and duplicitous behavioronce again: not Disney. Amusingly, Depp originally desired to play Sparrow without a nose a pirate with a mortal fear of
pollen, as it were. He pushed for noselessness and an entire mouth of gold
teeth; Disney said no; Bruckheimer negotiated a compromise: Depp could
play an authentically eccentric, partially gold-mouthed pirate . . . nose intact.
Ironically, Depp was free to create such a wildly original character in part
because of Disneyas the Disney ride provided no clear precedent for Sparrow, Depp was given what amounted to a blank slate of a character. Whats
more, both screenwriters were on set for the bulk of production, rewriting
and forming the script as it lmed. As a result, their narrative was undoubtedly inuenced by Depps ongoing performance of Sparrow, a conclusion
reinforced by Will Turners imitation of Sparrows peculiar disposition halfway through the lm. Recalling how the crew of the Black Pearl had mutinied
against Sparrow, Mr. Gibbs explains that they marooned him on an island
and left him to die but not before hed gone mad with the heat. Turner
responds Ahhh, so thats the reason for all the . . . at which point he begins
to pantomime Jacks leering, off-kilter demeanor. This bit of self-referential
humor would be impossible without foreknowledge of Depps performance.
Regarded in this light, Depps pirating of the lm seems a bit of subversive
brilliance, effectively shaping the script and narrative around his character
and vision of the lm in general.
Examining the prerelease trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the
Black Pearl, one senses that Disney was feeling no small amount of anxiety
concerning Depps untraditional performance. Rather than showcasing its
star power or Depps humor, the trailer focuses on the dark, cursed world
of the pirates, lled with special effects, swordghts, and a pounding, chilling score. Even the lms postera sinister-looking skeleton at the helm of
a shipconveys Disneys marketing angle for the lm. In short, play up the
scary pirates, play down the crazy actor. However, Pirates was an immense
and immediate success, grossing $70 million in its rst week of release in
July 2003. Perhaps more importantly, Depps performance was the talk of the
summer, fueled in part by widespread circulation of the anecdote concerning
the inspiration of Keith Richards. Disney quickly realized that the image
on which to capitalize was not that of the cursed Barbossa or the earnest
Jack Turner but the leering pansexual pirate. Depp was nominated for an
87
Academy Award for his performance, and simultaneous production began on

the second and third installments of Pirates of the Caribbean. The lmvery
much due to Depps performance went beyond Disneys wildest dreams in
its complementation of the Pirates ride.
CONCLUSIONS: A CLOSED TRILOGY?
By changing the medium of the Pirates narrative, Disney intended to effectively close the available messages to consumers worldwide. What they
did not anticipate, however, was how Johnny Depp would pirate the very
message they intended to appropriate. Granted, when one thinks of pirates
these days, one mostly thinks of Johnny Depps visage. The narrative may
indeed be closed, yet it had closed in a direction unanticipated by the Disney
Corporation and certainly never imagined by Walt himself. However, this
was before the release of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Mans Chest. The poster
for the then-forthcoming lm featured a skeletal head recognizable as that
of Jack Sparrow, complete with a beaded headpiece. The trailer jump cuts
between shots of the action and humorous shots of Sparrow; even the lms
tagline announces Captain Jack is Back. Clearly, Disney had conceded that
Depps directionnot its ownwas where the trilogy would head.
Yet, the magic of an original creation too often evades even the nestcrafted of sequels. In other words, proliferating plot lines spread over a trilogy of CGI madness cannot sustain the subversive, surprisingly un-Disney
elements of the rst installment. Instead, having switched its marketing
campaign in and outside of the parks to focus on Captain Jack, it appears that
Disney has thoroughly commodied the pansexual pirate, capitalizing on
Depps performance and emptying it of its original soul. The bloated sequels
evidence the corporations ability to co-opt and incorporate all subversive
elements of the rst lm into the Disney machine; they verily overow with
ght scenes, incredible barnacle and octopus-headed villains, eerie witch doctors, shots of Captain Jack running like his britches are on re, the evils of
trade monopoly, bumbling characters from the rst movie, a massive shipswallowing sea monster, and an ancient goddess composed, apparently, of
crabs. Fittingly, the ride itself closed for a short period for renovations intended to better mirror the narrative of the lms, reopening in conjunction
with the premiere of Dead Mans Chest. Walts vision of Pirates has been synergized, the text has been closed, and Disney will now continue to commodify and capitalize on the image of the pirate as embodied in Johnny Depp
and, to a lesser extent, Orlando Bloom.
A scene in the ending moments of Dead Mans Chest does hint at a bit of
moral ambiguity to the otherwise unnuanced narrative. Elizabeth passionately kisses Captain Jack whilst chaining him to the ship, leaving him for
dead, and allowing the rest of the crew to escape the monstrous Kracken.11
88
Movies
In the DVD commentary, screenwriters Elliott and Rossio explain that this
moment allows Elizabeth to both slake and drown her lust. She acts on her
desire for Jack, telling him I always knew you were a good man, approaching him with a xed look of unfeigned desire. Yet, she knowingly sends him
to his deathas she chains him to the ship, she whispers, [the krackens]
after you, not usthis is the only way, dont you see? The kiss is sustained
and passionate, and even after she chains him to the ship, her face remains
mere inches from Jacks, their conversation a continuation of the charged
kiss. As the lm ends, Elizabeth appears haunted by her decisionand as
the publicity for the third lm promised that Sparrow will return, audiences
were left to contemplate whether the heroine would return to her devoted
anc or fall for the increasingly appealing Sparrow.
While the exploration of Elizabeths lust presents a somewhat interesting,
problematic twist, Turners willingness to forgive foreshadowed the unlikeliness of a romance between Sparrow and Elizabeth. In other words, I hesitate
to valorize such plot twists when all signs pointed to traditional coupling
at trilogys culmination. With a domestic gross of $423 million, Dead Mans
Chest has been acknowledged as the nancial savior of the 2006 summer
movie season. Yet, as un-Disney as its twisting plot lines appear, its simply
another case of brilliant Disney marketingwhile Elliott and Rossio praised
Disney and Bruckheimer for his willingness to end the second installment
on such a note of uncertainty, Dead Mans Chest leaves audiences begging
for expected narrative closure, easily purchasable (for a 10 dollar ticket price)
in May of 2007, the release date for Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End.
With blockbuster audiences fresh off their frustration with the overstuffed Spiderman 3, word of mouth for the equally inated At Worlds End
was poor. Anthony Lane neatly sums up critical reception of the lm, elaborating on the manner by which the franchise has been reduced from jollity
to wreck.12 Yet, despite negative press and a dearth of audience buzz, the
power of the franchise powered At Worlds End to a $960 million international gross, a number slightly less robust than the international numbers for
Dead Mans Chest ($1.066 billion). At Worlds End indeed demonstrates that
the theme park is now a ride without a theme,13 but the ride continues toward its terminus in enormous Disney prots. If anything, its meandering
narrative threads allow further commodicationthe lm resurrects those
lost to Davy Jones Locker (Captain Barbossa; Captain Jack) and introduces
several additional Pirates from the ends of the world, all neatly stereotyped
racial caricatures that allow for easy reproduction on gurines, Raisin Bran
boxes, incense, and dice games. Pirates of the Caribbean is no longer about
cinema or subversionit is about manufacturing a signied for thousands
of proliferating products. As the original movie morphed into a franchise,
laughs muted to mild amusement, and art became business. Still, audiences
arrived in droves.
89
The Pirates franchise exemplies Disneys recent turn in corporate philosophy. With the 2005 ousting of Michael Eisner, Robert Iger took over as
CEO, immediately distinguishing himself from Eisner, his one-time mentor.
In the summer of 2006, Iger announced Disneys revamped entertainment
strategy: fewer lms, all family-friendly, and each thoroughly vertically integrated with the parks and television holdings. In other words, if it wasnt
merchandisable, it was no longer Disney. This movement speaks to the
greater franchise-frenzy that typies twenty-rst-century Hollywood: The
summer of 2007 was that of the threequel, packed with third installments of
previously protable narratives: Spider-Man 3 (Raimi, 2007), Shrek the Third
(Miller and Hui, 2007), Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, Oceans Thirteen (Soderbergh, 2007), Rush Hour 3 (Ratner, 2007), Resident Evil: Extinction
(Mulcahy, 2007), and The Bourne Ultimatum (Greengrass, 2007). Interestingly, only The Bourne Ultimatum out-grossed its predecessors, and the
dismal business of Rush Hour 3 was, at least in part, attributed to sequel
fatigue. Yet, the summer of 2008 is nevertheless slated with sequels, most
notably to Batman Begins (Nolan, 2005), The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion,
The Witch, and the Wardrobe (Adamson, 2005), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989), The Hulk (Lee, 2003), The Mummy Returns (Sommers,
2001), and The X-Files (Bowman, 1998). Even nonsequels draw on tested,
readily recognizable ideas: Iron Man (Favreau, 2008), based on a Marvel comics character, and the Wachowski Brothers Speed Racer, from the Japanese
anime series. It seems that the only way to play in the high stakes game
of blockbuster-producing is to insure your lm with static, reliable tie-ins,
unrelated to actual ticket sales. In other words, audiences may be unreliable,
but their compulsion to buy Happy Meals is not. When it comes to risking
hundreds of millions of dollars, its not difcult to see why producers opt for
the tested, albeit tired, ideas.
In essence, we live in a world where mega-corporations have pirated a
once-vibrant world of amusement, entertainment, fantasy, and fun, and each
narrative historical, mythical, or otherwise has already begun to close
amidst our capitalist efforts to brand the faces of history. Throughout the
twentieth century, Disney stuck to childrens myths and fairy tales, creating the ultimate childrens product. In the recent past, having acquired ABC,
ESPN, plus innumerable networks, radio stations, news outlets, and print
media, Disney has expanded to tweens and teens, the sports-hungry, the
middle-aged, and the nostalgic.14 The fear, then, is that Disney has set its
sights far beyond the world of childrens entertainment. While a childs ability to imagine, individually conceive, and think beyond the images on a screen
are of ultimate importance, Disneys practice of textual closure has moved
past the playground, inltrating the very grown-up world of politics, global
relations, and what it means to be an American. Director Gore Verbinski has
repeatedly emphasized that the Pirates ride is ingrained in our collective
90
Movies
psyche.15 The movies will take a similar role for a new generation of Americans, and my hope is that they not only remember Depps off-kilter smile or
off-color humor but the fact that the combination of these traitsand our
willingness to endorse themindeed pirated the pirate lm.
NOTES
1. All Walt Disney quotes are taken from an episode of the Disneyland television show titled From Pirates of the Caribbean to the World of Tomorrow, which
originally aired January 21, 1968. The episode is included in the Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl DVD extras under Walt Disneys Wonderful World
of Color.
2. Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings, 2nd ed., trans. and ed. Mark Poster (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2001), 173.
3. Pauline Hunt and Ronald Frankenberg, Its a Small World: Disneyland, the
Family and The Multiple Representations of American Childhood, in Constructing
and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood,
ed. Allison James and Alan Prout (London: The Falmer Press, 1990), 107.
4. Jason Sperb, Take a Frown, Turn It Upside Down: Splash Mountain, Disney
World and the Cultural De-rac[e]-ination of Disneys Song of the South. The Journal
of Popular Culture 38, no. 5 (2005), 92438.
5. Kay F. Stone, Three Transformations of Snow White, in The Brothers Grimm
and the Folktale, ed. J. McGlatherty (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988),
44, 5265.
6. Moira McDonald, Disneys Low-Tech Country Bears Aims for Tiny Tots, The Seattle Times, July 26, 2002, http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgibin/texis.cgi/
web/vortex/display?slug=bears26&date=20020726 (accessed December 15, 2006).
7. Laura M. Holson, Blow It Up and Start All Over Again, The New York Times,
November 13, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/business/media/13bruck
heimer.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>1&kw=Queen&LinkType=EverGreen (accessed
December 15, 2006).
8. Following Pirates of the Caribbean, Depp was named People magazines Sexiest
Man Alive of 2004.
9. James B. Stewart, Disneywar (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005), 530.
10. He came from many directions, old Captain Jack, says Depp. The rst thing
that came to mind was I was trying to gure out what rock stars would have to
do with sort of pirates in the sense that its like the equivalent ofthe pirate of the
18th century seemed to me the rock and roll star of today. And to me the greatest
rock n roll star of all time, the coolest rock n roll star of all time is Keith Richards,
hands down. So, yeah, I kind of incorporated the idea of Keith. Not like an imitation
of Keith or anything but just that wisdom that he carries, that sort of condence
that he has, that attack that he has. So I got that on one side and on the other side
I took a little bit of this cartoon character that Ive always loved when I was a kid,
his name was Pepe Le Pew. Yeah, the skunk, Pepe Le Pew who was the skunk who
smelled horrible, but was absolutely convinced that he was the ultimate ladies man.
You know the guy, hed fall in love with this cat and the cat quite clearly despised
91
him but Pepe Le Pew sort of read it as, Oh shes just playing hard to get. Oh shes
just shy. And then I thought of Jack as this constantly moving organism that would
shape himself to whatever situation you were in to see what he would get out of the
situation. Chuck the Movie Guy, Interview with Johnny Depp, Comingsoon.net, August 7, 2003, http://www.comingsoon.net/new.php?id=539 (accessed December 17,
2006).
11. I use Tennysons spelling of the eponymous sea monster from The Kracken.
12. Anthony Lane, Men at Sea, review of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. The
New Yorker Online, June 4, 2007, http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/
2007/06/04/070604crci_cinema_lane (accessed December 17, 2006).
13. Ibid.
14. Disney either owns or holds partial interest in ABC Family, Lifetime Network,
A & E, and E! Entertainment Network.
15. Kenneth Turan, Pirates of the Caribbean. The Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2003,
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan9jul09,0,3080268.
story?coll=clmreview (accessed December 17, 2006).
chapter 6
The Business of Race in The Lord

of the Rings Trilogy
Sue J. Kim
The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they
inhabit.
Robert Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
The Lord of the Rings is racist.
John Yatt, The Guardian
Movies of fantasy can be more real than realistic movies. For example, it
would be a mistake to think of The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) lm trilogy as
merely an escapist fantasy. On the contrary, the production, content, and
distribution of the lms exemplify the problems with how many people, particularly in the United States and other rst world developed nations, think
about race today. This skewed but palatable vision of race relations characterizes virtually all Hollywood productions because even slight deviations
from such discourses of racial harmony can hurt box ofce sales. In this
chapter, I will discuss how the LOTR lms exemplify problems with how
we understand race and how the contemporary lm industry relies on such
distortions.
Adapted from Kim, Sue. Beyond Black and White: Race and Postmodernism in the Lord
of the Rings Films. Modern Fiction Studies 50, no. 4 (2004), 875907. Purdue Research
Foundation. Reprinted with permission of the Johns Hopkins University Press.
94
Movies
Public discourse about race tends to cast it in terms of identity, personal

attitudes, and cultural representations rather than economic and political
structures. This way of thinking is shared both by people who think racism
exists and by those who do not. On the one hand, many of us wish so much
that racism was a thing of the past in our enlightened multicultural societies
that we believe our own wish, and few places reect this desire more consistently and obdurately than Hollywood. On the other hand, when issues of
race do arise, it is usually in terms of cultural representation or individual attitudes. Neither of these approaches, however, take into account the economic
and political histories that constitute the complex realities of race.
Liberal multiculturalism, the concept most powerfully informing issues
of cultural diversity, gives us a model of discrete racial and cultural groups
coexisting harmoniously. Unlike critical multiculturalism, liberal multiculturalism does not account for the difference in power between groups, the
differences within groups, and the uid nature of any human social group.
According to the powerful discourse of liberal multiculturalism, which has
been accepted by liberals as well as conservatives all over the world, the
celebration or at least tolerance of cultural differences (including dress
and appearance, food, speech and other modes of interacting, etc.) has made
racism a thing of the past. In other words, the two notions go hand-in-hand:
the idea that race is primarily a cultural, discursive, or personal issue and the
idea that racism is a thing of the past.
But the notion that race is some kind of essential, xed thing, or that racism is simply the personal failing of a few anachronistic troglodytes, limits
our understanding of the complex ways that racialization actually works. In
their seminal Racial Formations in the United States, Michael Omi and Howard Winant discuss how race is produced historically, through contending
social forces that pervade all aspects of our lives. Like gender and sexuality,
the subtle dynamics of racial power suffuse every aspect of our existence, so
cultural analyses of race continue to be crucial. But race is also shaped by
economic and political forces; Omi and Winant dene racism as a process
that creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist
categories of race.1 So, for example, the exploitation and exacerbation of
vast differences in wealth within nations and internationally often works in
conjunction with race. Our problem is that because we think of race in terms
of liberal multiculturalism and its focus on culture and identity rather than
political and economic structures, we can fantasize that making images of
happy interracial harmony actually produces positive race relations.
The dream of liberal multiculturalism characterizes the contemporary lm
industry (primarily Hollywood, although these discourses also arise in independent lms), which sells us this notion of race in places we may least expect it. To fulll audiences desires to have racial issues resolved, mainstream
lms gesture toward challenging issues but ultimately gloss over or even
95
suppress the real issues. This suppression is at the heart of the appeal of such
lms as LOTR, which broke numerous box ofce records.2 For an industry
driven primarily by prot motive, the lms offer a wish-fulllment through
their surface of interracial harmony, even as they draw on racist discourses.
By examining the semiotics of the lms in conjunction with their economic
political contexts, we can better understand why and how limiting ourselves
only to the arena of culture or discourse ultimately limits our ability to have
meaningful discussions about race. Moreover, we can see how Hollywood uses
such watered-down notions of multiculturalism in the content and marketing
of its lms, while in production and distribution it exploits the same economic
and power structures that exacerbate real issues of racial disparity.
MEN OF THE WEST: COLOR CODING IN LOTR
Given that contemporary discourses of race xate on cultural representation, it is strange that there has been so little discussion about the racial politics of the LOTR lms. In terms of racial coding, it is the only contemporary
fantasy/sci- blockbuster lm series as immediately cringe-inducing as the
rst new Star Wars lm, Episode I: The Phantom Menace. The Matrix, as laughably atrocious as Reloaded and Resurrection may have been, at least attempted
to be ethnically sensitive and diverse. Each ships crew pointedly includes
nonwhite members, and Zion is a multiracial city led by a council, one of
whom is played by Cornel West, a prominent African American philosopher.
The lms principal heroes include Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus) and
Jada Pinkett Smith (Niobe), both African American actors. Harry Potter has
a Chinese love interest, and the British public school context of Hogwarts
steers clear of anything like the debacle of Jar-Jar or Princess Amidalas geisha getup. In the LOTR trilogy, however, goodness consistently correlates to
whiteness, racially and as color scheme. The good guys are associated with
Europe, particularly England and the Scandinavian countries, the West, and
the North. Evil is invariably black, savage, Southern (or Southron), and
Eastern. All racially white actors, whether from New Zealand (where the
lm was shot), Australia, the United States, Ireland, or England, are assimilable as Middle Earth heroes (although they must adopt British accents), and
they display a heterogeneous mix of European (mostly British and Scandinavian) cultural references.
The lms generally draw their racial and color-coding from the novels,
but in the visual medium many aspects appear more striking.3 The Men of
the West are led by The White Wizard, Gandalf, with his white horse,
Shadowfax, particularly in defending the racially white people of Rohan and
the White City of Minas Tirith. Aragorn is a Ranger from the North
who can speak to horses in not only Elvish but also Old English, and Rohan
is of Scandinavian design.4 Eowyns lament for Theodens son, Theodred,
96
Movies
is drawn from Old English, and cowriter Philippa Boyens notes that for the
Rohirrim they drew on bits and pieces of Beowulf.5 The costume designers
discuss their intent to make Galadriel the most white, most elegant, and
most beautiful of all the characters.6 Hobbit culture and language is drawn
from the United Kingdom, and Hobbiton at Mata Mata was designed to convey homely and familiar comfort, such as, Englishness.7
Conversely, black signies evil, particularly the faceless Black Riders
with black hoods and horses. Although Saruman the White, played by Christopher Lee, is one of the chief villains, he proves to be merely passing; his
castle of black obsidian and black chamber and palantir tip off viewers to his
black heart. At the council meeting at Rivendell, Gandalf speaks the black
speech of Mordor; director Peter Jackson notes that the scene shows the
power of black speech within the elven world of Rivendell . . . the evil force
saying those words can conjure up.8 The various nonhuman minions of Sauron and Saruman exhibit an array of racialized characteristics, although these
traits are generally mixed and inconsistent.9 Goblins are blunt-nosed, short,
stooping, and slant-eyed. The orcs, who are elves gone bad, as explained by
Treebeard in the extended version, have brown and red faces.10 The Urukhai are tall, black, and muscular with long, coarse hair that resembles dreadlocks. These Uruks, a racial mongrel of goblins and orcs,11 are shown being
harvested from mud; thus they are literally mud people.
Although these monster-villains are generally nameless, animalistic monsters, the one exception is Lurtz, the Uruk captain who is shown emerging
from the mud. The lmmakers explain that they invented Lurtz to personify
the Uruk-hai and to provide a mobile villain, since both Sauron and Saruman are stationary.12 Lurtz, although entirely covered with prosthetics and
make-up, is played by Lawrence Makoare, a Maori of the Ngati Whatua tribe
(Makoare), who also plays the Witch King, the Nazgl captain, in Return
of the King.13 Makoare also played Macenus/Barbarian Leader in a 1995
episode of Xena: Warrior Princess and Mr. Kil in 2002s Die Another Day.14
Asked why indigenous people always play villains, he replies, I always play
the bad guys . . . its a type cast thing. . . . I am not upset about it . . . whether you
play the bad guys or good guys, the pay is the same. 5 bucks. heh. In New
Zealand, he continues, everyone knows me as the bad guy . . . I think Im the
rst choice.15 Makoare also voiced Lurtz, and when Makoare had to leave
the production for other engagements, Sala Baker, a New Zealand actor of
Samoan descent and a professional stunt-person, took over the Lurtz role.
Baker also plays Sauron in the Fellowship prologue and an Uruk at Amon Hen
in the Two Towers.16
Disturbingly, with their white face paint (the White Hand of Saruman)
and coarse black hair, the Uruks strongly resemble Maori warriors. In the
New Zealand lm Utu, the Maori warrior Te Wheke, played by Anzac Wallace
(a former convict, labor organizer, and arbitrator of Maori descent), seeks
97
revenge (utu) for the betrayals by the British.17 Te Wheke tattoos his face
to signify his declaration of war against the Pakeha (white New Zealanders).18 Te Whekes trenchant, militant rage is contrasted to his brother
Wiremus decision to pursue biculturalism. Wiremu is played by Wi Kuki
Kaa, who although also ethnically Maori, appears more Westernized and
thereby symbolizes a rational, liberal multicultural society. By the end of the
lm, Blythe notes, Te Wheke . . . has been executed for his transgressions
against Maori and Pakeha.19 In other words, Te Wheke represents the irrational hatred on the part of the savage other. Disturbingly, Makoare as Lurtz
shares characteristics of Te Wheke, including brown skin, thick, wiry, black,
almost dreadlocked hair, facial tattoos, a hulking physique, and an implacable,
primordial desire to destroy (white) people.
The Two Towers lm, with its extended battle sequences, introduces us to
the Southrons and Easterlings. While the novels inform us that Sauron
has struck deals with and/or enslaved these people, in the lms they simply
appear amassing in Mordor. The Easterlings have kohl-rimmed, almondshaped eyes and dark skin and wear turbans. On the actors commentary
track, Sean Astin enthuses about the Easterlings South Asian look.20 Return of the Kings siege of Minas Tirith features the Easterlings as well as
the Southrons, who are large, muscular, face-painted, and black, both groups
riding atop enormous oliphaunts (large elephants). Again, whereas the
novels at least hint at the humanity of the Southrons and Easterlings we
get a little insight into their reactions to the Captains of the West, and
Aragorn has to deal with them as peoples after the war in the lms, they
embody abstract evil that disappears when defeated. In a scene cut from the
theatrical release (and thought by Sam in the novel), Faramir wonders aloud
about the humanity of a fallen Easterling. Jackson argues that this addresses
Tolkiens critics: People say that hes racist, people say that hes pro-war,
but such a scene indicates that Tolkien despised war and questions why the
enemy are supposed to be different from him.21 But this episode does more to
humanize Faramir than the anonymous, dead Easterling, and it is only a brief
momentcut from the theatrical version in three epic lms laden with racialized imagery. Jacksons comment also reects the identity-/experiencedbased conception of politics and ideology.
Furthermore, Jackson notes that the inspiration for the siege of Helms
Deep came from the 1964 Michael Caine lm Zulu, based on an 1879 event
in which 150 British soldiers held a garrison at Rorkes Drift, South Africa,
against 4,000 Zulu warriors. For this, British soldiers received the highest number of Victoria Crosses awarded to a regiment for one action, and
Rorkes Drift has become a tourist attraction to which people still make pilgrimages.22 Jackson recalls, Zulu was always in the back of my mind when
I was thinking about Helms Deep, and he discusses drawing on the way
Zulu builds tension for the rst hour and then all hell breaks loose.23
98
Movies
In Two Towers, tens of thousands of orcs and Uruks amass at Orthanc

and then attack the small Rohan band at Helms Deep; like beetles or cockroaches they swarm over the landscape, scale the walls, and spill over (and
destroy) the battlements. The correlation of orcs, Uruks, and goblins with
insects (and Zulus) is not wholly inadvertent; in discussing the design of the
prosthetics for the villains, famed Tolkien artist John Howe notes that they
should be insect-like, like cockroaches, with black, dark, nasty suits of
armor.24 Jackson also refers to other action-adventure lms based on fantasies of defeating savage others. In Moria, the cave troll scene in Gloins tomb
is a homage to Harryhausen, director of such early fantasy lms as Sinbad
and Jason and the Argonauts, and when the Balrog emerges, Jackson notes that
one of his references was Indiana Jones.25
Overall, the racial coding of the lms far exceeds the lms intended message of cross-cultural cooperation, most pointedly conveyed in Legolas and
Gimlis relationship. The lmmakers also invent other episodes to stress
this point, such as when a battalion of elves, despite long-standing estrangement, comes to aid the humans at Helms Deep. Likewise, although Christine
Brooke-Rose argues that Legolas and Gimlis only function in the novels
is to illustrate dwarf and elf characteristics,26 their friendship is supposed
to demonstrate the possibilities for cooperation even between individuals of
different cultures and species with long historical animosities, thus moving
beyond a deterministic view of those characters and their races. The lms
also problematize race-consciousness by showing, in Fellowship, Aragorn
struggling with his lineage and membership in the human race, preferring
the ways (and women) of the elves. In fact, Aragorn himself is a product of a
mixture of cultures; as a Dundain, he lives longer than normal humans, he
was raised by the elves, and his children, presumably, will be half elvish. But
again, these are just a few notes in an overall symphony of racial coding.
The oddest thing about the trilogy is that they invoke contemporary racial
discourses without really referring to them, but at the same time the lms
cannot really escape those racial discourses. The Uruks are big, black, savage,
and dreadlocked, their faces tattooed with war paint. The heroes are of the
West and the White, while Mordor is the Black Land. These fantastic
representations exceed, while never wholly shedding, delineations of current
and historical racial discourses. For example, it is curious and bizarre that
while most of the Uruks, orcs, and goblins are played by white actors, and
while all the actors playing monsters are completely covered by prosthetics
and make-up, a Maori actor was cast in the role of Lurtz and the Witch-King
and an ethnically Samoan actor in the role of Sauron. Two reasons for this
infelicitous casting come to mind. First, as Makoare has noted, he is typecast
as the bad guy, whether on New Zealand television or Xena: Warrior Princess. Furthermore, Makoare and Baker apparently seem natural in these roles
because the Uruks, Sauron, and the Witch-King are big, black, savage, and
99
evil. These casting and typecasting issues have to do with the issues of the
racialized political-economic situation I will discuss later in this chapter; my
point here is that the lm simply overows with racial issues that work on
two levels. On the surface, the rhetoric of liberal multiculturalism of many
species living together in happy harmonyreassures us; at the same time,
the specter of whites besieged by dark hordes speaks to deeper racial anxieties. Both of these levels are key to the lms appeal.
But despite the glaring obviousness of these racial delineations, discussions
about race in LOTR and contemporary lms in general tend to be confused
or avoided altogether. For example, lm critics who can intelligently discuss
the lms aesthetics and possible commentaries on war or other topics, nd
themselves stymied when trying to discuss race (and gender). For example,
in the online magazine Slates Year in Movies discussion by four prominent
lm critics, the conversation becomes mired down in identities and indeterminacy. The conversation ignites when L.A. Times critic Manohla Dargis,
after responding angrily to Village Voice critic J. Hobermans suggestion that
LOTR was disliked by women because it is more of a guy thing, asks, Do
you think that a lot of (American) critics have become reluctant to deal with
movies politically for fear of being labeled politically correct? 27 New York
Times lm critic A. O. Scott agrees that while there is a political dimension
to a great many movies, trying to establish it too early or evaluate it too
dogmatically makes for dull and predictable criticism. In most cases, he argues, the political implications of movies are either muddled . . . or opaque,
and their connection to the world of actual politics becomes clear only in
retrospect. Politics are indeterminable because each persons political beliefs are determined not only by age, taste, gender, sexuality, or anything
else, they are also often marked by complexity, incoherence, and unpredictability, as well as boredom and muddle-headedness. Dargis agrees
that her own politics are a big confusing jumble and that she does not
look at movies through a specic political lens, so I never want to write
a review with some sort of (political) checklist in hand. Wesley Morris,
lm critic for the Boston Globe, concurs that a lot of critics do fear dealing
with movies politics, either out of the muddle of ones own politics or
some kind of editorial pressure. And Scott agrees, politics can be quite
slippery and ambiguousand, as often as not, reections of the political
inclinations and rhetorical skills of the people watching them. So the answer to the question that Scott posesDoes Return of the King, with its
martial sweep and its clearly demarcated lines of good and evilracial lines,
by the way, albeit drawn between imaginary racesstand as a mirror for
our own times?remains, ultimately, unanswerable. Similarly, John Yatt in
The Guardian identies both the lms and novels as racist, then dismisses
the issue with a guilty shrug.28 Otherwise, there is little or no conversation
about race in the lms.
100
Movies
But we can understand the politics of a lm like LOTR in more complex and concrete ways, particularly in the context of the global industry
mainstream lms have become. The complexity, muddle-headedness, and
incomprehensibility of the debate about representation and race may have
more to do with its premises than simply each persons innate confusion.
Dargis starts down a productive path at one point, although she shies away
from making any denitive statement:
Yes, the critic certainly, in part, denes a movies politics. But there is a
political dimension to even the most ostensibly nonpolitical lm, just as
there is a political dimension to clothes (Made in China . . . by slave labor!)
and food (McDonalds or Slow Foodapproved). There is a political dimension to how movie money is raised, what screenwriter and director are
chosen, how many and what kind of theaters a lm opens in, and it is naive
to believe otherwise. Everyone decides what is important to themhow
much compromise he or she can stand, and what he or she does with their
contradictions.29
While the previous dialogues about fantasy, lms, and politics point to the
limitations of modern discourses of race, here Dargis suggests possibilities
for moving beyond a checklist or litmus test model of political analyses. What are the structures and processes of power, particularly economically and politically, that shape the experiences and perceptions of different
groups of people? As David Golumbia points out in his critique of Star Trek s
liberal humanist take on race, when race hatred is seen as stemming from
primordial, essential hatred, there is no consideration of the possible justications of anger, no reection on the dynamics of ones own structures,
organizations, and processes (e.g., the Federation), nothing but a blissful utopia of a future devoid of racial conict:
Insofar as that rational-logical structure, the Federation, represents the
white power structure in place in the U.S. (and the neutralizing and blinding ideology upon which it rests), the show offers us the spectacle of that
power structure and of what we might call hegemonic whiteness watching
the Watts riots in horror, while relying on its utopian displacements to
make those conicts strange, alien, not part of us and signicantly not
our fault.30
We can see a similar dynamic operating with LOTR. The lms function
through willful repression. The experience is that our selves are okay because the kind of racial strife between the elves and the dwarves is, for us,
a relic of the past. We are okay not only because it is just a movie, but
also because its production, marketing, and distribution is transnational and
multicultural; white American actor Viggo Mortensen and New Zealander
101
(ethnically Samoan) actor Sala Baker greet one another at The Two Towers
premiere with an affectionate head-butt.31 The lm was made in New Zealand
and intended for a primarily American audience; although global distribution
is part and parcel of the industry now, on the DVD commentaries, several
times Jackson and the writers address American audiences (e.g., translating
Celsius into Fahrenheit). But while the LOTR lms were produced by and
for multicultural societies putatively dedicated to racial, ethnic, and cultural
harmony, the fantasy of cross-cultural cooperation and harmony relies on
(while denying) racist discourses and structures that are themselves real
yet elusive. By obscuring their own premisesthe economic, political, social,
and psychological processes that rely on, create, and exacerbate racism in our
worldthe lms package and sell liberal multiculturalism to audiences.
MAKING THE LORD OF THE RINGS
IN A WORLD OF FANTASY
Comparing the context of the lms production to its content and strategies of distribution cast light on the division between the realities and perceptions of race. The lms production and distribution epitomize the logic
of global late capitalism: transnational labor forces (both in terms of recruiting skilled workers from anywhere in the world as well as in terms of
core nation/First World capital utilizing periphery/non-West labor), global
and diversied marketing and merchandising, and an increasing emphasis
in developed/First-World countries on information/technology industries
and short-term, nonunionized, mobile labor. These processes of nancial and
political restructuring can be directly related to social changes and issues of
cultural diversity.
The production process of the LOTR lms epitomizes the exibility and
reach of new forms of production in a globalized economy. Although the U.S.
companies Miramax and then New Line nanced the lms, the actual production was relegated to lower-cost New Zealand. Renowned Tolkien artist
Alan Lee, whom Jackson recruited along with John Howe to help design
the lm, speaks of the lm as a huge collaborative process, involving over
3,000 crew members and over 300 people in the art department who worked
for three to four years to create Middle Earth.32 Richard Taylor, the president, supervisor, and spiritual guru of Weta Workshop, discusses how he
hired principally young New Zealand artists who did not necessarily have
lm experience but had a solid background in art.33 Artisans, craftspeople,
and artists in New Zealand who could make swords, costumes, sets, masks,
and a wide variety of objectsin both traditional and innovative ways
were contracted for this lm, working day and night for several years.34
Although the lms were shot in New Zealand, the cast, crew, and others involved with the production and marketing were international. Specialized
102
Movies
information- and technology-innovators were brought in from all over the

world for this short-term project designed for mass global consumption. In
various ways, these workers are information/technology workers, not quite
part-time but nevertheless temporary, mobile, young, and not unionized.
Like most products consumed in the United States, the nal product hides
the labor that went into producing it. The obscuring of technical wizardry
and aesthetic manipulation characterizes not only contemporary fantasy/
sci- lms but, in various ways, lms, texts, and other works of art in the
past. But, as claimed repeatedly by Jackson, Taylor, and others, in contrast
to the delightfully cheesy Harryhausen movies and even the original Star
Wars lms, the breakthrough of LOTR is the incredible realism of the fantasy.35 Also hidden is state support and involvement in the production of
this high-tech export product. For example, the New Zealand army not only
constructed the bridge but also built roads and planted the trees and gardens
for Hobbiton at Mata Mata.36
At the same time, the lms marketing strategy entails recording all this
information and selling it as a product. The LOTR franchise broke ground
not only in terms of technical lmmaking but also in its innovative, synergistic marketing strategies. The modern strategies [for marketing] of the
big Hollywood companies entail far more than the lm itself; merchandizing and marketing campaigns involve repeat viewings, DVDs (in original
formats, extended versions, and extra appendices), free Web publicity, video
games, infotainment as advertisements on networks like the Sci Fi channel,
magazines, etc.37 As Thompson observes, A fantasy lm, especially as part
of a franchise and even more especially as part of a franchise with an existing
fan base, can generate enormous income from licensed merchandise and tieins.38 New Line and AOL, both subsidiaries of mammoth media conglomerate Time Warner, also broke new ground in their savvy manipulation of the
internet publicity campaign, controlling rather than thwarting piracy for
publicity reaching over 65 million people around the world.39
But while the lms were made by and for peoples from several countries
(primarily New Zealand, the United States, England, and Australia) that constitute an increasingly transnational popular culture in a global economy,
New Zealand itself remains marked by the history of colonialism and imperialism in two senses. First, as a former British colony, New Zealanders retain
cultural, economic, and political ties to the former Mother Country. Beyond
the general inuence of British television on Jackson, particularly the work
of veterans Bernard Hill (Theoden) and Christopher Lee (Saruman), several
other references to former colonial relations appear throughout interviews
and the DVD commentaries. One amusing example is Jacksons proud reference to Australians and New Zealanders as the crasser members of the
Commonwealth.40 Second, the Maori peoples, Pacic Island immigrants
(PI), and the entire country continue to struggle with economic, racial, and
103
cultural problems. Examining this history of imperialism, in contrast to and

in conjunction with the lms, can help us to talk about race and racial issues
in more productive terms.
New Zealand has traditionally prided itself on its commitment to diversity; as Jane Kelsey puts it, the country used to claim credit as the rst
country to give women the vote, as the birthplace of the welfare state, for a
harmonious multiracial society and, more recently, for being clean, green and
nuclear free. 41 But economic disparities along racial and ethnic lines have
in fact increased since New Zealand restructured its economy for the global
markets in which LOTR has been so successful. Like many countries that
had formerly emphasized industrialization in the decades following WWII,
in the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand shifted from a reliance on manufacturing and state-sponsored services to deregulation, exible accumulation, and
information-, technology-, and service-based industries.42 The New Zealand experiment, as it has been dubbed, has been praised by the World Bank
and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
as an international success story.43 But these economic changes have disproportionately hurt Maori and Pacic Islanders; moreover, the resulting
social marginalization of these groups has been cast in terms of racial and
cultural differences. The racialized wealth gap contradicts and complicates
New Zealands narrative shared by many in other rst-world nations
that racism is on the decline.
Economic restructuring has directly impacted race relations in New Zealand, as Maori and Pacic Islanders, who provided much of the labor required
during the postwar expansion years, have found themselves increasingly cast
aside. Many state industries traditionally held by Maori and Pacic Islanders
were privatized, including post ofce, railway, and forestry service.44 Overall,
cuts in manufacturing and state-related jobs led to a two-thirds decline in
employment between 1985 and 1989, and 80% of those who lost their jobs
were Maori.45 Maori unemployment peaked at 27% in 1992, and PI unemployment peaked at over 30% in 1991; by the mid-1990s, Maori unemployment had fallen to 16% and PI to 17%, but these were still higher than the
rates for the overall population.46 While one-third of whites in New Zealand
are working class, one-half of Maoris and two-thirds of Pacic Islanders are
working class.47 In other words, a disproportionate number of Maori and
Pacic Islanders are unemployed or working poor.
The media in New Zealandas in the United Statescasts social problems resulting from economic disparities in terms of race and culture. For
example, Judy McGregor and Joanne TeAwa point out that the news media
focuses on racialised forms of problems or conict instead of deeper social,
political or economic causes and backgrounds of these conicts.48 Despite
the emerging, increasingly disparate class system, the divide between Maoris/
Pacic Islanders and the rest of New Zealanders is seen in terms of a racial
104
Movies
problem.49 Or, paralleling moves by the Slate lm critics, structural and systemic problems are cast in terms of identity, culture, and race.
Citing William J. Wilsons When Work Disappears: The World of the New
Urban Poor, D. Baker compares the New Zealand underclass to the dispossessed class of urban blacks and whites around the world, individuals or
groups with limited skills, education or capital who are faced with the possibility of structural unemployment or subsistence-paying jobs.50 In the Pacic and other places, underdevelopment is the product of advanced capital
drawing on precapitalist economies. Uneven economic development has and
continues to shape the racial divides and discourses of developing and developed nations. In this context, the typecasting of Makoare and Baker give the
lie not only to the dream of multiculturalism and international cosmopolitanism, it also indicates the socioeconomic history that shapes the racialized
hierarchy of New Zealand. The lms racializations, drawing on popular
racial discourses, mystify race into the abstract (it is there but not), ignoring
and denying the actual political realities of racialization and late capitalism
while also relying on those very processes.
These processes rely on the burial of race or the privileging of certain
conceptions of race and the denial of others. Liberal analyses of race relations
are premised on the notion that racial conict arises from identity/ethnicity/
culture, but racism and ethnic categorization, Loomis argues, are important means of class domination which are given effect through individual
behavior, institutional policy and public ideological discourses.51 Limiting
the terms of the debate to identity and discourse does not, ultimately, explain the processes that unevenly distribute resources and divide potential
working-class allies by racial animosities, often over a manufactured, unnecessary scarcity of resources. Concomitant to a culturalist understanding is
the assumption that racism either no longer exists or only exists among a
few extremist radicals. Purely cultural multiculturalism is easily assimilable
into fantasies that draw on a polyglot of cultures, in content and form. For
example, in LOTR, the lmmakers note that the funeral of Thodons son
Theodred (cut from the theatrical version) combines an Old English elegy,
sung by owyn, with the Maori custom in which the men hand the body
to the women.52 Thus, LOTR exemplies how Hollywood can use liberal
multiculturalism as a selling point while also relying on and perpetuating
racialized discourses and structural disparities.
I want to conclude by discussing how the same limits on considerations of
race in Lord of the Rings also apply to a lm as stridently realistic as Crash.
The 2005 lm won both accolades (including the Academy Award for Best
Picture) and criticism, from lm reviews in Slate, the L.A. Times, and the New
York Times.53 The lm was cowritten and directed by Canadian Paul Haggis, who has discussed the lm as a response to his own experience of being
carjacked.54 But given the terms with which many Americans think and talk
105
about race, a movie like Crash cannot help but fail. Its failure to present a vision
of multicultural harmony prevents it from even being a true blockbuster like
Lord of the Rings. On another level, those who believe race is an issue but think
of it only in terms of culture or identity will have none of those basic assumptions challenged by Crash. In the lm, racism is a personal failing that infects
everyone and is, for the most part, separate from other issues. That is, although,
race is, as one reviewer writes, the one obsessive issue . . . [that] effects relationships and decisions, shapes and distorts character, and determines social
policy,55 we never really understand why race is an issue. It simply emanates
from the primordial racial differences of the various discrete groups. The purpose of the movie for this audience, as the consistently liberal multiculturalist
Roger Ebert writes, is that anyone seeing it is likely to be moved to have
a little more sympathy for people not like themselves.56 All the characters
are determined by their race, and redemptionparticularly for whiteswill
come primarily through understanding. As Peter Bradshaw observes, the
angry white woman played by Sandra Bullock is actually in need of a hug. So
is everyone else.57 But despite its earnest intentions, the lm exacerbates the
belief that race is primarily a personal failing, mostly a product of prejudice
and bad feelings rather than larger economic and political structures.
The one exception to this treatment of race is the predicament of the
policeman played by Matt Dillon. His racism is linked to his anger and frustration that he cannot provide medical care for his ailing father due to the
bureaucratic hurdles of his health insurance provider. In the scene, Dillons
character pleads with the female, African American insurance supervisor,
played by Loretta Devine, who can x his problems with a stroke of her
pen. He explains that his father, who had owned a custodial company and paid
fair wages to black workers during decades when no one else was, lost
everything when the citys postcivil rights policies began to favor minorityowned businesses. This, the only moment in the lm that hints at how political economy actually shapes the terms of race, is actually used to justify
racism and criticize afrmative action. Roger Ebert argues that Dillons racism toward Devines character is only an excuse for his anger at the HMO,
but, on the contrary, through its obsessive xation on race as a personal failing, the lm casts everything else as a bad by-product of racism. Instead of
showing how those structures of power, which often take bureaucratic forms,
imprison us all and indeed lead to easy scapegoats, the lm reassures us that
it is race, and not those structures, that cause our problems. And the lm is
most problematic when it fantasizes that such a health insurance supervisor
would deny coverage on the basis of reverse racism. In the real world, it is
more likely that nancial and prot pressures would force the hand of an insurance supervisor, regardless of race or gender. So Crash, like LOTR, seeks
to assuage fears and liberal guilt, but its terms actually obscure the conditions that create racial inequality and anger.
106
Movies
In arguing this, my purpose is not to return to the old claim that race (or
gender or sexuality) should be subsumed under economics. My point is not
that this history of production and economics is the real story belying the
fantasy; it is just not that simple a bifurcation. But discussion of discourses,
semiotics, and attitudes about race without consideration of political, economic, and social structures not only leaves out a large part of the picture, it
actually has led to a kind of dead-end in contemporary conversations about
race. The Lord of the Rings lms, taken on their own terms, are beautiful
cultural productions that have brought pleasure to people from all walks of
life, and this aspect of the lms is real, too. The problem is that our reality
beyond the lms is as fantastical as the lms if we believe in the success of
liberal multiculturalism, that issues of racial and gendered discrimination,
oppression, and exploitation are relics of the past, as mythical as trolls, elves,
and wise, good kings. The entirety of the production and distribution of lms
such as LOTR can actually show a reality more real than the fantasies of
happily multicultural societies in which we so want to believe, despite the
facts, and which Hollywood is and will continue to be more than happy to
sell to us.
NOTES
1. Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States, 2nd ed.
(New York: Routledge, 1994), 71.
2. According to the Internet Movie Database, The Return of the King ranked second
in all-time worldwide box ofce and ninth in U.S. sales, Two Towers ranked eighth
worldwide and thirteenth in the United States, and Fellowship ranked fteenth worldwide and twenty-rst in the United States. Moreover, each installation of the trilogy
broke the previous lms records for December opening. Lord of the Rings Breaks
Record, CNNMoney.com (December 18, 2003). Available from: http://money.cnn.
com/2003/12/18/news/companies/lotr_opening/ (accessed December 24, 2007).
3. Although the novels share many of these characteristics, their ability to explore
symbolism, diplomacy and war, culture, and history in greater depth and subtlety
renders their black-and-white coding more ambivalent than in the lms.
4. Audio Commentary, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Special extended
DVD, directed by Peter Jackson (2002, New Line Home Entertainment, 2003).
5. Audio Commentary, Two Towers.
6. Designing and Building Middle-earth, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship
of the Ring, Special extended DVD, directed Peter Jackson (2001, New Line Home
Entertainment, 2002).
7. Designing.
8. Audio Commentary, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Special
extended DVD, directed by Peter Jackson (2001, New Line Home Entertainment,
2002).
9. The various goblins, orcs, and Uruk-hai also often speak with working-class
cockney accents, suggesting also making the poor king class another race. Similarly,
107
the Wild Men of the hills that Saruman sets against Rohan are disenfranchised
human beings who are rural primitive, inbred wild men, and in Audio, Two Towers, Jackson notes one could imagine banjos playing.
10. Audio Commentary, Fellowship.
13. Lawrence Makoare, Impromptu Chat with Lawrence Makoare the Actor Behind Lurtz and the Witch King! (2002) Available from: http://www.theonering.net/
events/logs/030802.html (accessed February 7, 2007).
14. The Internet Movie Database (2004). Available from: http://www.imdb.com (accessed February 6, 2004).
15. Makoare.
16. Sala Baker, Impromptu Chat with Sala Bakerthe Actor Behind Sauron!
(2002). Available from: http://www.theonering.net/events/logs/040802.html (accessed February 7, 2004).
17. Internet Movie Data Base.
18. Martin Blythe, Naming the Other: Images of the Maori in New Zealand Film and
Television (Metuchen: Scarecrow, 1994), 240.
19. Blythe, 247.
20. Audio Commentary: The Cast, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Special extended DVD, directed by Peter Jackson (2002, New Line Home Entertainment, 2003).
22. Rorkes Drift 1879 (2007). Available from: http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/
index.html (accessed August 29, 2007).
23. Audio Commentary, Two Towers; From Book to Script: Finding the Story,
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Special extended DVD, directed by Peter Jackson (2002, New Line Home Entertainment, 2003).
24. Designing.
26. Christine Brooke-Rose, A Rhetoric of the Unreal (Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1981), 249.
27. The Year in Movies: A Cry in the Dark, Slate Magazine (January 59, 2004).
Available from: Slate http://slate.msn.com (accessed January 15, 2004).
28. John Yatt, Wraiths and Race, The Guardian (December 2, 2002). Available
from: http://books.guardian.co.uk (accessed August 20, 2007).
29. Manohla Dargis, Witness to the Masturbation, Slate (January 9, 2004). Available from: http://www.slate.com/id/2093274/entry/2093703/ (accessed August 13,
2008).
30. David Golumbia, Black and White World: Race, Ideology, and Utopia in Triton
and Star Trek, Cultural Critique 32 (Winter 199596): 85.
31. Filming The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Special extended DVD, directed by Peter Jackson (2002, New Line Home Entertainment, 2003).
32. Designing.
33. Designing.
34. Designing.
108
Movies
35. One of the most fascinating aspects of the lms design, effects, and production
is the commitment, almost completely without irony, to realism. Taylor points out
that often in fantasy lms, actors have to wink at the audience to make them accept what is happening, but for them, It was imperative that Middle Earth was real
(Designing). The Weta Workshop literally created the entire universe of the lms
with an incredible amount of thought, care, labor, and even love in every detail of
every prop, costume, and set of the lm. Over 45,000 different miniatures, prosthetics, and other items were created by Weta over three to four years. In keeping with
the racialization of that world, their philosophy was that every aspect of culture (including dress, dominant colors, architecture, weapons, armor, etc.) of the many races
and cultures in the books should be identiable on sight. Each race has a distinctive
design of arrow, and over 10,000 arrows were produced for the rst lm alone. Actual swordsmiths were hired to create real swords for the actors (Viggo Mortensen
supposedly kept his by his side constantly). Fifty-eight remarkably detailed, very
large miniaturesor Big-atures, as Weta dubbed themwere created for the lm
(including Rivendell, Orthanc, and Lothlorien). For the three lms, over 10,000 facial
appliances and over 1,800 body suits of foam latex were created; the designers note
that they particularly had to create a vast number of facial prosthetics because they
would only last one day. Over 1,800 pairs of hobbit feet were created for the four main
characters alone. Over 12 kilometers of pipe were sliced into over 12.5 million rings
to form hundreds of chain mail garments; in the process, the two people who spent
the bulk of over three and half years assembling these garments wore away their
ngerprints. At the same time, Jackson notes how interesting it is that while some
critics tore us to pieces for errors like the tomato reference in Fellowship, pointing
out that Tolkien revised his novels to cut out New World items like potatoes, few
people took issue with the references to tobacconever mind the elves, talking trees,
and balrogs (Audio Commentary, Fellowship).
36. Audio Commentary, Fellowship; Designing.
37. Kristen Thompson, Fantasy, Franchises, and Frodo Baggins: The Lord of the
Rings and Modern Hollywood, Velvet Light Trap 52 (Fall 2003): 61.
38. Thompson, 58.
39. Thompson, 54 57.
41. Jane Kelsey, The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment? 2nd ed. (Auckland: Auckland UP, 1997), 1. See also Kelsey, Rolling Back the
State: Privatisation of Power in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Wellington: Bridget Williams, 1993).
42. In New Zealand, as in the United States, employment underwent what has been
dubbed McDonaldization; work is temporary but faster-paced, with fewer opportunities for development or advancement. Most such jobs have no benets, security, or
union representation, and two-thirds of part-time workers are women. And although
these McDonaldized jobs are qualitatively different from those of the artists and
technicians who worked on the LOTR lms, they are structurally similar: insecure,
short-term, and politically unorganized.
43. Kelsey, New Zealand, 1.
109
44. Paul Spoonley, Mahi Awatea? The Racialisation of Work in Aotearoa/New

Zealand, Nga Patai: Racism and Ethnic Relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand, ed. Paul
Spoonley et al. (Palmerston North: Dunmore, 1996), 66.
45. Spoonley, 65 66.
46. Patrick Ongley, Immigration, Employment and Ethnic Relations, Nga Patai:
Racism and Ethnic Relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand, ed. Paul Spoonley et al. (Palmerston North: Dunmore, 1996), 23.
47. Terrence Loomis, Pacic Migrant Labour, Class and Racism in New Zealand: Fresh
Off the Boat (Aldershot: Avebury, 1990), 67.
48. Judy McGregor and Joanne TeAwa, Racism and the News Media, Nga Patai:
Racism and Ethnic Relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand, ed. Paul Spoonley et al. Palmerston North: Dunston, 1996), 23738. Similarly, Loomis notes, A television journalist
speaks authoritatively about tensions between racial communities in South Auckland. An Opposition parliamentarian warns of an emerging Polynesian underclass.
And a Maori activist condemns Pakeha domination (5).
49. Spoonley, 5859.
50. Donald G. Baker, Review of Nga Patai: Racism and Ethnic Relations in Aotearoa/
New Zealand, ed. Paul Spoonley et al., Ethnic and Racial Studies 21, no. 4 (July
1998): 795.
51. Loomis, 4.
53. David Edelstein, Crash and Fizzle, Slate (May 5, 2005). Available from: http://
www.slate.com (accessed August 20, 2007); Carina Chocano, Crash, L. A. Times
(May 6, 2005). Available from: http://www.latimes.com (accessed August 20, 2007);
A. O. Scott, Bigotry as the Outer Side of Inner Angst, New York Times (May 6,
2005). Available from: http://www.nytimes.com (accessed August 20, 2007).
54. Paul Haggis, On the Origins of Crash. Available from: http://www.landmark
theatres.com/mn/crash.html (accessed August 25, 2007).
55. Philip French, Hollywoods Last Taboo, The Guardian (August 14, 2005).
Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk (accessed August 20, 2007).
56. Roger Ebert, Crash, Chicago Sun-Times (May 5, 2005). Available from: http://
www.rogerebert.suntimes.com (accessed August 20, 2007).
57. Peter Bradshaw, Crash, The Guardian (August 12, 2005). Available from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk (accessed August 20, 2007).
chapter 7
Dream Worlds: Film-Game

Franchising and Narrative Form
Harry Brown
What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer-generated

dream world built to keep us under control.
The Matrix (1999)
FROM ALAMOGORDO TO SAN FRANCISCO
On June 11, 1982, Universal Pictures released Steven Spielbergs E.T. the
Extra-Terrestrial, a story of friendship between a mist boy and a benevolent
alien stranded on Earth. The lm charmed audiences, generating $11 million in its rst weekend and more than $350 million in its rst year. Ronald
Reagan and Princess Diana cried when they saw the lm, and the United Nations awarded Spielberg the Peace Medal for his work. Looking back on the
lm 20 years later, Roger Ebert writes, This movie made my heart glad. It is
lled with innocence, hope, and good cheer. . . . E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a
movie like The Wizard of Oz, that you can grow up with and grow old with,
and it wont let you down. . . . E.T. is a reminder of what movies are for.1
In July 1982, Warner Communications, the parent company of Atari, secured the rights to create an E.T. videogame for the Atari 2600 console. The
Parts of this chapter have been reprinted from my article, Malleable Mythologies:
Competing Strategies for Adapting Film Narrative to Video Games in Star Wars
and The Lord of the Rings, in Works and Days 22, nos. 1 and 2 2004, edited by Ken
McAllister and Ryan Moeller, by permission of David Downing.
112
Movies
deal promised a happy marriage between Hollywood and the burgeoning

videogame industry. At the time, Atari led the games market, and by landing E.T. they acquired the hottest lm license since Star Wars. Anticipating
massive sales, Atari rushed to complete the game in time for the 1982 holiday
season, manufacturing ve million game cartridges, about one for every two
Atari consoles owned in the United States.
The game opped spectacularly. Warner stock plummeted, and Atari
claimed more than $500 million in losses in 1983. In September of that year,
Atari buried tons of unsold merchandise in a landll in Alamogordo, New
Mexico, including almost four million E.T. cartridges. Within a year, Warner dismantled and sold Atari. Although employee dissatisfaction, inefcient distribution practices, and increasing competition with home computer
games contributed to Ataris crash, E.T. has come to signify the creative and
commercial bankruptcy of the industry in 1983.
On June 25, 2005, a long way from Alamogordo, George Lucas welcomed
2,000 guests to the gala opening of the Letterman Digital Arts Center
(LDAC) in the Presidio of San Francisco, where Lucaslm and its special
effects and videogame divisions, Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), and LucasArts, had just moved into their new, shared headquarters. Lucass guests
included California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, House
Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and four San Francisco mayors. The citys
most esteemed chefs prepared a buffet of gourmet fried chicken and stuffed
vegetables, while Chris Isaak and Bonnie Raitt entertained the crowd. Joan
Baez, also in attendance, surveyed the scene and reected, Theres something to be said for having a billion bucks.2
Actually, the Letterman Digital Arts Center only cost $350 million. It
covers 23 acres of the Presidio and stands on the site of the former Letterman Army Medical Center, demolished in 2001 to make way for the four
main buildings of the LDAC. Located in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Lucaslm campus is open to the public. While the buildings
themselves are tightly secured, visitors may stroll, and gawk, and have their
picture taken with the bronze statue of Yoda perched on the fountain at the
entrance to the LDAC.
Lucaslm boasts that the new facility features the largest computer network in the entertainment industry, a high-performance system designed to
deliver large volumes of data and high-resolution images to artists desktops,
encouraging interactive collaboration on the creation of synthetic scenes and
characters. . . . Distance boundaries have been eliminated, and digital artists can
collaborate internally throughout the campus, as well as with creators of
entertainment anywhere in the world.3 While the visual effects designers
at ILM and the game designers at LucasArts sometimes collaborated prior
to their consolidation, they did so in separate facilities, without the advantages of proximity and a shared database. Now they work in the same virtual
Dream Worlds
113
studio. At an International Game Developers Association (IGDA) meeting

in San Francisco in December 2005, Lucaslm representatives explained,
Developers are now right down the hall from each other, developing on the
same code base, stafng projects with crew from both divisions, and tackling problems with the best techniques either side has to offer. Its not just
about sharing assets . . . were building a unied set of technology to produce
both movies and games, and give both companies unique competitive advantages.4 Lucaslms press release announcing the opening of the LDAC
echoes the millennial narrative of the Star Wars lms. The triumphant alliance of Lucaslm lmmakers and game designers heralds a new vision for
the entertainment industry, in which the seamless integration of entertainment technologies . . . represents a new way to work . . . [and] recognizes the
convergence of movies, videogames, visual effects, animation, and online, and
brings Lucaslm to the forefront of that movement.5
In more practical terms, the consolidation signals a more deliberate approach to media convergence. In 1982, when Warner bought the E.T. license
and commissioned an adaptation for the Atari 2600, the videogame industry
followed Hollywoods lead, waiting for someone to make a blockbuster lm
and then buying the rights to the lm. Lucaslm now facilitates the simultaneous production lms and games. In his keynote address at the 2005 Siggraph digital arts expo in Los Angeles, Lucas explained, It used to be an
assembly-line process: One person would do one thing, then the next person
would do the next thing. But now, were going to push the envelope and get
everybody to work simultaneously on the same thing. Lucas calls this new
production model the future of entertainment.6
Beyond Lucaslms corporate proselytizing, what does all this talk about a
new vision and the future of entertainment really mean? How has the relation between the lm and videogame industries changed in the two decades
between 1982, when the adaptation of E.T. to the Atari 2600 cost Warner
a half a billion dollars, and 2005, when George Lucas has recongured his
$15 billion empire in order to maximize the potential for lmgame franchising? This chapter considers the inuence of lmgame franchising on the
way artists create lms and videogames, the way audiences consume them,
and the way scholars interpret them.
HOLLYWOOD AND THE VIDEOGAME INDUSTRY
Videogame enthusiasts and media scholars often claim that games will
overtakeor have already overtakenlm as the dominant entertainment
medium. In a 2003 National Public Radio interview, New York Times Magazine writer Jonathan Dee hailed the ascendance of videogames, predicting,
I can see a future in which when the technology gets a little better . . . I would
be hard-pressed to think of a reason why anyone would pay to go see, for
114
Movies
instance, a new James Bond movie as opposed to playing the new James Bond
game.7 In a 2007 Gamasutra interview, game designer Denis Dyack made
the more monumental claim that games are not only more sophisticated and
popular than lms but also nothing less than the most advanced form of art
thus far in human history, in their synthesis of text, image, sound, video, and
the active participation of the audience into a unied aesthetic experience.8
As lm studios and game developers consolidate their interests, however,
the traditional rivalry between lm and game producers dissolves in corporate synergy, and the fortunes and creative interests of the two industries
fall into harmony, as they have at Lucaslm. Predictions of videogame supremacy like Dees and Dyacks often ignore the fact that games and lms
share largely in each others commercial success. Videogame companies
have grown rapidly, but they have not usurped movie studios as much as they
have become viable subsidiaries capable of functioning in nancial and creative concert not only with lm but also with television, publishing, and
sports entertainment. Consumers are not conicted, as Dee imagines, by a
choice between the new Bond movie and the new Bond game, but more likely
will go see the movie and buy the game, with the sense that their experience
of one is enhanced by the other. The future probably will not witness more
games and fewer lms but rather more games, more lms, more games based
on lms, and more lms based on games, with the integrated production and
marketing of lmgame franchises.
In one of the most celebrated ventures in media convergence, Larry and
Andy Wachowski, creators of The Matrix trilogy, produced the game Enter
the Matrix (2003) simultaneously with the last two lms of the trilogy, shooting scenes for the game on the movies sets with the movies actors, and
releasing the game on May 15, 2003, the same day as The Matrix: Reloaded.
Likewise, on September 21, 2004, Lucaslm jointly released of a new DVD
box set of the original Star Wars trilogy with Star Wars: Battlefront, a combat
game in which players can reenact battles from all six Star Wars lms. In
2005, Peter Jackson likewise produced his blockbuster lm King Kong (2005)
in tandem with a successful King Kong game designed by Michael Ancel and
published by Ubisoft. In the last several years, numerous licensed videogame
adaptations of major summer and holiday blockbusters were released a few
days before or a few days after their respective lms, including: all three
Star Wars lms (19992005); all ve Harry Potter lms (20012008); all
three Spider-Man lms (20022007); Hulk (2002); The Lord of the Rings: The
Two Towers (2002); The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003); The
Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005); Pirates of
the Caribbean: Dead Mans Chest (2006); Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End
(2007); and Transformers (2007). These multimedia franchises have made it
more difcult to distinguish the production of lms and videogames as separate enterprises.
Dream Worlds
115
The LDAC is the rst factory designed specically to make lmgame

franchises. In the same press release announcing a new vision for the entertainment industry, Lucaslm offers more specic facts and gures describing its technological infrastructure, which includes 10,000 gigabytes of
storage, image and sound editing systems, a render farm for processing
digital images, a media center for format conversion and duplication, a 300seat movie theater, and, most importantly, the largest data network in the
industry with ber optics connecting to every desktop computer to LDAC
resources and to each other.
In practical terms, images and visual effects created by ILM for the Star
Wars lms can be immediately appropriated and repurposed by game designers.
Steve Sullivan, head of research and development at ILM, explains, An example would be, ILM is doing a shot for a lm, but LucasArts artists can
have that exact same shot sitting on their desk, and they can start building
a game environment around it.9 LucasArts Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of
the Sith (2005), a game based closely on the lm, marked the rst time a Star
Wars lm shared specic image data with a Star Wars videogame. LucasArts
designers have likewise contributed integrally to ILM. Previsualization,
a form of animated storyboarding developed through the collaboration of
ILM and LucasArts, has adapted game design tools to lmmaking. Sullivan
describes previsualization as:
a tool that directors would use to quickly mock up the ideas of a story
and see whats going to work. Its really like building up a preview of a
movie in a video game world. Instead of using static story boards, you can
really just get in and create 3D content and camera moves directly. Its
the best example of the kind of collaboration weve got going on. It came
from George [Lucas]it didnt come from either division. But it requires
things that both divisions have expertise in.10
Lucas said at Siggraph, Cinema is not the art of the image; its the art of
the moving image. Previsualization is not simply a faster or ashier way of
planning a shot. Rather, it enables lmmakers, for the rst time, to edit the
interplay of image and motion in the earliest stages of production, to control
more deliberately what eventually appears on screen even before shooting
begins.
Lucas cites Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones as the rst lm to be
completely shot digitally.11 While he waits, somewhat frustrated, for Hollywood to catch up, he believes that digitization represents the future of cinema:
Were hoping that at some point the theaters will switch over to digital
projection, and the lmmakers will start using the new digital cameras so
that we as an industry can advance technically and make everything much
easier. Right now, Sony, Panavision, Fujinon and a lot of other companies
116
Movies
are investing tens of millions of dollars into this idea, and the industry isnt
backing it. . . . At some point, I know it will all happen.12
He predicts that digitization will democratize the industry, enabling amateur lmmakers to shoot with a handheld camera purchased from a local
Wal-Mart, edit on a desktop computer, and distribute and publicize their
work on the Internet. On a more fundamental level, however, the reduction
of cinema to image data means that lms and videogames can be created with
the same tools, as we already see in ILMs use of previsualization. If, as Lucas
predicts, it will all happen, then the relation between the two industries
will move beyond licensed adaptations and franchises; they will, as they have
in Lucasworld, merge into a single industry.
STAR WARS, THE LORD OF THE RINGS,
AND TRANSMEDIA STORYTELLING
The development of previsualization technology and the franchising of
blockbuster lms and videogames suggest that the increasing collaboration
between the two industries will inuence the creation of lms and games at
every phase, from preproduction to postrelease publicity. The gradual digitization of lmmaking, moreover, will facilitate lmgame franchising by
giving lmmakers and game designers a common medium and toolset. But
what kind of story will be produced by companies like Lucaslm, equipped to
produce lms, games, and television shows simultaneously?
In his adaptation of E.T. to the Atari 2600, designer Howard Scott Warshaw sought to capture the suspense and sentimentality of the lm by creating an adventure game that simulated E.T.s quest to phone home. Players,
however, found the game slow and repetitive, with neither the emotional
impact of the lm, nor the engaging puzzles of earlier Atari adventure games
like Adventure (1980) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1982). Recent critics routinely cite Ataris E.T. as the worst game ever made, attributing its aesthetic
and commercial failure to Ataris rush to ship the game before Christmas, but
the game reveals a deeper theoretical uncertainty among game designers at
the time about strategies for the adaptation of a story from one medium to another. As the rst great failed attempt to convert a blockbuster lm to a videogame, E.T. proved that a lms popularity alone could not buoy a bad game.
In the two decades following Ataris bust, highly improved technology has,
as we have seen, enabled designers to make their games look more cinematic.
More importantly, lmmakers and game designers have learned from earlier
failures and developed subtler and more calculated strategies for spinning
stories across multiple media. In Convergence Culture (2006), Henry Jenkins
describes The Matrix franchise as an entertainment for the age of media
convergence, integrating multiple texts to create a narrative so large that
Dream Worlds
117
it cannot be contained within a single medium. Jenkins observes that the

Wachowskis plant clues [in the lms] that wont make sense until we play
the computer game. They draw on the back story revealed through a series
of animated shorts, which need to be downloaded off the Web or watched off
a separate DVD. Jenkins calls this emergent narrative structure transmedia
storytelling:
In the ideal form . . . each medium does what it does bestso that a story
might be introduced in a lm, expanded through television, novels, and
comics; its world might be explored through gameplay or experienced as an
amusement park attraction. Each franchise entry needs to be self-contained
so you dont need to have seen the lm to enjoy the game, and vice versa.
Any given product is a point of entry into the franchise as a whole.
According to Jenkins, collaborative authorship and the process of worldmaking dene these new narrative franchises. He quotes an experienced
screenwriter, who says, When I rst started, you would pitch a story because without a story, you didnt really have a lm. Later, once sequels started
to take off, you pitched a character because a good character could support
multiple stories. And now, you pitch a world because a world can support
multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media.13
Two television commercials, one produced by LucasArts to promote the
game Star Wars: Bounty Hunter (2002), and the other produced by Electronic
Arts (EA) to promote their adaptation of Peter Jacksons The Lord of the
Rings: The Return of the King, provide sketches of two competing strategies for transmedia storytelling. LucasArts advertisement, released during the 2002 holiday shopping season, opens with an animated close-up of
a snorkel poking from the surface of a swampy, extraterrestrial pool. As
nervous breathing hisses from the tube, a gauntleted st grips the snorkel and
plugs the airway with a thumb. A gasping, bug-eyed alien springs to the
surface to nd that the obstructing thumb belongs to Jango Fett, the most
ruthless bounty hunter in the galaxy. Jango seizes his quivering prey and in
his gruff, mercenarys voice, jokes, Did you miss me?
The commercial represents another example of the collaboration between
Lucaslm special effects engineers and LucasArts game designers that Lucas
hopes to maximize at the LDAC. Although created at ILM, we dont nd this
scene in any of the Star Wars lms. The games appeal, in fact, derives from
its clear departure from the 2002 lm Episode II: Attack of the Clones, in which
Jango, the games hero, is a signicant but nonetheless supporting character,
who in the end is summarily beheaded by a Jedi light saber. The game narrative itself follows this strategy of departure from the lm narrative, representing an interactive prequel to Attack of the Clones in its story of a secret
bargain between Jango and the Sith Lord Count Dooku to create the clone
army already in existence at the outset of the lm.
118
Movies
EAs advertisement, released during the 2003 holiday season, represents a

different strategy. As the commercial opens with the New Line Cinema and
Wingnut Films logos set to the haunting soundtrack of The Lord of the Rings
lms, we expect to see yet another plug for the last lm in Peter Jacksons
trilogy. In fact, as we watch the Nazgl glide above Minas Tirith, the giant
Oliphaunt thunder across the Pelennor Fields, and the stalwart fellowship
of Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, and Gandalf in pitched battles with armies of
orcs, we see that we are not wrong; these are indeed tantalizing scenes from
the upcoming lm. But then something strange happens: The lmed scenes
transform uidly and subtly into the photorealistic digital animations for
EAs new game. In contrast to the Bounty Hunter commercial, the spot simultaneously advertises the movie and the game, which derives marketability
from its nearly perfect mimicry of Jacksons lm. Like LucasArts game, EAs
The Return of the King correlates this advertising strategy with an interactive
narrative strategy, which offers players the chance to participate in scenes
involving environments, characters, and battle sequences reproduced from
those seen in the lm. The commercial concludes with the invitation, Be the
hero! Live the movie!
The two advertisements manifest fundamentally different narrative and
marketing strategies. Bounty Hunter offers consumers something new, something unavailable in theaters, while The Return of the King offers consumers
something familiar, a chance to interact with something they have seen or
soon will see in theaters. At the 2004 Game Developers Convention, veteran
game designer Warren Spector urged fellow designers to use lm narrative
as a way to draw in the casual gamer, whos used to having a story told to
him in other entertainment mediums, particularly movies.14 This strategy
underlies game companies exorbitant spending on lm licenses, which represents the acquisition of a guaranteed audience and the probable success of
the game among the same crowds who pack the cineplexes.
While both strategies have proven commercially successful, LucasArts
creation of game narratives that extrapolate rather than mimic the lm narratives more freely explores the possibilities of transmedia storytelling that
intrigue Jenkins. EAs mimetic approach in both The Lord of the Rings: The
Two Towers (2002) and The Return of the King yields, on the other hand, missions that replicate action sequences from the lms. In the rst mission of
The Two Towers, the player is Isildur in the midst of the ancient battle that
rst claimed the Ring of Power from a 17-foot, mail-clad Sauron. In the
second mission the player becomes Aragorn defending the wounded Frodo
from the Nazgl on Weathertop Hill. Both scenes come from the rst lm of
the trilogy, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. In the succeeding
missions, adapted from The Two Towers, the player may choose to continue
as Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas, but, with the exception of a minor variance in
the bonus missions, the choice of character has no bearing on the unfolding
Dream Worlds
119
of the game narrative. As in the television commercial, animations and music

in both The Two Towers and The Return of the King ow seamlessly into and
out of sequences from the lms, which are spliced into the game narrative.
The game world has been designed directly from lm sets, and actors from
the lm have been employed for animations and voiceovers, creating an overall play experience, as the advertisement indeed claims, in which one seems
to live the movie.
In many adaptations of the Star Wars lms since the release of Episode I: The
Phantom Menace in 1999, LucasArts has adopted an elaborative approach, in
which multiple games, such as Jedi Starghter (2002), Clone Wars (2002), and
Bounty Hunter do not mimic the lm narrative but rather follow independent
narratives branching from the movie plots. Although familiar movie characters, in some cases, reappear in the LucasArts games, the games animations,
soundtracks, settings, and narratives are original. In contrast to the mimetic
The Lord of the Rings games, the game narratives situate themselves outside
the established chronology of the Star Wars lms, becoming, in effect, interactive prequels and sequels to the lms.15 In a 2006 interview, LucasArts Project Lead Chris Williams said:
Were not in a space right now where we just want to be cranking out
movie games. To the extent that we did that with the Episode III game,
were kind of done with that. We want to be telling new stories, new experiences, and really taking advantage of the interactive medium. And not
just rehashing or serving up a lm experience in a sort of interactive way.
Were not sitting here right now waiting for ILM to come to us with some
big lm project so we can just crank out a movie game of it. The goal is use
these tools, techniques, and knowledge to make a really exciting, innovative, next-gen product.16
At the same time, Star Wars games reinterpret scenes from the lms in
ways that are recognizable to the established Star Wars audience but are,
nonetheless, new. In Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (2003), a roleplaying game set four millennia before events depicted in the lms, the player
character liberates a comrade from slavery by winning a swoop bike race, a
sequence that recalls The Phantom Menace, in which the young Anakin Skywalker must win his own emancipation in a pod race. In the same game,
the central plot twist reveals that the player character, plagued by amnesia
through more than half the game, nally discovers that he is a powerful Sith
Lord thought to be dead and now psychologically reprogrammed by the Jedi
Council to do good. The revelatory animation echoes Episode V: The Empire
Strikes Back (1980), in which Luke Skywalker, undergoing Jedi training with
Yoda, beheads an apparition of Darth Vader only to discover his own face behind Vaders mask. Finally, the closing animation of Knights of the Old Republic, in which an evil, celestial-sized superweapon is spectacularly destroyed
120
Movies
and a battle-weary but joyous crowd celebrates the motley band of heroes,
recalls the familiar ending of Episode IV: A New Hope (1977), in which the
Death Star is annihilated, and Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the
faithful droids are given medals before a happy assembly of rebels.
LucasArts has also adopted this strategy in its Jedi Knight series: Dark
Forces (1995), Jedi Knight (1997), Jedi Outcast (2002), and Jedi Academy (2003).
Each of these games represents a narrative sequel of the original Star Wars
trilogy in which central characters from the lms, such as Luke Skywalker,
Boba Fett, and Lando Calrissian, recede to supporting characters, and new
characters, unseen in the lms, take center stage. Republic Commando (2005),
likewise, is set during the Clone Wars of Episodes II and III, but abandons
the perspective of the elite Jedi heroes in favor of that of the faceless grunts,
who appear in the lms only as laser fodder.
In a March 2004 interview,17 Peter Morawiec spoke to Game Developer
magazine about adapting genre ction and lm narratives to game design:
As the videogame market matures, I believe its natural for the story-driven
games to be crafted within established narrative genres. With the age of
todays average gamer pegged at something like 29, the audience welcomes
greater thematic variety, as well as deeper and more mature storylines. I
believe that people will instinctively want to play the same types of genres
they like to watch or read. (12)
Morawiec describes his own game designs as interactive narratives that

move forward:
no matter how badly the player does, allowing even a total newbie to fumble his or her way through an entire storyline, without repeating missions
or getting stuck. In a passive medium such as a movie, whenever the hero
hits a low point mid-lm, the story doesnt restart; rather, the hero recovers or nds another way to go on. (12)
In terms of the interrelated strategies of designing and marketing lmgame

franchises, Morawiecs proposed script-imperative game narratives coax a
player-character along a relatively linear narrative path, limiting the hybrid
active-passive experience in favor of replicating the traditional narrative
structures of lm. LucasArts has instead increased the potential of the player
to participate actively within the mythic lmgame universe, while sacricing, perhaps, a measure of identication among the built-in lm audiences.
For those who do not come to the games by way of a primary interest in
the lms, LucasArts strategy explores the evolving possibilities of transmedia storytelling by giving the consumer, as Jenkins suggests, multiple
points of entry into the franchise. While EA has created a game narrative
more tailored to the massive audience of the Lord of the Rings lms, a sort
Dream Worlds
121
of interactive advertisement for the lms, LucasArts has developed a true

experiment in world-making that allows game companies to adapt multiple
game titles from a single lm and allows the player to participate more actively within an expanding lmgame universe.
EA has abandoned its mimetic approach in Everything or Nothing, a game
that has gained critical favor as the rst Bond game to offer a narrative independent of the Bond lms. EAs elaboration of the Bond franchise compared
to its replication of The Lord of the Rings suggests that their strategy with The
Two Towers and The Return of the King has been determined, at least in part,
by the existing mythology rst created by Tolkiens novels. Because The Lord
of the Rings games are third-tier adaptationsgames based on lms based on
novelsand the Star Wars games are second-tier adaptationsgames based
on lmstheir respective designers have been bound by two different sets
of rules. In a sense, Tolkiens novels have been canonized as a kind of immutable sacred text, and fans of the novels undoubtedly represent an established audience for the lms who must, on some level, be acknowledged. As
Peter Jackson has often spoken of his faithful intentions toward Tolkien and
Tolkiens devotees, EA has similarly deferred to Jacksons lms in order to
avoid the risk of alienating the audiences who purchase the games based on
their love for the lms or the books. Neil Young, who oversees EAs Lord of
the Rings franchise, explains, I wanted to adapt Peters work for our medium
in the same way that he has adapted Tolkiens work for his.18
One could not imagine Tolkiens The Return of the King ending with Frodo
and Sam impaled on the ramparts of the Black Gate and Saurons forces
annihilating Gandalf and Aragorn and spreading eternal darkness over the
World of Men. In The Lord of the Rings games, bound to some extent by the
xed narratives of Tolkiens novels and Jacksons lms, such evil endings
mean that the player has failed and must try again. Star Wars, on the other
hand, is a more malleable mythology, and fans of Lucas lms, who sustain
a cottage industry of derivative serial novels and fan ction, seem more receptive to manipulations of their canon. In Knights of the Old Republic, for instance, the player may choose to reject the good counsel of the Jedi, slaughter
loyal friends, and claim the galaxy in the name of Dark Side. The player, in
a sense, may choose to fail according to the ethical standards established by
the lms and yet succeed in the game. The Two Towers and The Return of the
King offer the player no such choice. LucasArts seems to have evaded criticism by Star Wars purists by disengaging from the lm narratives, by letting
the movies stand as they are and creating instead alternate stories partially
unbound by the expectations of their established audience. Nonetheless, in
their varying experiments in bringing interactivity to Middle Earth and that
long-ago, far, far away galaxy, EA and LucasArts have begun to create and to
test these new modes of storytelling that have become possible in the wake
of media convergence.
122
Movies
MEDIA CONVERGENCE AND MEDIA CRITICISM

In April 2008, LucasArts released Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, its rst
major next-gen product available for Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Nintendo Wii. The game realizes both the technical and the narrative aspirations of Lucaslm. Like Bounty Hunter and Knights of the Old Republic, the
game narrative extends beyond the lms and introduces new characters.
Set 7 years after the events depicted in Revenge of the Sith and more than
10 years prior to the events depicted in A New Hope, The Force Unleashed
casts the player as Darth Vaders powerful apprentice, a gure who does not
appear in the lms. The game dramatizes the dark times in which the Jedi
Knights are hunted to extinction and Darth Vader is fully transformed into
a Dark Lord of the Sith, events only vaguely represented in the lms. With
a new game engine jointly developed by LucasArts and ILM, The Force Unleashed represents the latest fruit of the collaboration fostered at the LDAC.
In his production diary, Project Lead W. Haden Blackman writes, The
groups within [ LDAC ] are separated by discipline, but nothing happens in
isolation. . . . [ T ]he animation group bleeds into the design team, which is
a stones throw away from the cinematics team, who takes their work and
directs the characters and settings to perform the cutscene animation that
propels the story.19
With the considerable nancial and technological resources of the lm
industry brought to bear on interactive entertainment, videogames such as
The Force Unleashed will look more cinematic, as Blackman promises. With
game design tools brought to bear on moviemaking, lms will look faster
and more kinetic. But, from a critical standpoint, will these games and lms
be better? Just as media convergence has transformed they way artists create lms and games, both in the tools they use and in the stories they tell, it
has also inuenced the way critics and scholars evaluate and interpret lms
and games.
Adopting lm theory as a means of interpreting games, media scholars
propose that what we see in lm establishes precedents for what we see in
games, in terms of both thematic content and visual perspective. Film critic
Graham Leggat writes, just about everything video games know about visual
language and narrative was learned from the movies . . . from camera angles
to cuts and dissolves, from the deployment of original music to mise-enscne.20 Game scholar Mark J. P. Wolf likewise claims, Theoretically, many
of the same issues are present in video games and lm: spectator positioning
and suture, point of view, sound and image relations, semiotics, and other
theories dealing with images of representation. . . . It is perhaps due to the
desire to measure up to the standard of visual realism set by lm and television that the video game evolved as it has.21 Videogame evolution parallels
cinematic evolution, for instance, in the construction of virtual spaces. Wolf
Dream Worlds
123
compares the single, static frames of early games like Taitos Space Invaders
(1978) and Ataris Missile Command (1980) to the early lms of Lumire and
Mlis, which maintain a static point of view and make no use of editing to
link different locations. Scrolling games like Activisions Pitfall! (1982) and
Nintendos Super Mario Bros. (1985) correspond to the early development of
panning and tracking. Early adventure games like Ataris Adventure and E.T.
simulate cutting and continuity editing through the use of distinct but contiguous game spaces. Finally, Wolf argues, the immersive three-dimensional
environments of current games replicate the space represented in classical
Hollywood lm . . . viewed from multiple angles and viewpoints.22
At the same time, the potential for the player to act within these virtual
environments makes game spaces essentially different from lm spaces. Wolf
explains, Whereas the cinema offered a window and positioned the spectator within the world it depicted, the video game goes further, allowing the
spectator to explore that world and take an active role in its events.23 Our
success in a game depends largely on our knowledge of the game space, and
game narrative often unfolds in spatial terms, as we discover new stories in
different areas of the game world. Unlike lms, most games offer a map, a
symbolic representation of the virtual environment that aids our navigation.
In this sense, game space is twofold, containing a diegetic world as well as
a metadiegetic schematization of that world. Perhaps most important, game
spaces must offer the potential for free exploration and so must appear navigable and continuous. Alexander Galloway explains this essential difference
between cinematic vision and gamic vision:
Gamic vision requires fully rendered, actionable space. Traditional lmmaking almost never requires the construction of full spaces. Set designers
and carpenters build only the portion of the set that will appear within the
frame. Because a direct has complete control over what does appear within
the frame, this task is easy to accomplish. The camera positions are known
in advance. Once the lm is complete, no new camera positions will ever be
included. . . . By contrast, game design explicitly requires the construction
of a complete space in advance that is then exhaustively explorable. . . . The
camera position in many games is not restricted. The player is the one
who controls the camera position, by looking, by moving, by scrolling, and
so on.24
Peter Molyneux, creator of Black and White and Fable, calls the player the
best camera man because he knows what he wants to see, but the challenge,
he says, is to allow people the exibility to choose their own camera angles,
while maintaining visual and narrative coherence in the game.25
This notion of a camera and the ability to control it forms a crucial part
of the visual language of videogames and, on a technical level, enables the
124
Movies
synthesis of lms and games envisioned by Lucaslm. The rst-person perspective that has become conventional in current games, following models
like id Softwares Wolfenstein 3D (1992) and Cyans Myst (1993), has its origin
in the subjective shot utilized in lm. Galloway describes the subjective
shot as a rather extreme rst person point-of-view shot, where the camera pans and tracks as if it were mounted on the neck of a character. . . . The
viewer sees exactly what the character sees, as if the camera eye were the
same as the character I. 26 In lms as in games, the subjective shot is marked
by visual or sound effects that simulate the physical or psychological experience of the character: blurred or tinted vision to indicate injury, a binocular
or magnied view to indicate peering through a lens or a scope, or panting
and heaving to indicate fatigue.
Citing familiar scenes from the lms The Terminator (1984), Predator
(1987), and The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Galloway notes that lms most
often use this specialized shot to represent a sense of alienation, detachment, otherness, or fear . . . the vision of criminals, monsters, or killer machines. Games, on the other hand, more commonly use the subjective shot
not to represent marginalized consciousness but rather to achieve an intuitive sense of affective motion, to simulate being and acting within a virtual
world. The subjective shot has become a keystone of game design in a variety
of genres, including rst-person shooters, role-playing games, and driving
games. In fact, Galloway concludes, the subjective point of view is so omnipresent and so central to the grammar [of videogames] . . . that it essentially
becomes coterminous with it.27
While games, according to Leggat, Wolf, and Galloway, are the progeny
of cinema, in terms of both content and visual language, the aesthetics of
game design have also begun to exert an inuence on lmmaking as lm
becomes more digitized. Ridley Scott, who produced a series of live-action
online short lms in 2004 promoting the release of Ataris DRIV3R, nds
greater creative potential in games. Scott told the New York Times, The idea
that a world, the characters that inhabit it, and the stories those characters
share can evolve with the audiences participation and, perhaps, exist in a
perpetual universe is indeed very exciting to me.28 Leggat compares the
ght choreography in the Matrix and Kill Bill lms to the wild moves performed in ghting games, and Galloway calls attention to the bullet time
sequence in The Matrix, where time slows and Neo impossibly dodges a hail
of gunre, as a brief moment of gamic cinema, a brief moment where the
aesthetic of gaming moves in and takes over the lm.29
The interactive nature of game narrative that intrigues Scott has also
prompted more independent lmmakers to reconsider the ways a story can
be told on lm. Tom Tykwers lm Run Lola Run (1999), for instance, portrays a young woman trying to aid her desperate boyfriend as he rushes
to repay a debt to a crime boss. Even with its chic rapid-re editing and
Dream Worlds
125
animation sequences, Run Lola Run looks like a standard caper lm until
Lola, surprisingly, is shot dead about 20 minutes into the action. Rather
than accept this outcome, however, she simply opens her eyes and says, No,
transporting herself back in time as if restarting the game, which she replays twice throughout the lm until she achieves the desired ending. Run
Lola Run reveals that interactivity has begun to destabilize the way lmmakers view their craft, even at the fundamental level of narrative structure.
Tykwers lm in not nonlinear but multilinear, like a game that a player can
complete or fail to complete in any number of ways.
For some critics, however, media convergence, particularly this increasingly visible inuence of videogames on cinema, signals an aesthetic and intellectual corruption. In a survey of lms about the Second World War, lm
critic David Thomson calls Michael Bays Pearl Harbor (2001), not just a colossal bore, but a defamation of popular history that leaves you in despair of
the cinema.30 Thomson believes that videogames have obscured lmmakers
and audiences understanding of the complexity of history and the reality of
violence. He writes:
Its what you get when the kids in the audience and the kids in charge have
spent two decades playing video combat games. . . . Virtually every set-up
[in Pearl Harbor] puts the camera in the best position not just to see the
explosion but to be it. The essential Bay shot is the POV from the bomb
that falls on the Arizona; it has all the gravitational zest, and the denial of
damage or tragedy, thats built into the trigger-jerking spasms of video
games.31
For Thomson, gamic vision in lms does not signify the exciting potential
of media convergence but rather reduces cinematic art and marks a shallow
fascination with the hyperactive images of violent action rather than a critical exploration of the causes or consequences of such action.
Although fans of Star Wars and The Matrix might accuse Thomson of
being old-fashioned, Thomson rightly observes that lms, when they try to
copy games, often look silly. Even as The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from
Butcher Bay (2004) proves that good games can be made from bad lms, and
EAs The Godfather: The Game (2006) proves that good games can be made
from good lms, Hollywood has not yet discovered a way to make a good
lm from a good game. Early attempts to do so have been ridiculous or
merely forgettable, including Super Mario Bros. (1993), Street Fighter (1994),
and Mortal Kombat (1995). Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001), rendered
entirely in CGI, lost more than $120 million and bankrupted Square Pictures.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001), Resident Evil (2002), and Silent Hill (2006),
have done well at the box ofce but utterly disappointed lm critics with their
glossy violence, inane dialogue, and shallow characterization. In other words,
they seem too game-like.
126
Movies
Jenkins compares current videogames, with all their aws, to the cinema
of the early twentieth century, an art form still in a stage of rapid technical
development and radical experimentation, still awaiting coherent theories
and critical approaches, and still lacking a tradition or a canon. Videogames,
Jenkins believes, have almost unbounded commercial and artistic potential,
but they need time to grow up.32 Leggat similarly describes the relation
between games and lm as Oedipal: cinemas scrappy stepchild, the game
world is . . . constantly competing with an idealized, phantasmic father for the
love and attention of the mass market, yet never truly believing that it enjoys
or deserves it.33
The most spectacular failures in lmgame franchising, from Ataris E.T. to
Squares Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, occur when lmmakers attempt to
replicate the grammar of videogames in lms or game designers attempt
to replicate the grammar of lms. In a review of Jacksons The Return of the
King, lm critic Anthony Lane writes, As I watched the lm, an eager victim of its boundless will to astound, I found my loyal memories to the book
beginning to fade. It may be time to halt the endless comparisons between
page and screen, and to confess that the two are very different beasts.34 As
the fusion of the lm and game industries continues and transmedia franchises emerge, designers of lm-based games must similarly acknowledge
that games and lms, despite their convergence, are also two very different
beasts. Though some may try to make games that play like lms, or movies
that play like games, we nd that the narrative forms governing one genre do
not quite t the other. Like the Matrix itself, transmedia narrative is a new
sort of beast born in the age of convergence, an expansive and perpetually
expanding simulated dream world constructed not so much to control as to
entertain. In choosing the blue pill, however, we submit to both.
NOTES
1. Roger Ebert, E.T. the Extraterrestrial, rogerebert.com, March 22, 2002, http://
rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020322/REVIEWS/
203220304/1023.
2. Dan Levy, Lucas Presidio premiere, San Francisco Chronicle, June 26, 2005, http://
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/26/BAGTQDF4RU1.DTL.
3. Lucaslm, Ltd., Letterman Digital Arts Center: A New Vision for the Digital Arts,
June 24, 2005, http://www.lucaslm.com/press/presidiopreview/index.html?page=2.
4. Eric-Jon Rssel Waugh, Worlds Are Colliding!: The Convergence of Film and
Games, Gamasutra, December 12, 2005, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/2005
1212/waugh_01.shtml.
5. Lucaslm, Ltd., Letterman Digital Arts Center.
6. George Lucas, Future of Entertainment, Hollywood Reporter, September 13,
2005, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_con
tent_id=1001096310.
Dream Worlds
127
7. WNYC Radio, Joystick Nation, On the Media, December 19, 2003, http://www.
onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_121903_joystick.html.
8. Bryan Ochalla, Are Games Art? (Here We Go Again . . . ), Gamasutra, March 16,
2007, http://gamasutra.com/features/20070316/ochalla_01.shtml.
9. The New Force at Lucaslm, BusinessWeek, March 27, 2006, http://www.busi
nessweek.com/innovate/content/mar2006/id20060327_719255.htm.
10. The New Force at Lucaslm.
11. Lucas, Future of Entertainment.
12. Lucas, Future of Entertainment.
13. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture (New York: New York University Press,
2006), 9496, 114.
14. Tom McNamara, GDC 2004: Warren Spector Talks Game Narrative, IGN.
com, March 26, 2004, http://pc.ign.com/articles/502/502382p1.html.
15. LucasArts, however, adopted a mimetic strategy in Star Wars: Battlefront (2004),
Battlefront II (2005), and Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005). Like The Two Towers,
Revenge of the Sith incorporated scenes from the lm in the game.
16. The New Force at Lucaslm.
17. Jamil Modelina, Hard-Boiled Developer: Luxouxs Peter Morawiec on Bringing Classic Story Genres to Life, Game Developer, March 2004.
18. Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 107.
19. W. Haden Blackman, Collaborative Connections: Teamwork Unleashed, May 1,
2007, http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/#/diary/.
20. Graham Leggat, Chip Off the Old Block, Film Comment 40 (2004): 29.
21. Mark J. P. Wolf, Inventing Space: Toward a Taxonomy of On- and Off-Screen
Space in Video Games, Film Quarterly 51, no. 1 (1997): 1112.
22. Wolf, Inventing Space, 20.
23. Wolf, Inventing Space, 22.
24. Alexander Galloway, Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 6364.
25. MIT Program in Comparative and Media Studies, Computer and Video Games
Come of Age, The Future of Games, http://web.mit.edu/cms/games/future.html.
26. Galloway, Gaming, 40.
27. Galloway, Gaming, 56, 59, 63.
28. Laura M. Holson, Out of Hollywood, Rising Fascination with Video Games,
New York Times, April 10, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/technology/
10GAME/html.
29. Galloway, Gaming, 67.
30. David Thomson, Zap happy: World War II revisited, Sight & Sound 11, no. 7
(2001): 35.
31. Thomson, Zap happy, 35.
32. Henry Jenkins, Games, the New Lively Art, in Handbook of Computer Game
Studies, ed. Jeffrey Goldstein and Joost Raessens (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005),
17592.
33. Leggat, Chip Off the Old Block, 29.
34. Anthony Lane, Creating Monsters, The New Yorker, May 24, 2004, 97.
chapter 8
Co-Opting Independence:
Hollywoods Marketing Label
Mary P. Erickson
Four of the ve lms competing for Best Picture at the 2006 Academy
Awards were unique in that a good portion of each lms nancing derived
from nonstudio investment sources. For example, Minneapolis-based River
Road Productions partnered in the production of Brokeback Mountain (Ang
Lee, 2005), requesting international distribution rights in exchange for its
investment. This $14 million lm premiered at lm festivals in Venice, Telluride, and Toronto before heading into theaters in the United States and
internationally. This investment secured a substantial return for the lms
producers and distributors, which also included Universal Studios division,
Focus Features; Brokeback Mountain garnered a respectable $83 million at the
domestic box ofce.1 In addition, the lm received several awards, including
three Oscars, four Golden Globes, and two Independent Spirit awards.
Brokeback Mountain was joined in the race for Best Picture by Good Night,
and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005); Capote (Bennett Miller, 2005); Crash
(Paul Haggis, 2004); and Munich (Steven Spielberg, 2005). Much of the publicity leading up to the awards ceremony focused on these lms production nancing because most of them were substantially produced outside the studio
system.2 Each of the lms, with the exception of Crash, was also substantially
produced inside the studio system: United Artists (a division of MGM at the
time of the lms production) produced Capote, Warner Independent Pictures
(a division of Warner Brothers) produced Good Night, and DreamWorks and
Universal Pictures produced Munich. Article after article in the press touted
these lms (with the exception of Munich) as independent, their reliance on
130
Movies
nonstudio nancing an anomaly for lms leading the Oscar race. But this independence, and the corollary primacy of nonstudio nancing, is misleading
because it does not account for the infrastructure that accompanies the lms
studio-based nancing. As Hollywood producer Avi Lerner declares:
No one can disagree that when youve got Crash having this kind of success,
its good for independent lm. Thats a true independent lm. I consider
Lionsgate [Crashs distributor] a real independent company. But Brokeback
Mountain? No way. It was released by a studio with all the machinery and
money and people of a major studiothe same people who released Munich. The same people who released King Kong. No, Brokeback Mountain was
not an independent lm. An independent lm is a movie that was really
made by independent people, independent producers, not by Focus. The
producer of Brokeback Mountain was James Schamus, the head of a specialty
studio.3
Specialty divisions such as Focus Features increasingly rely on the concept

of independent to describe and promote their lms, as these lms tend not
to resemble studio blockbusters in style, plot, or character. But Focus Features still, as Lerner asserts, offers the distribution infrastructure of its parent studio, giving its lms more support in publicity and promotion. This
becomes particularly problematic for independent lmmakers who do not
have investment relationships with specialty divisions. These people are thus
forced to compete for the same audiences through the same press outlets and
the same distribution and exhibition channels without similar resources. The
ood of so-called independent lms that have originated at studio divisions
saturates the marketplace, which in turn shapes the publics expectations of
what independent lm looks like as well as the perception of diversity of
lmmakers and lm content available in theaters and on home video.
Independent lmmaking occupies a spot in American cinema as the obvious alternative to mainstream Hollywood fare, but audience preferences that
seem to shift away from blockbusters lately have troubled studios who rely
on hundreds of millions of box ofce dollars for every lm. The development
of new distribution windows such as the Internet has allowed independent
lmmakers to gain more direct access to audiences. With declining box ofce
revenues and audiences turning toward newer technology to watch lms,
Hollywood has found itself in a troublesome nancial spot.4 While studios
continue to focus on producing tried-and-true formulaic lms (witness the
release of several sequels in 2007, from Spider-Man 3 [Sam Raimi, 2007] to
Shrek the Third [Chris Miller and Raman Hui, 2007] to Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End [Gore Verbinski, 2007]), they have also ventured more
actively into genres, subject matter or aesthetics not traditionally found in
Hollywood lms. Because these studios, operating as specialty divisions such
as Focus Features, can utilize the production and distribution infrastructure
Co-Opting Independence
131
of a major studio (in this case, Universal Studios), marketing efforts are much
more coordinated, encompassing, and forceful than the marketing efforts of a
singular lmmaker or even smaller-scale distribution company that operates
outside of the studio system.
Hollywood carefully crafts lm marketing, spending extravagantly to
achieve its marketing goals. Major studios spend approximately $34.5 million on prints and advertising (P&A), or a full third of a lms budget, while
specialty divisions of major studios spend an average of $17.8 million on P&A
per lm (although this number is more variable based on the wide range
of independent lm budgets).5 Even with smaller budgets, such as Brokeback Mountains $14 million, investors expect returns to make their contributions worthwhile, and thus, specialty divisions focus on the most attractive
angles to ensure high levels of box ofce and home video revenue.6 We can
witness various instances, particularly lately, of specialty divisions marketing lms by using the concept of independence as the primary selling point.
Therefore, the question becomes this: How do specialty divisions exploit the
concept of independence in lm publicity? By examining the marketing campaigns of lms such as Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie
Faris, 2006), Sideways (Alexander Payne, 2004), Garden State (Zach Braff,
2004), and Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005), we can nd
similarities in the usage of independent as a marketing label. This has signicant implications for independent lmmakers who are not afliated with
major studios, as their primary methods of marketing are co-opted by Hollywood. As we shall see later, these lmmakers must then develop new methods
of marketing to reach audiences.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
AND INDEPENDENT
A denition of independent lm is difcult to pinpoint because it can
hinge on aesthetics, subject matter, budget, actors, director, or any number
of other factors. The label of independent lm typically connotes certain aesthetics or social themes, or what Holmlund calls a distinctive visual look, an
unusual narrative pattern, a self-reexive style.7 Many scholarly accounts
of independent lm reect on past eras, documenting the industrys history
as eras distinct from the independent lm era of today. Greg Merritt writes
a thorough biography of independent lm, beginning with the early days of
cinema, and Peter Biskind formulates his history around the rise of Miramax
and the Sundance Film Festival.8 Others try to understand independent lm
through an examination of what are often considered the founding fathers
of the contemporary canon, including, among other lms, Stranger Than Paradise (Jim Jarmusch, 1984); sex, lies and videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989);
Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992); and Clerks (Kevin Smith, 1994).9
132
Movies
Many accounts speculate on the present-day status of independent lm but

surprisingly often fail to expand beyond supercial musings on the blurring
lines between Hollywood and independent studios.
Independent lms are typically made outside the Hollywood studio system
and are often products of creative devotion, a luxury not afforded within the
connes of a tightly managed studio production. The lines quickly start to
blur when we try to pin down a denition because high-prole actors may
star in nonstudio lms, $50,000 and $15 million lm budgets are classied
together, and art house cinemas may screen Woody Allens latest alongside a local lmmakers production. Even applying the limitation of making
lms outside the Hollywood studio system is problematic; is it fair to say
that George Lucas Star Wars prequels were independent? They were, after
all, made outside the standard Hollywood studio system, produced instead
by Lucaslm; however, the trilogys budget stood at roughly $350 million,
hardly the scale of budget associated with independent lms.
The central problem lies with ownership. Hollywood is generally divided
into six major lm studios: Warner Brothers, Disney, Paramount Pictures,
Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox; these studios control an estimated 94 percent of the domestic box ofce gross.10 Each of these
is part of a globally diversied media conglomerate that operates myriad
business divisions (Time Warner, for example, owns Warner Brothers, its
main lm studio, in addition to a cable television system, multiple cable
television channels, and Internet service provider America Online; it also
publishes approximately 130 magazines and employs roughly 96,000 people
worldwide).11 Each of these major studios owns at least one specialty studio arm, such as Miramax (Disney), Warner Independent Pictures (Warner
Brothers), and the newly formed Paramount Vantage to accompany Paramount Classics (Paramount Pictures); these specialty studios handle both
production and distribution of nonmainstream lms. Hollywood studios have
managed their specialty, independent divisions for many years now, most
of them having been started or acquired in the mid-1990s. Others have more
recently evolved to represent the changing independent lm landscape. New
Line Cinema, a specialty division acquired by Turner Broadcasting in 1994
(acquired by Time Warner two years later), had its own specialty division,
Fine Line. In 2003, Fine Line folded into the streamlined Warner Independent Pictures, in order to provide an outlet where artists can express their
vision, where ideas and controversies can be aired, where new talent can
grow, where new styles and techniques can develop, where the conventional
wisdom of tomorrow can rst take shape.12 In a sense, one could say that
Warner Independent is providing the educational ground through which to
develop strategies for thinking about independent lm within its own structures; it denes who those artists are, what ideas are aired, and how new
styles develop, all within the objective of prot-making. After all, Warner
133
Independent is designed to ll a niche in what is otherwise a fully integrated, broad-based global entertainment company.13 It is signicant that
Warner Independent executives see the studio as tting into a global and
undoubtedly mainstream company, rather than as an alternative to it. This is
contrary to the very denition of an independent company.
The fact that many of these specialty divisions are called independent
proves problematic when we acknowledge their corporate parentage. Alisa
Perren argues that My Big Fat Greek Wedding (Joel Zwick, 2002) was misrepresented in its publicity and promotion as an independent lm. Actors Tom
Hanks and Rita Wilson took the lms concept (based on a stage version)
to HBO, enlisting the Time Warnerowned cable channels nancial support in exchange for distribution rights (foreign, cable, and video).14 Wellconnected Hollywood individuals, in this case, helped clear obstacles that the
lm might have otherwise faced in securing distribution, and distribution
guarantees a certain level of expenditures to promote the lm; after all, the
distribution company wants to recoup its investment. With Hanks, Wilson,
HBO, and others backing the production of Wedding and guaranteeing its
distribution, therefore, Perren does not classify the lm as independent.
It becomes obvious that major studios use independent as a label or
brand for, as King writes, association with quality, arty, edgy or cool/
alternative features is good for the image, particularly for those individual
executives with pretensions to something more than noisy blockbuster productions and [those] branches of large corporations often subject to criticism for their business practices and much of their not-so-creative output.15
But corporations use the label of independent to legitimize themselves by
emphasizing their dedication to the art of lmmaking, and often the link
between specialty division and parent company is less than obvious. While
we know that Warner Brothers own Warner Independent Pictures, it may
be less apparent that Universal owns Focus Features. Focus Features can
more easily represent itself as a truly independent lm company, not a subsidiary of a major corporation, simply because of a difference in name.
Tzioumakis has offered one of the most thorough and uninching examinations of the intersection and interconnection between independent and
mainstream lm. He observes the push and pull of production and distribution practices that independents use, mainstreams co-opt, and independents
then eschew for new practices. Tzioumakis tackles the conundrum of dening independent lm by stating that the term is in fact a discourse that
expands and contracts when socially authorized institutions (lmmakers,
industry practitioners, trade publications, academics, lm critics, and so on)
contribute to its denition at different periods in the history of American cinema.16 Tzioumakis strips away the weight of independent as a denitional
term by noting how it becomes situated in language and marketing in order
to serve power relations.
134
Movies
This linkage between power and the use of independent as a term is essential for understanding how it is used for marketing purposes in lm today.
Tzioumakis notes that the lm industry trade publication Variety declares
indie as a descriptor to have lost much of its rugged appeal.17 However,
it is still used because it does carry weight. As non-Hollywood lmmakers
continue to carve out spots for themselves in production, distribution, and
exhibition practices, they continue to draw audiences over which Hollywood
would rather take hold. Films such as The Blair Witch Project and The Passion of the Christ startled the major studios with their box ofce earnings of
$140 million and $370 million, respectively. The innovative and groundbreaking distribution practices associated with these lms, such as Blair
Witchs online presence and The Passions outreach to religious communities,
signal that audiences are drawn to lms that challenge popular notions of
lmmaking and lm distribution. Film distribution is, according to Wasser,
the central location for maintaining powerit is in this stage of the lmmaking process that a lm moves from the lmmaker or studio to the audience.18
Distributors retain allocative control, or the allocation of resources. It is here
that marketing dollars are spent and decisions are made as to who sees the
lm and who does not.
Drawing a line between independent and nonindependent lm is difcult
when we conceive of independent as a discourse of power, as it does not
lend itself to clear distinctions that apply to every single case. We can say,
though, that independent as a label is being used in the cases being discussed here because media conglomerate subsidiaries aim to secure audiences
wherever they exist. Hollywood has relied on blockbuster lms to bring in
astronomical revenues in ever-increasing numbers of theaters. While some
lms have been successful (Spider-Man 3, for example, opened on 4,252
screens to garner $151.2 million in the United States alone in May 2007),19
many other blockbuster lms have not. King Kong (Peter Jackson, 2005),
Universal Studios remake of the 1933 lm, was expected to tackle Titanics
(James Cameron, 1997) ranking on the all-time top box ofce revenue chart;
instead, it stalled at a paltry Number 51, just after Mrs. Doubtre (Chris Columbus, 1993).20 Studio executives have tried to pin blame on any number of
factors, including DVDs, video games, iPods, cellular phones, HBO, crying
babies, $10 tickets, Chinese pirates, big screen plasma TVs, an aging demographic, liberal bias, video-on-demand, annoying pre-feature commercials
and the Bush administrations energy policy.21 No matter the reason, the
fact remains that theatrical releases are stagnating.22 One factor that remains
constant about the Hollywood movie marketing strategy is that if you only
get one demographic into the theater, you can only achieve a certain level of
success.23 Therefore, there is a continual effort to maximize revenue streams
by expanding the types of lms produced and distributed by Hollywood studios so that no matter the audience preference, Hollywood supplies it.
135
This is not a new phenomenon, as we can witness various periods in cinemas history when independent has been co-opted by major studios and
lmmakers. Howard Hughes with Hells Angels (1930) and David O. Selznick
with Gone With the Wind (1939) both used the concept of independence to differentiate their lms from the sausage factory lms of Hollywood.24 Studios
turned to art house fare in the 1960s, not only co-opting independent as a
label, but also controlling the distribution of foreign lms. Often laden with
sexual themes generally forbidden by the American industrys Production
Code (the precursor to the modern ratings system), these lms were attracting customers and the majors wanted a part of the business.25 Then, beginning in the mid-1990s, the mainstream American lm industry started to
institutionalize independent as a marketing label by overtaking those studios that were truly independent of the mainstream system and that posed
the greatest threat to Hollywood dominance over alternative lm supply. It
wasnt long before independent came to signify formulaic elements that
could be predictably located and exploited for marketing purposes; the resulting climate of lm publicity is likely forcing changes in truly independent
lm distribution.
FILM MARKETING STRATEGIES
Despite its centrality in the lm distribution process, lm marketing is
not often covered in lm literature. Yet, it is vitally important to understand
because it is the most direct and overt method through which major studios
try to wield control. As mentioned earlier, distributors plan to add 30 percent
or more to the lms overall budget for P&A expenses, and thus, the marketing campaign is carefully mapped out. In her study of marketing campaigns
for lms such as Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell, 1994), GoldenEye
(Martin Campbell, 1995), and Welcome to the Dollhouse (Todd Solondz, 1995),
Tiiu Lukk writes that a lms marketing potential impacts the very production of a lm.26 Often, major studios use content models to mitigate risk of
investment, utilizing previously successful genres, star actors, and sequels, or
what Justin Wyatt terms high concept factors, to ensure box ofce success,
and those elements that are untested or have been unsuccessful in the past are
less likely to appear onscreen.27 Typically associated with blockbusters, high
concept factors can now be revised and extended to independent lms.
The marketing strategy for a Hollywood lm is carefully constructed
because each lm in theatrical release is a new product that needs to be
explained, positioned, and promoted to consumers on its way to that short
and fragile shelf life.28 This strategy is a multifaceted operation, with paid
advertising in print, television, radio, and other media; publicity by way of
critics reviews and feature stories; promotional events; merchandising and
cross-promotions; and various other tactics. In marketing smaller-budgeted,
136
Movies
independent lms, studios emphasize certain tactics over others. Publicity

and advertising are likely the most oft-used tactics. A Miramax studio executive claims, If you say a lm is great enough times and can back it up with
some footage, the press will begin to believe it, which can have a signicant
impact on audience choice.29
Marich notes that studios often use familiar elements like stars or genre
for lm marketing hooks because each lm is its own unique product. Rather
than starting from scratch every time, marketers position lms in relation
to those tried-and-true products that have been released in the past. Independent lms represent an interesting case study in lm marketing strategy
because they often do not contain those familiar elements like major studio
releases do. But independent lms do contain their own sorts of familiar elements that are used to position a given lm in relation to other successful
lms. These elements work in tandem to foreground the lms very independence; some of these elements include the lms Web site, publicity strategies
to frame the lm as independent (for example, a newcomer in the starring
role or a novice director), and festival appearances.
MARKETING INDEPENDENCE
The lms examined in this study were selected from a list of all lms,
excluding foreign lms, distributed to U.S. theaters by the six major studios
top independent divisions from 2004 to 2006.30 These lm divisions are those
that self-identify as independent studios; for example, Fox Searchlight
calls itself Hollywoods premiere indie movie studio, while Miramax Films
declares itself to be return[ing] to its roots as a top provider of quality
independent and modestly budgeted lms from outstanding lmmakers.31
Various elements of lms marketing campaigns were examined, including:
framing of actors, directors, and storylines in the media; the lms release
strategy, with particular attention to festival and theatrical platform release;
and attention to certain coveted awards.
Focusing on a few select lms, including Little Miss Sunshine, Garden State,
Sideways, and Good Night, and Good Luck, highlights how each of these elements is manipulated for marketing purposes; these lms are some of the
more visible independent lms of the past few years because they have
received more marketing attention. As Globe and Mail lm reviewer Johanna
Schneller tells us, the logic goes that nominations [for high-prole awards]
make money because theatrical and ancillary (home video and DVD) sales
rise when a lm is in the running for top awards.32 When a lm can promise
a nomination (and preferably multiple nominations), the distributor will pour
money into its marketing: [It costs] tens of millions to send out screeners
to the 6,000 academy members, place For Your Consideration ads in the
trades, and y the casts around the chat-show circuit.33 Those lms that
137
cannot promise much in the way of additional revenue that spurt from nominations do not receive extra marketing efforts. Little Miss Sunshine, Garden
State, Sideways, and Good Night, and Good Luck have all presumably received
a good dose of marketing dollars and therefore present valuable case studies in analyzing how specialty divisions market lms using elements such as
specic types of actors and directors, quirky or thoughtful storylines, festival
and theatrical platform releases, and certain coveted awards.
Storylines
Films classied as independent tend to feature unconventional stories
that operate outside the mainstream fare. Stories become offbeat, quirky, and
artsy, positioned to alert the audience that the lm might not contain the
typical Hollywood cinematic experience. The lms are also often labeled as
quaint, charming, or endearing, as though they are the sweet but overly eccentric aunts of whom families are somewhat embarrassed. These key phrases
are synonymous with independent lms because they signal refreshing stories and interesting characters that defy cookie-cutter replication.
Garden State follows the story of a young man who returns home to attend his mothers funeral after a long estrangement from his family. The lm
is consistently described in terms of its off-kilter storyline: it is a quirkywith-a-capital-Q romantic comedy with an undeniably charming script.34
Sideways, in which a pair of friends travel the southern Californian wine
country in celebration of one of the friends impending marriage, is labeled
in the press as an offbeat gem, its characters friendship lled with quirky
complexity.35 In Little Miss Sunshine, a family takes a road trip to a child
beauty pageant, tackling subjects such as homosexuality, suicide, and drug
use, along with family dysfunction. A silly yet endearing story, Little Miss
Sunshine is lled with studied wackiness and is classied as a quirky family
road picture.36
Independent lms may also explore edgy or alternative subject matter,
as was the case with Good Night, and Good Luck, which is a retelling of journalist Edward R. Murrows confrontations with Senator Joseph McCarthy
in the early days of television. Some critics have observed a shift to more
authenticity and honesty in storytelling, although many confess that this
storytelling runs contrary to the average moviegoers preference.37 New York
Times critic A. O. Scott predicts that most of the discussion of [Good Night,
and Good Luck] will turn on its contenton the history it investigates and
on its present-day resonance, as it is a timely critique of modern-day journalism framed within a moment of historical crisis of the McCarthy era.38
The delivery isnt as important as the message, writes Steve Persall of the
St. Petersburg Times. Maybe thats Clooneys agenda: to make us consider the
meat rather than the sizzle.39
138
Movies
Directors
An oft-used strategy of marketing independent lms is to highlight the
novice director, an aspiring lmmaker looking to make his or her mark in
the world of cinema. According to Tiiu Lukk, These are people that bring
a certain rawness and newness to their storytelling style, because theyre
not polished, slick Hollywood lm or TV commercial directors.40 The case
of Zach Braff aptly illustrates this tactic. Braff, who has starred in the NBC
sitcom Scrubs since 2001, leapt onto the independent lm scene in 2004 with
Garden State. In interviews, Braff was depicted as the amateur whose success
came about from sheer luck and a dash of persistence. I feel like Ive won
the independent lm lottery, he mused.41 It was a Cinderella story of sorts
hammered home through promotional angles that made Braff accessible to
audiences as the average Joe who made good. He traveled across the country
on a publicity tour, during which he held question-and-answer sessions after
lm screenings.42 He also wrote a blog on the Garden State Web site, a personal diary of sorts, in which he related random details of his life (e.g., I had
this twisted nightmare once where I was dating a really bitchy Clydesdale
who played drums in a wedding band.) that helped audiences get to know
Braff as an average citizen.43 With this blog, he said, I thought Im just
going to talk to my audience like I would with a friend. 44 Readers of his
blog were enamored with his down-to-earth style, which served to further
legitimize Braff as an independent lmmaker who has not lost sight of his
roots. They say, I dont believe youre writing this, its crazy youre writing
this, you seem too real, this must be your assistant. One gets the impression
from Braff s interviews that he hardly believed it either; he is endearingly
wide-eyed about his current status.45
The directorship duo, Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, cut their teeth
on Little Miss Sunshine. Their previous experience resided with directing
music videos for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, REM, Smashing Pumpkins, and
others. In much of the publicity around the lm, the novice status of these
directors contributes to the lms freshness and integrity. As producer Marc
Turtletaub attested, Thankfully, we had John and Val who are two directors
who have no background, hadnt made a feature-length lm, and they said
No, this is what we want to make and they stuck with that.46 These babes
in the woods with virgin exposure to Hollywood made for a steep learning curve, but their efforts were rewarded with positive feedback from critics.
Whats even more amazing is that this is the rst feature from husband-andwife directors, exclaims Christie Lemire of MSNBC. Theyve come up with
no stereotypes, no self-consciously quirky indie-movie clichs.47
Having only directed one other lm, George Clooney, director of Good
Night, and Good Luck, could have been positioned as a novice director. However, his acting reputation precludes the marketing campaign from focusing
139
on his inexperience in a similar way to Zach Braff or Little Miss Sunshines

directors. Rather, the subject matter of his lm compels lm reviewers and
feature writers to frame him as operating outside the studio system, the mark
of an independent lmmaker. Youve got to stick with your convictions,
he says in an interview. Do what you want to do and hope that it strikes a
chord.48 Because he has taken risks, one lm critic labeled him as the indieSpielberg, his commitment to Good Night, and Good Luck so strong that he
famously accepted only $1 for producing, directing and writing.49
Actors
Actors are probably the most visible and recognizable marketing element
of a lm. Unknown or unpopular actors are considered to be a handicap to
a lms success, but they are in fact becoming more integral to the legitimacy of independent lms. They are logistically essential to most independent lms simply because budgets cannot afford expensive stars. But they
are essential as well because they are exploited as a shrewd marketing angle.
The stars in Little Miss Sunshine and Sideways in particular, while generally known, are not A-list actors able to command high salaries for their
participation in projects. Indeed, those most recognized for acting ability
are unlikely to be among the most well-paid actors in Hollywood.50 Rather,
these stars take risky roles and explore the craft of acting with dignity and
style. Because independent lms are typically character-driven, the actors
portraying those characters make or break a lm; therefore, publicity around
a lms actors highlight their excellence.
Little Miss Sunshine boasts an ensemble cast, and the contribution of each
actor relays a stellar performance in understated dysfunction, indicative of
their overall acting ability. It is rare, notes Los Angeles Times critic Mary
McNamara about Greg Kinnear, who plays the father in the lm, to read
a bad or even lukewarm review of Kinnears work.51 Toni Collette receives
similar accolades, both for her role in Sunshine and in her other lms. Her
body of work has earned her widespread respect within Hollywood, where
she is considered among the most talented of her generation.52 Alan Arkin
garnered the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 2007 for his performance
of the lms heroin-addicted grandfather, after quietly promoting the lm
through a gentle campaign fashioned around what Mr. Arkin is willing to
do: talk-show appearances, a few interviews and a special evening sponsored
by the Film Society of Lincoln Center.53
Sideways similarly boasted an ensemble cast that each contributed to the
overall acting performance of the lm. Thomas Haden Church was perhaps
best known for his television roles in Wings (19901997) and Ned and Stacey
(19951997) before he took the role of Jack in Sideways. Virginia Madsen had
140
Movies
also been primarily a television actor before joining the cast of Sideways as
Maya. These two actors eventually competed for 2005 Academy Awards, which
signaled to audiences that their acting, along with that of costar Paul Giamatti
were appropriately billed as great anchoring performances by critics.54
Good Night, and Good Luck starred a range of actors as well, although
David Strathairns portrayal of Edward R. Murrow drove the lm, eventually securing a Best Actor nomination at the Academy Awards in 2006. But
the lms promotion focused less on the strength of its actors and more on
its subject matter. However, because this lm was based on actual events, the
marketing campaign included individuals who worked alongside the reallife Murrow. For example, Hugh Downs, the retired journalist, attended
question-and-answer sessions that accompanied lm promotional events.55
Release Strategy
The lms marketing strategy is carefully planned around its release
schedule. Because an independent lm often has low-prole actors, a novice
director, and a quirky storyline, it is often perceived as a risky project that
must be carefully monitored in its distribution and exhibition. To cushion this
risk, distributors rst screen these kinds of lms at lm festivals to test the
lm with critics then move them into a platform theatrical release to test with
audiences.
The lm festival is an arena of discovery. Ideally, any lm, regardless of
nancial or professional connection (or lack thereof ), might be sold to a distributor here; it is this Cinderella story that turned The Blair Witch Project
into an overnight success. Many festivals, however, are more known for their
independent lms, rather than their independent ones, as the lm festival
circuit has become one component of a major studios planned marketing
strategy. Sony Pictures Classics decided that the best way to create a prole
for [their independent feature Welcome to the Dollhouse] would be through a
series of lm festivals leading up to a summer release for the lm.56 This is
an inexpensive way to garner publicity and critical acclaim: One of the benets of festival exposure is that lms get reviewed by the media, upon which
word-of-mouth (or buzz) develops.57
Garden State screened at seven different festivals, including a premiere
at the Sundance Film Festival in 2004 before its theatrical release. It continued to screen at festivals, moving to the international festival circuit as
Fox Searchlight and Miramax prepared to release the lm overseas. Sideways screened at four festivals, including Toronto and New York, before its
domestic theatrical release in 2004, and also expanded to a broad range of
international festivals to precede its foreign theatrical release. Good Night,
and Good Luck opened at the Venice and New York Film Festivals prior to its
release in theaters; the lm traveled to more festivals after this release.
141
Little Miss Sunshine also premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival;
Fox Searchlight acquired distribution rights to the lm for $10.5 million.
While the lm did not have a nancial relationship with Fox Searchlight
prior to distribution, it did rely on other studio nancing for its production.
Focus Features had initially funded the lms production before pulling out
before the lm was nished. Because Little Miss Sunshine did not arrive at
Sundance with a major production and distribution company in hand, its
adoption by Fox Searchlight has been classied as the classic Sundance
Cinderella story, wherein a small, independent lm drew attention and
dollars.58 Fox Searchlight then structured an international festival release
strategy to preface the lms international distribution, touring the lm at
festivals such as Locarno, Helsinki, Tokyo, and Manila.
To complement festival exposure and to build upon critical acclaim, distributors then release their lms in a platform strategy, which involves
opening a lm in one theater or a few theaters in key target cities, with the
intention of building word-of-mouth, then widening the run to other cities, usually in phases.59 Fox Searchlight built similar release schedules for
Sideways in 2004 and for Little Miss Sunshine in 2006, allowing word-ofmouth to build, rather than this big blitzkrieg ad campaign where you feel
like youre being sold on something . . . [Fox Searchlight] allowed people to
discover the movie rather than have them feel like they have to be talked into
it.60 The lm started on 7 screens in July 2006, peaking at 1,602 screens
two months later before nally leaving theaters in March 2007 with a
$59.9 million box ofce gross.61 Garden State started on 9 screens, building
to 813 screens in ve weeks.62 Sideways opened on 4 screens and peaked at
1,786 screens four months later.63 To put these numbers in perspective, the
average Hollywood blockbuster opens on thousands of screens in the United
States and worldwide. King Kong opened on 3,576 screens, while Spider-Man
3 opened on 4,252 American screens with simultaneous theatrical openings
around the world.64 So while independent lms still do not compete at the
level of blockbuster opening, they are increasingly becoming major players
in the exhibition market.
Coveted Awards
The Independent Spirit Awards are presented by Film Independent, a Los
Angelesbased nonprot organization dedicated to supporting independent
lm and lmmakers. The event has made a name for itself as the premier
awards event for the independent lm community, celebrating a uniqueness
of vision; original, provocative subject matter; economy of means (with
particular attention paid to total production cost and individual compensation); and percentage of nancing from independent sources.65 Receiving
an Independent Spirit award solidies the label of independent for many
142
Movies
of Hollywoods so-called independent lms. This award is not, after all, the
mainstream Academy Awards or Golden Globes. Rather, it is a banner that
marketers can attach to the lms poster, alongside its festival mentions, to
validate the lms supposed independence. Even press coverage of the event
itself conrms the status of this award; the awards ceremony is always offbeat with a let-it-all-hang-out tone.66
With rising budgets seeping into the independent lm industry, some
lms eligibility for the award is called into question. But the award judges
may overlook certain shortcomings, including having a too-large budget.
Sideways, whose budget came in at $17.5 million, exceeded the awards cap
of $15 million but was accepted anyway and ended up receiving the most
nominations for 2005, eventually winning six awards.67 The awards ceremony compensates for this budget bloat by instituting an award for Best
Film Under $500,000; it has also raised the budget cap to $20 million. Now,
it seems, there are two types of lms that can receive Independent Spirit
Awards: Hollywoods independents and true independents. For the truly independents, perhaps this award means something. For Hollywoods specialty
studio divisions, four Independent Spirit Awards in 2007 for Little Miss Sunshine, one award and three nominations in 2006 for Good Night, and Good
Luck, and one award and one nomination for Garden State in 2005 mean that
these have achieved the spirit of independence, despite the fact that the lms
are not independent at all.
The theatrical and subsequent home video performances of some of these
lms were further bolstered by Academy Award nominations and wins. In
2005, Sideways won an Oscar for Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay, and was
nominated for an additional four Oscars. Good Night, and Good Luck was
nominated for six awards in 2006, and Little Miss Sunshine took home two
Oscars (Best Supporting Actor and Best Writing, Original Screenplay), having received four total nominations.
AN UNRELIABLE FORMULA
Hollywood specialty studios try very hard to construct the perfect independent lm. They have tried to gure out an equation that labels lms as
independent. Unknown or underappreciated (but nonetheless stellar) actors work with young, fresh directors in quirky, offbeat lms that hit all the
major lm festivals to build word-of-mouth. This all precedes their limited
platform releases and the eventual winning of coveted Independent Spirit
Awards, which leads to a respectable performance at the box ofce and on
home video.
Hollywood has instituted many of these elements to assemble an infrastructure that can be used to dominate lm distribution to all audience niches.
Film festivals such as Sundance, Toronto, and Cannes have become all but
143
unreachable for amateur lmmakers hoping to break into the lm industry.

Instead, they are used as one of several stops within the release strategy of a
major studios independent lm. Even theater chains are becoming part of
that Hollywood independent infrastructure. AMC Theatres, the countrys
second-largest theater chain, has designated a certain number of its theaters
to its AMC Select program, going by the tagline, Special Films for Select
Tastes.68 This program showcase[s] independent lms in theaters in markets where art house viewers are believed to reside.69
Is the formula so entrenched that every lm released by studio specialty
divisions can be guaranteed box ofce success? Certainly Little Miss Sunshine
and the other lms examined here attest to the reliability of this formula.
But we can also locate many instances of lms that have failed, despite Hollywoods best efforts. For example, Sony Pictures Classics distributed The
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada from rst-time director and seasoned actor
Tommy Lee Jones. It started in various festivals such as Cannes and Toronto, garnered four Independent Spirit Award nominations, and opened on
33 screens. It only expanded, however, to 356 screens in four weeks before
the studio acknowledged that audiences did not agree with the lms publicity. The lms box ofce gross stalled at $5 million.70
Thumbsucker (Mike Mills, 2005) faced an uphill challenge from the start,
as producers and distributors alike refused to sign on to the lm because, as
director Mike Mills recalls, they felt that its unmarketable, its unmarketable, its unmarketable.71 Some independent lms are rather too independent, as Mills discovered with his lm. Despite signing on Tilda Swinton
and Keanu Reeves to star in the lm, Sony Pictures Classics (its eventual
distributor) gave the lm limited marketing attention; it tried to follow independent lm marketing protocol by premiering the lm at Sundance in
2005, followed by screenings at the festivals in Berlin and Toronto the same
year. Thumbsucker was even nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for
Best First Feature. But Thumbsuckers platform release, starting with nine
screens, only expanded to 330 screens before the studio realized that the lm
was bombing. The lms dual coming-of-age stories (the story of the main
character, Justin, and the story of his parents) seems to be what scared the
marketing people. Mills protested the tactics used for his lm, which eventually spelled its demise of garnering only $1.3 million in a ten-week run.
The marketing thing pissed me off . . . In [the U.S.], its just lumped into this
quirky independent box.72
Hollywood studio executives tend to think that they have captive audiences whose preferences are easily mapped. As Miller et al. write, Marketing executives have already decided that an audience exists for a lm with
the right combination of high playability, clear positioning and abundant
marketability.73 The prevalence of Hollywood specialty studio divisions signals Hollywoods condence that it must simply massage audience tastes to
144
Movies
match company objectives, with less attention to the integrity and quality of
the lmmaker or the lm.
INDEPENDENT TRAILBLAZERS
As we have seen, the lm marketplace is clogged with independent lms
that are produced and distributed by the specialty divisions of major studios. These types of lms dene what should be typically associated with the
concept of independence. Film publicity, and the corresponding infrastructure through which to communicate it, is saturated with certain buzzwords,
symbols, and themes betting independent lms. It starts to matter less if
the lm is actually produced and distributed outside the six major studios
that dominate 94 percent of the domestic box ofce. So where does this leave
lmmakers who do operate completely outside of the studio system? If the
studios effectively decide what lms are shown at most theaters in the country, what outlets do independent lmmakers have? How can they differentiate their lms from the studio-supported independent ones percolating in
every corner of the lm industry, given that the media generally frames them
all to be of the same ilk?
Independent lm has existed alongside, in opposition to, and because of
major studio productions since the very beginning of cinema. Independent
lmmakers have long been driven to alter their production, distribution, and
exhibition practices in order to stand out, only for Hollywood to co-opt them
after the success of these practices has been proven. For example, the economic imperative of lming with consumer-grade digital cameras has translated into digital camerawork in major productions, as seen in lms such
as Click (Frank Coraci, 2006), distributed by Sony Pictures, and Miami Vice
(Michael Mann, 2006), distributed by Universal Pictures. Consequently, this
once economic and aesthetic necessity has mainstreamed to the point that it
no longer is a mark of an independent lm. The use of Web sites and social
networking sites to reach lm audiences has produced a glut of carefully
crafted and highly purposeful online corporate marketing synergies. Because
of Hollywoods constant co-opting of independent techniques, however, independent lmmakers are forced to continue developing new techniques, infrastructures, and tactics, pushing the boundaries, in this case, of traditional
lm marketing and distribution.
The case of Four Eyed Monsters (Susan Buice and Arin Crumley, 2005)
exemplies the willingness of independent lmmakers to pursue innovative modes of marketing and distribution in order to connect with audiences. The lm, which follows the relationship of two shy individuals who
communicate by never directly speaking to each other, has located its audiences primarily, like most independent lms these days, through online
word-of-mouth. After an appearance at the 2006 Slamdance Film Festival
145
(which happens concurrently in Park City, Utah, with Sundance), Buice and
Crumleys hopes of securing a distributor did not pan out. Therefore, they
began to develop their own marketing and distribution plan that was not
contingent on studio (or even independent distribution company) support.
The duo began broadcasting via their lms Web site episodic video podcasts that were effectively extensions of the lm itself. These mini-lms
were paired with music by unsigned musicians and offered via MySpace in
order to initiate cross-promotion, whereby music fans would discover the
lm and vice versa; they have been downloaded over 500,000 times via YouTube, MySpace, and iTunes.74 Soon, the directors decided to premiere the
71-minute Four Eyed Monsters on the video-sharing site, YouTube, becoming
the rst full-length feature to do so.
Their next step involved identifying clusters of interested audiences in
different geographic locations in order to arrange screenings likely to be attended by at least 150 people. Buice and Crumley screened their lm in over
100 cities around the United States after having received requests from over
5,000 people. With their attention now turned toward creating more minilm podcasts and coordinating a DVD release of Four Eyed Monsters, the pair
cannot promise that they themselves will arrange screenings. They do, however, encourage audiences to host screenings. They have relinquished control
over possible nancial gain from these kinds of screenings, merely suggesting: We recommend screenings be free, the lms Web site proposes, but if
money is charged, we ask that half be sent to us via pay pal. And educational
institutions that normally pay lms a screening fee can just send us a check
for the going rate they normally pay to other lms.75 Some of these screenings are arranged through Brave New Theaters, which bills itself as the
worlds rst people-powered movie distributor.76 This free service facilitates networks between lmmakers and venues (both traditional theaters and
nontraditional venues such as churches or universities) in order to arrange
screenings that uh, wreak a little havoc on the corporate media. Everybody
wins! exclaims the Web site. Except the Hollywood studios.77
Buice and Crumley have now aligned with Spout, a lm recommendation
community Web site, in another mutually benecial partnership. For every
person who signs up with Spout.com by way of Four Eyed Monsters recommendation, Spout will donate one dollar to recoup Buice and Crumleys
$100,000 lm production costs (Spout earns most of its revenue from online
DVD sales). The lmmakers have earned over $46,000 as of October 2007.
Although this return is only a portion of the lmmakers nancial outlay, it
presents an alternative model of nancial recouping that is not contingent
on a studio distribution deal. Filmmakers are often paid an advance upon
signing a distribution deal, which may or may not entirely cover production
costs, and they often do not receive any additional money from box ofce
grosses or ancillary sales. Furthermore, lm rights are signed over to the
146
Movies
distributor, therefore rendering lmmakers unable to earn any more money

on the lm if the lm fails from distributor inattention or mishandling.78
Buice and Crumleys model of self-distribution allows them to retain nancial control over the lm while affording them the option to try different
promotional tactics.
Now other lmmakers are following Buice and Crumleys model of lm
marketing and distribution. Independent lmmaker Francis Stokes released
his lm Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman (2002) on YouTube in August
2007; he, too, attracted the attention of Spout, which wants to help lmmakers who are pioneering online distribution.79 The Web site is contributing one dollar to Stokes production expenses for each member signed up
on Spout.com through Stokes recommendation (Stokes had secured nearly
$2,500 as of October 2007). These strategies are in sharp contrast to the
operations of any corporately owned lm distributor, which does not relinquish such control over distribution and exhibition. Films made outside the
studio system count on communities of support, often achieved by handing
over control to audiences and trusting them with it. Since its inception, independent lm has relied on communities of support that gather for the love of
cinema, rather than corporately distributed independent lm that actively
seeks and builds communities through the nancial heft of marketing dollars. The truly independent lm communities might develop as a result of
festival buzz or as a collection of supporters nding and responding to a lm
on YouTube or Spout. Independent lmmakers style of promotion relies
on self-selected communities who stumble across or purposefully seek out
a given lm such as Four Eyed Monsters, rather than having a lm shoved at
them from every conceivable angle.
While these lms may not garner anywhere near similar levels of box ofce grosses as Hollywood releases, lmmakers such as Buice and Crumley
are more interested in circumventing the strictures of the traditional distribution track, thereby paving the way for lmmakers to self-distribute without going broke. Another independent lmmaker, Lance Weiler, established
a sustainable model of theatrical self-distribution for his lm Head Trauma
that hinged on paid speaking engagements, advertising sponsors, and 50/50
door split with small theaters on his lms national tour. He notes that the
current distribution system is broken, which puts lmmaking at a very interesting crossroads. When something is damaged it provides new opportunities.80 Despite Hollywoods best efforts to control the lm industry by
coding their own lms as independent in marketing campaigns, independent lmmakers continue to push the boundaries of what audiences identify
as independent. With each new marketing or distribution tactic, they remove
gatekeeper control out of Hollywood studios hands, at least momentarily, so
that audiences have more agency over the kinds of lms they would like to
see, and lmmakers have more agency over the fates of their lms. Through
147
all these media, comment Buice and Crumley, were having sort of a conversation with our audience. Were becoming friends with people weve never
met.81 These personal relationships are key for independent lmmakers, as
the lmmakers typically do not have the nancial wherewithal to compete
with independent lm marketing materials ooding out of Hollywood. In
fact, some consider their lack of marketing to be the crucial component:
If these lms are hyped, they may be doomed. One of the joys of stumbling upon a charming or sophisticated or funny low-budget . . . lm is just
that, stumbling upon it, whether given to you on DVD by a friend or the
lmmaker himself or walking into one of them unknowingly at a lm festival . . . Id think they need to come at the average viewer like a pleasant
surprise, with as little forethought or anticipation as possible.82
While the preceding quote refers directly to mumblecore lms (lms that
have been deemed part of a new independent lm movement that revels in
low production qualities and casual lmmaking), lm journalist Anthony
Kaufmans sentiments can be extended to much of independent cinema today.
CONCLUSION
Hollywood studios use specialty lm divisions to produce and distribute
independent lms in order to maximize revenue streams by offering lms to
every audience niche. No matter the preference, Hollywood should supply it.
Independent lmmakers have long posed a threat to Hollywoods methods of
conducting business by presenting innovative and often equally effective modes
of lmmaking, and as independent lmmakers discover more techniques that
facilitate the production, distribution, and exhibition of their lms, Hollywood
strives to retain its control by coding its lms as independent. Major studios
release lms under specialty labels that self-identify as independent (witness
Warner Independent Pictures) and follow strict marketing campaigns that foreground a given lms independent qualities. These elements are intended to
connect a given lm with previously released independent lms; they include
fresh or amateur directors, quality acting, quirky or endearing storylines, a
release strategy that includes the festival circuit and platform releasing, and
coveted awards. While this chapter uncovers how Hollywood studios use
these elements for narrative feature lms, it should be noted that another area
ripe for further development is how studios market documentaries, which are
lms traditionally under the helm of independent lmmakers. As documentaries perform increasingly well at the box ofce, Hollywood studios will surely
more explicitly craft marketing campaigns to code these lms in certain ways.
Are these campaigns similar to those of independent lms, or do they contain elements unique to the genre?
148
Movies
We must also consider how Hollywood studios will respond to new marketing and distribution techniques such as those utilized by Susan Buice and Arin
Crumley for Four Eyed Monsters. These lmmakers eschew nancial gain by
offering their lm free-of-charge on YouTube and allowing people to screen
the lm in whatever venue possible all in return for the knowledge that
their lm is nding its audience. Hollywood will likely refuse to relinquish
control over marketing and distribution and will likely still try to co-opt these
techniques somehow, monetizing them for nancial gain. Hollywood studios
may more actively seek out practitioners of alternative lm distribution before
these models prove successful or are popularly adopted, offering opportunities
to work with studios to develop distribution options that continue to favor a
studios interests over those of the lmmakers. However, a studio promise of
prots may still not overcome the lure of retaining rights to ones own creative work and the chance to intimately connect with audiences.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapter was completed with the assistance of a grant from the University of Oregon Canadian Studies Committee, which enabled me to present
a version of this chapter at the 2007 Union for Democratic Communications
conference in Vancouver, Canada.
NOTES
1. Internet Movie Database, Box Ofce/Business for Brokeback Mountain, IMDb.
com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/business (accessed September 30, 2007).
2. David Carr, As Independents Lead Oscars, Credits at Issue, International Herald Tribune, February 2, 2006, 10.
3. Avi Lerner, as told to Nicole Porte, Reality Check: Lerner: Indie Means Risk,
Variety, May 1521, 2006, 16.
4. The Motion Picture Association of America reports that theatrical admissions
declined from $1.64 billion in 2002 to $1.40 billion in 2005, with only a small increase in 2006 to $1.45 billion. Motion Picture Association, U.S. Entertainment Industry: 2006 Market Statistics (Los Angeles: Motion Picture Association Worldwide
Market Research and Analysis, 2006), 6.
5. Motion Picture Association of America, U.S. Entertainment Industry, 1516.
6. A lawsuit led against Brokeback Mountains production company, Focus Features, by one of the lms actors cited a $30 million P&A price tag for the lm, more
than double its production budget. Randy Quaid claimed that he accepted a very
small fee for his role in the lm in order to allow the production to devote its budget
toward the lm. Quaids complaint arose when the lm began to achieve box ofce
success, earning $160 million by the time Quaid led the lawsuit. Sharon Waxman,
Lawsuit over Brokeback Mountain Reveals Unease over Pay for Arthouse Films,
New York Times, March 29, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/movies/
29quaid.html (accessed January 9, 2008).
149
7. Chris Holmlund, Introduction: From the Margins to the Mainstream, in Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream, ed. Chris
Holmlund and Justin Wyatt (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 2.
8. Greg Merritt, Celluloid Mavericks: A History of American Independent Film, (New
York: Thunders Mouth Press, 2000); Peter Biskind, Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax,
Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004).
9. Geoff King, American Independent Cinema (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 2005); Emmanuel Levy, Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film
(New York: New York University Press, 1999); John Pierson, Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes:
A Guided Tour Across a Decade of Independent American Cinema (London: Faber, 1996).
10. SIC 78Motion Pictures, Market Share Reporter, 2005 (Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 2005).
11. Time Warner, Fact Sheet, Time Warner: About Us, http://www.timewarner.
com/corp/aboutus/fact_sheet.html (accessed October 8, 2007).
12. Warner Independent Pictures, About Warner Independent Pictures, Warner
Independent Pictures Web site, http://wip.warnerbros.com (accessed June 11, 2006).
13. Warner Independent Pictures, About Warner.
14. Alisa Perren, A Big Fat Indie Success Story? Press Discourses Surrounding the
Making and Marketing of a Hollywood Movie, Journal of Film and Video 56, no. 2
(2004), 1831.
15. King, American Independent Cinema, 46.
16. Yannis Tzioumakis, American Independent Cinema: An Introduction (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006), 11.
17. Tzioumakis, American Independent Cinema, 282.
18. Frederick Wasser, Veni, Vidi, Video: The Hollywood Empire and the VCR (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2001).
19. Spider-Man 3 Smashes Box Ofce Records, MSNBC.com, May 7, 2007, http://
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18522923/ (accessed October 3, 2007).
20. Internet Movie Database, All-Time USA Box Ofce, IMDb.com, http://www.
imdb.com/boxofce/alltimegross (accessed June 10, 2006).
21. William Booth, Box Ofce Blahs: Blame It on (Fill in the Blank); Reasons for
Slump Are Cinematic in Scope, The Washington Post, December 30, 2005.
22. Box ofce revenue spiked in 2002, hitting $9.52 billion. It has since uctuated
slightly, resting at $9.49 billion for 2006. Motion Picture Association, U.S. Entertainment Industry, 4.
23. Tiiu Lukk, Movie Marketing: Opening a Picture and Giving it Legs (Los Angeles:
Silman-James Press, 1997), 47.
25. Tino Balio, Brigitte Bardot and Hollywoods Takeover of the US Art Film
Market in the 1960s, in Trading Culture: Global Trafc and Local Cultures in Film and
Television (Eastleigh, UK: John Libbey), 192.
26. Lukk, Movie Marketing.
27. D. F. Prindle, Risky Business: The Political Economy of Hollywood (Boulder: Westview, 1993); Justin Wyatt, High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1994).
28. Robert Marich, Marketing to Moviegoers: A Handbook of Strategies Used by Major
Studios and Independents (Burlington, MA: Focal Press, 2005), xii.
150
Movies
29. Marich, Marketing to Moviegoers, 249.

30. Lists of distributed lms were obtained from each studios entry on Internet
Movie Database (imdb.com).
31. Fox Searchlight Pictures, The Studio: About Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox
Searchlight Pictures Web site, http://content.foxsearchlight.com/studio/node/218 (accessed October 4, 2007); 2006 Annual Report, The Walt Disney Company, http://
corporate.disney.go.com/investors/annual_reports/WDC-AR-2006.pdf (accessed
October 4, 2007), 21.
32. Johanna Schneller, Smart Money was on Indies, The Globe and Mail, February 3, 2006, R4.
33. Schneller, Smart Money was on Indies, R4.
34. Stephen Garrett, Critics Diary, Part 1: Zach Braff s Impressive Trip to the
Garden State; Mixed Reactions to Chrystal, Primer, and More, Indiewire.com,
January 18, 2004, http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040118crit.
html (accessed June 10, 2006).
35. Lloyd Sachs, Madsen uncorks vintage performance with new kind of full-bodied
role, The Chicago Sun-Times, January 9, 2005; Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Wine-Country
Trip Uncorks Friendships Quirky Complexity, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
November 5, 2004.
36. Ty Burr, Sunshine Warms with Dark Laughs, The Boston Globe, August 4,
2006, D1; Mary McNamara, Sneaks/The List; Little Miss Sunshine; Putting Dysfunction to the Road Test, The Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2006, E35.
37. Daniel B. Wood and Gloria Goodale, Moviegoers to Hollywood: Make it Real,
Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2006, 1.
38. A. O. Scott, News in Black, White and Shades of Gray, The New York Times,
September 23, 2005, E1.
39. Steve Persall, A Good Day for the Good Guys, St. Petersburg Times, November 3, 2005, 11W.
40. Lukk, Movie Marketing, 114.
41. Patrick Barkham, Ive Won the Indie Film Lottery: Zach Braff has Graduated
from Star of Scrubs to Writer and Director of His Own Hit Film, The Guardian,
November 12, 2004.
42. Brian Brooks, Garden State Sows a Bountiful Box Ofce Debut, Indiewire.com,
August 4, 2004, http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_040804boxofce.html (accessed
June 10, 2006).
43. Zach Braff, Stir Crazy in French Canada, Zach Braff s Garden State Blog,
May 24, 2005, http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/blog/index.html (accessed June 11,2006).
44. Barkham, Ive Won the Indie Film Lottery.
45. Barkham, Ive Won the Indie Film Lottery.
46. Sharon Waxman, A Small Film Nearly Left for Dead Has Its Day in the Sundance Rays, The New York Times, January 23, 2006, E1; Jim Schembri, The Little
Film That Could, The Age (Melbourne), October 13, 2006, 2.
47. Christie Lemire, Little Miss Sunshine is an Indie Treat, MSNBC.com, http://
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14013775/ (accessed October 5, 2007).
151
48. Ann Thompson, Clooneys Good Luck; Actor Picks Up Six Golden Globe
Noms, The Toronto Sun, December 31, 2005, 56.
49. Schneller, Smart Money was on Indies, R4.
50. Forbes reports that of the top 20 best-paid actors and actresses in 2005, only four
have ever received Academy Awards. Lacey Rose, The Worlds Best-Paid Actors
and Actresses, Forbes.com, February 23, 2006, http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/23/
best-paid-actors_cx_lr_0223actors.html (accessed January 10, 2008).
51. Mary McNamara, The Life of Hollywood; Behind the Smile; The Good Looks
Arent Why Greg Kinnear Gets a Wide Variety of Roles, The Los Angeles Times,
July 17, 2006, E1.
52. Sharon Waxman, Lovely When Necessary, But Vulnerable Always, The New
York Times, May 7, 2006, Section 2A, 3.
53. Margy Rochlin, Dry as Ever, Shrugging at Hollywood, The New York Times,
January 7, 2007, Section 2A, 7.
54. M. E. Russell, Slipping Sideways Toward an Oscar, The Oregonian, January 29, 2005.
55. John Clark, To Promote Unusual Films, Try Uncommon Marketing, The New
York Times, January 16, 2006, C5.
58. Waxman, A Small Film, E1.
60. Schembri, The Little Film That Could, 2.
61. Internet Movie Database, Box Ofce/Business for Little Miss Sunshine, IMDb.
com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449059/business (accessed October 5, 2007).
62. Internet Movie Database, Business Data for Garden State, IMDb.com, http://
www.imdb.com/title/tt0333766/business (accessed June 11, 2006).
63. Internet Movie Database, Business Data for Sideways, IMDb.com, http://www.
imdb.com/title/tt0375063/business (accessed June 11, 2006).
64. Internet Movie Database, Business Data for King Kong, IMDb.com, http://
www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business (accessed June 11, 2006).
65. Film Independent, Independent Spirit Awards, Film Independent Web site,
http://www.lmindependent.org/index.php/independent_spirit_awards (accessed
June 12, 2006); Film Independent, FAQs, Film Independent Web site, http://www.
lmindependent.org/index.php/independent_spirit_awards/submit_your_lm (accessed October 5, 2007).
66. Will Keck and Donna Freydkin, Oh, What an Expletive Deleted Night; Thats
the Spirit Awards, USA Today, March 6, 2006; Richard Rusheld, It All Depends
What You Mean By Independent, The New York Times, January 23, 2005.
67. Richard Rusheld, It All Depends What You Mean By Independent, The
New York Times, January 23, 2005.
68. AMC Theatres, AMC Select, 2007, http://www.amctheatres.com/amctheatres/
user-controller/select (accessed October 5, 2007).
69. Lorenza Munoz, AMC to Exhibit Specialty Films, The Los Angeles Times, May 2,
2006.
152
Movies
70. Internet Movie Database, Business Data for The Three Burials of Melquiades
Estrada. IMDb.com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419294/business (accessed
June 11, 2006).
71. Pascale Wyse, G2: Culture: This Film is Unmarketable: Mike Mills Signed Up
Keanu Reeves, Tilda Swinton and Vince Vaughn for his First Feature. And Still No
One Wanted to Fund It, The Guardian, October 25, 2005, 21.
72. Wyse, G2: Culture, 21.
73. Toby Miller et al., Global Hollywood (London: BFI Publishing, 2001), 157.
74. Eugene Hernandez, DIY Distribution: Coming Soon Via the Filmmakers . . .
Four Eyed Monsters and Head Trauma, indieWIRE Insider, August 16, 2006,
http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2006/08/diy_distributio_1.html (accessed October 8,
2007).
75. Susan Buice and Arin Crumley, Four Eyed MonstersRequest the Film and
Join Our Mailing List, Four Eyed Monsters Web site, http://foureyedmonsters.com/
request_lm/ (accessed October 6, 2007).
76. Brave New Theaters Web site, http://bravenewtheaters.com/ (accessed October 6,
2007).
77. What Filmmakers Can Do with Brave New Theaters, Brave New Theaters Web
site, http://bravenewtheaters.com/lmmakers (accessed October 6, 2007).
78. John W. Cones notes that independent lm producers are often highly disadvantaged in the structuring of distribution deals due to misleading or unclear contractual terms and creative accounting procedures. John W. Cones, The Feature Film
Distribution Deal: A Critical Analysis of the Single Most Important Film Industry Agreement (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997), 35.
79. Francis Stokes, Spout Web site, 2007, http://www.spout.com/francisstokes
80. Lance Weiler, DIY Workbook Project and a Best Buy Promotion, Indie Features
(ex Indie Features 06), November 9, 2006, http://indiefeatures06.blogspot.com/2006/
11/diy-workbook-project-best-buy.html (accessed January 10, 2008).
81. Barbara Gibson, Four Eyed Monsters: From Podcasts to Theaters, Apple Hot
News, 2007, http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2006/09/foureyedmonsters/
82. Anthony Kaufman, Why Mumblecore Shouldnt Be Hyped, Anthony Kaufmans
blog, August 22, 2007, http://blogs.indiewire.com/anthony/archives/014434.html
(accessed January 9, 2008).
chapter 9
Entertainment in the Margins

of the American Film Industry:
Orion Pictures Presents a Filmhaus
Production of a David Mamet Film
Yannis Tzioumakis
This chapter examines the business of entertainment in the vibrant independent sector of the American lm industry. Since the early 1980s, this
formerly marginal sector of American cinema has been responsible for the
production of a large number of aesthetically and politically challenging
lms that have found considerable commercial exposure, to the extent that
several critics have talked of an independent movement within Hollywood
cinema.1 By the end of the 1980s, this movement had become a sizeable force
in American cinema as the incredible commercial success of sex, lies, and videotape (Soderbergh, 1989), the popularization of Sundance Film Festival, and
the rise of Miramax as the quintessential distribution company of independent fare brought low-budget lms by (mostly) young lmmakers and made
away from the majors much closer to a mainstream audience.
Since then, the label independent has been claimed by a large number of lms, lmmakers, producers, production companies, and distribution
companies as it was seen to connote a particular brand of quality that was
perceived as absent from the considerably more rened (and expensive) but
impersonal mainstream Hollywood productions.2 As a result, it became increasingly difcult to dene what an independent lm is, while even major
productions have been keen to play up the independent card, such as The
Aviator (Scorsese, 2005) which, according to its producer, was the biggest
154
Movies
independent movie ever made, unless you count Lord of the Rings.3 Not surprisingly then, the business of entertainment in the independent sector became a blurry subject, especially when the majors created subsidiaries (the
Classics divisions) rstly to make prot from non-American art house lms
but later with the explicit purpose of claiming a piece of the American independent lm market. With companies such as United Artists Classics, Sony
Pictures Classics, and Fox Searchlight distributing and (later) nancing famous independent lms such as Lianna (Sayles, 1983), Safe (Haynes, 1995),
and Boys Dont Cry (Peirce, 1999), respectively, it became incredibly difcult
to argue that these companies are not part of the institutional apparatus of
American independent cinema, despite the fact that their corporate parents
are conglomerates with massive nancial power and the companies against
which independent cinema often denes itself.4
Even though these developments have been shaping the independent sector in recent years, especially post-1989, they were nevertheless anticipated
to a great extent by the practices and conduct of business of Orion Pictures, a
motion picture company that went into business in the late 1970s. As Ive argued elsewhere, Orion is an exceptional case in the American lm industry.5
Originally an independent production company attached to a major studio
(Warner), Orion quickly left the major and entered the lm distribution business, becoming an independent production and distribution company that
nanced productions in-house while also purchasing distribution rights of
lms from other independent production companies. This means that Orion
plied its trade across the independent spectrum (nancing, commissioning,
purchasing distribution rights, and distributing) as this had been emerging
in the 1980s, while it was also one of the rst companies to form a classics
division, Orion Classics, in 1983. For that reason it makes an excellent case
study to understand the direction(s) the business of lmmaking took within
the context of contemporary American independent cinema.
The main focal point will be the production history of House of Games
(Mamet, 1987), one of the low-budget lms Orion nanced and distributed
but that was produced by Filmhaus Productions, the production company of
respected independent producer Michael Hausman (with producing credits
in Silkwood [Nichols, 1983] and The People vs Larry Flint [Forman, 1996]).
What makes House of Games an interesting example is that the lm was made
by a rst-time director and was also characterized by a distinctive aesthetic,
in line with what audiences have come to anticipate from an indie lm.
As our discussion will demonstrate, the distinct aesthetic effects the lm
conveyed, which were the product of an unusual narrative construction and
use of visual style, must be rstly attributed to the fact that the lm was
conceived, developed, produced, and distributed away from the majors, which
would never allow a lm such as House of Game to become the lm it became. On the other hand, Orion could. Specically, the companys practice
Entertainment in the Margins of the American Film Industry
155
of preselling the rights for its lms to raise production nance so that Orion
would not put its own money in line and the companys legendary reputation
for being always open to the offbeat or serious idea and sensitive to lmmakers created an institutional arrangement that allowed a rst-time lm
director, such as Mamet, unprecedented freedom to make his lm according
to his own very specic aesthetic vision.6
Following this arrangement, Mamet and Filmhaus organized the production of the lm in a way that differs substantially from the dominant mode
of production that has characterized mainstream American cinema from its
early days and has remained generally unaltered post-1960, despite several
changes in the industry.7 As a sort of preface, I cite Mamets statement on his
experience as the director of House of Games: what a joy to be on a project
that was not a collaboration, a comment that can be read as a direct criticism
of the hierarchy entailed in the detailed division of labor that characterizes
the mode of production of mainstream classical lms. Instead, Mamet and
Filmhaus utilized a somewhat less hierarchical model, one that has a long
standing tradition in independent lmmaking since John Cassavetes revolutionized the sector in the late 1950s and that continues to our times.
Before examining the institutional conguration that the phrase Orion
Pictures Presents a Filmhaus Production of a David Mamet Film signies,
a brief discussion of what independent lmmaking actually is and how it
evolved alongside mainstream cinema is in need.
INDEPENDENT FILMMAKING
AND AMERICAN CINEMA
Independent lm production has always coexisted alongside studio production in American cinema and has taken many forms and functions. For
instance, during the studio years (mid-1920s to late 1940s) the label independent could be attached to prestige-level pictures made by producers such
as Samuel Goldwyn, Walt Disney, and David O. Selznick who used United
Artists (and later other companies) to release lms they made through their
respective production companies. Among these independent lms one could
nd lms such as Wuthering Heights (Wyler, 1939) and The Best Years of Our
Lives (Wyler, 1946), lms widely considered mainstream Hollywood productions under the studio system, which nevertheless were produced by Samuel
Goldwyn through his independent company and distributed by United Artists and RKO, respectively.
The same label, however, could also be attached to low-budget pictures
(such as the singing cowboy western Rainbow Over Texas [F. McDonald,
1946]) produced and distributed by Poverty Row studios such as Republic
Pictures or Edgar G. Ulmers famed B noir Detour (1945) produced and released by Producers Releasing Corporation and destined for the low part of
156
Movies
double bills in the 1930s and 1940s. The label independent could also be attached to ultra-low-budget lms that targeted the various ethnic populations
in America, which were produced, distributed, and exhibited mainly outside
the California-based lm industry. Oscar Micheuxs lms such as Within Our
Gates (1920) and Body and Soul (1925), which were made completely outside
Hollywood and targeted black audiences, are characteristic examples of this
type of independent cinema.8
During the 1940s and 1950s, however, a cluster of sociocultural factors
including demographic shifts (especially the wave of suburbanization), the
rise of consumer culture, and the consolidation of television as the primary
entertainment medium had been gradually shaping an American society
with an increasing number of leisure options. With theater attendance declining constantly since 1947 (despite the studios attempts to emphasize the
cinema experience through the introduction of widescreen technologies in
the early 1950s), it was clear that cinema-going became a secondary activity in postwar America.9 All these factors led to an industrial and economic
restructuring in the American lm industry, the main manifestation of which
can be seen in the dissolution of the studio system, the concentration of the
majors on the production of fewer but more expensive lms, and on the strict
control of the distribution sector.
These changes in the industry changed the format of independent lmmaking. Since the 1950s, prestige-level, top--rank independent production
became increasingly dependent to the majors as they adopted this type of
production after the dissolution of the studio system and were happy to concentrate on nancing and distributing while letting other, smaller corporate
entities deal with the production process. Films such as The Deant Ones
(Kramer, 1958) and Spartacus (Kubrick, 1960) were nanced and distributed
by majors (United Artists and Universal, respectively) but were produced by
companies owned by Stanley Kramer and Kirk Douglas, respectively. Equally,
low-end independent lmmaking continued to exist in the somewhat different form of exploitation lmmaking that companies such as AIP, Dimension,
New World Pictures, and lmmakers such as William Castle and Roger Corman practiced from the 1950s onwards. Furthermore, hubs of independent
lmmaking activity continued to exist outside California, such as the New
American Cinema Group that was based in New York and emphasized an
anti-Hollywood approach to lm production and distribution. John Cassavetes, an extremely inuential independent lmmaker, started his career as
part of the group but quickly distanced himself from lmmakers such as
John Mekas, Edward Bland, and Lionel Rogosin who were pulled toward the
noncommercial avant-garde cinema.
Some of these trends continued largely unaltered to our times. For instance, one could argue that Titanic (1997), a lm that epitomizes mainstream Hollywood production at its most excessive, is an independent lm
157
because it was produced by James Camerons Lightstorm Entertainment

and nanced and distributed by Fox and Paramount, much like Spartacus
in the 1960s.10 And the same can be suggested for low-budget exploitation
lmmaking, which found new avenues of nancing with the advent of new
distribution and exhibition technologies (video, cable, Pay TV, satellite and,
recently, DVD and the Internet), which have made certain lm genres (horror, pornographic, martial arts lms) very cheap to make and with guaranteed distribution in the video and cable market.
The advent of new distribution outlets, however, became benecial for another format of independent lmmaking, which lay a much stronger claim
to the label independent than the other formats. The introduction of all those
distribution technologies signaled the creation of new exhibition outlets, all
of which needed sufcient product to operate cost-effectively. At a time when
the majors were distributing just over 100 lms a year on average, it was clear
that demand for lms would be staggering. Exploiting their existing lm libraries (licensing their old lms for exhibition in the cable and video markets)
was one of the main measures the majors took, but the demand was mainly
for new product. This became particularly evident in the mid-1980s when the
home video market showed a tremendous growth (from 1,850,000 VCR sets
in 78,000,000 households [2.4% penetration] in 1980, the number reached
32,000,000 in 87,400,000 households [37.2% penetration] in 1986, on the way
to 67.6% penetration three years later). With pay cable subscriptions exceeding slightly the numbers of VCRs in 1986 (32,500,000 subscriptions), it was
clear that any lm producer stood a good chance to have their lm released in
one or more of the nontheatrical markets, often regardless of the lms quality
and regardless of whether the lm received theatrical distribution.11
With the majors increasingly focusing on the production of a handful of
blockbusters per year, it was left to independent production to come up with
the rest of the product required to sustain the majors immense distribution
pipelines, cater for the various tastes of different audiences, and generally
support the lm market in this time of expansion. The mid-1980s, in particular, witnessed a substantial rise in independent lm production that provided
the necessary diversity of product that the majors were in no position to
supply. With ample production nance available primarily via the preselling of home video (and in most cases, cable) rights to numerous new distributors, which were established to exploit specically these highly unusual
circumstances (Vestron, Vidmark, Full Moon, etc. in the video area; HBO,
Showtime in cable), independent lm production became responsible for a
huge variety of lms.12 This diverse production fed the majors distribution
apparatus but also catered for distinct niche markets such as the art-house
market or different minority markets.
The good market conditions for independent lmmaking reached a major
threshold in 1989. That year and largely due to the hype surrounding Steven
158
Movies
Soderberghs sex, lies, and videotape, as well as other participating lms such
as True Love (Savoka) and Heathers (Lehmann), the until-then little-known
U.S. Film Festival became headlining news. With the Sundance Film Institute also achieving public visibility and with companies such as New Line
Cinema and Miramax scoring incredible box ofce gures with small, idiosyncratic lms such as House Party (Hudlin, 1990) and sex, lies, and videotape, independent cinema stopped being associated entirely with low-budget,
esoteric lms for the art-house market. It suddenly became commercial and
therefore an attractive proposition for all kinds of industry practitioners and,
of course, for the majors.
The company that exploited these new conditions better than anyone was
Miramax. Although Miramax existed since the late 1970s as a distribution
company of mostly foreign art lms, the success of sex, lies, and videotape,
which Miramax distributed theatrically, put the company rmly on the map.
For a short period of time the company operated primarily through purchases of distribution rights of lms from the increasing number of festivals
that showcased the new American independent lms. Since the mid-1990s,
though, Miramax adopted the Orion model and proceeded in the nance
of lms that other independent companies would produce. In this manner
Miramax was able to cultivate relationships with successful lmmakers such
as Anthony Minghella, Quentin Tarantino, and Kevin Smith. However, unlike Orion, which maintained its corporate autonomy throughout its history,
Miramax accepted a conglomerate takeover by Disney in 1993, becoming
then one of the major independents . . . hybrid production and distribution
companies that were allowed a large degree of creative autonomy after they
were taken over by a conglomerate parent.13
With Disneys backing Miramax dominated the market while independent
production ourished under two more systems. The rst was under the auspices of independent distributors, the number of whichnot surprisingly
multiplied after 1989. The vast majority of these distributors (such as Cinecom
and October) were not in the business of nance and production and therefore operated strictly through purchasing distribution rights of completed
lms (much like the way Miramax operated before the takeover by Disney).
The second system was under the aegis of the classics divisions. Originally,
the classics were subsidiaries established by the majors to distribute nonAmerican lms in the United States as certain European art lms such as
Truffauts La Dernier Metro ( The Last Metro) and Beineixs Diva made rentals
of $1.9 million and $2 million in 1980 and 1981, respectively, demonstrating
clearly the potential for prot in that market.14
Soon, however, the classics started buying the distribution rights of
American independent lms and, in effect, competing against Miramax and
the independent distributors for product. By the mid-1990s, the competition
had reached such levels that soon the classics divisions (with the backup of
159
their parent companies) followed Miramaxs example and started nancing

lms that were independent in spirit, something that independent distributors were in no position of doing because no independent, with the possible
exception of Lions Gate, had a nancial base wide enough to nance productions that cost up to $15 million like Fox Searchlight could without even having to ask for permission from 20th Century-Fox, its parent company.15
By the end of the 1990s and early 2000s there was so much indie product in the market that the label started losing its appeal. As Variety reported,
after a decade of inated expectations met with erratic B.O. returns indie
has lost much of its rugged appeal. Its become shorthand for movies that are
small in concept, werent produced with the bottom line in mind and were
released by companies that are going out of business.16 But even if the label
started losing its cache, and other appellations such as niche or specialty
started being used instead, the existence of an exceptionally large number
of exhibition platforms (including television channels that exclusively screen
independent lms such as the IFC Channel and the Sundance Channel) that
are in constant need of product ensured that independent lms were still
business as usual.
Despite being made in the late 1980s and before the watershed year of
1989, the production background of House of Games demonstrates a number of characteristics that anticipated the direction independent cinema took.
Specically, the lm was produced by an independent company, Filmhaus,
after the company secured nancing (approximately $56 million) by an independent distributor, Orion Pictures.17 Orion raised the nancing through
the preselling of the distribution rights of the lm (domestic cable and Pay
TV, foreign theatrical, foreign video), in effect securing exhibition for a lm
with a rst-time director, no stars, and no other selling point. To explain
why this was not a uke but part of the business practices of the most successful independent company of the 1980s, we need now to turn our attention to Orion Pictures.
THE ORION PICTURES FACTOR
Orion Pictures belongs to a particular group of distribution companies
that competed with the established powers for much of the 1980s.18 Along
with Cannon, the De Laurentis Entertainment Group, and Miramax, Orion
Pictures entered the lm business as a production company at a time when
demand for feature lms had been increasing due to the proliferation of distribution outlets, especially cable and video. The company was formed in
1978 by a group of exUnited Artists executives headed by Arthur Krim and
Robert Benjamin who disagreed with the policies imposed by Transamerica,
United Artists parent company. Almost immediately, Orion established a distribution deal with Warner who set up a $90 million nancing arrangement
160
Movies
for the newly formed company.19 The deal saw Orion becoming Warners
(and Hollywoods) rst satellite lm production company in the same
way that Warners music division had a number of satellite labels (Warner/
Reprise, Atlantic, Elektra, and Asylum) under its orbit; labels that were autonomous in terms of management and creative decisions but that had to use
Warners distribution apparatus to put their product in the market.
Although the arrangement between Warner and Orion, with its substantial nancing and its seemingly favorable terms, gave the ve executives an
excellent opportunity to re-enter the lm business at a time when the average negative cost for a lm was still relatively low, it nevertheless proved to
be problematic for both partners. Questions of authority and control over
Orions projects were raised even within the rst six months of the partnership.20 Marketing and distribution, in particular, became a moot point in the
two companies conduct of business as Warner had the ultimate say in such
matters. Thus Orion-produced lms with some box ofce potential did not
manage to nd an audience partly because of the way they were handled
upon their release by the major, such as A Little Romance (G. R. Hill, 1979),
a love story that featured Laurence Olivier and, especially, The Great Santini
(L. J Carlino, 1979), a gritty drama with Robert Duvall that was released on
three different occasions with modied marketing campaigns.
Furthermore, Warners foreign distribution ofces were empowered to
veto the release of Orions lms if they thought that they would not perform
well in specic markets, which could deprive Orion of potential prots.21
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Orion was not in a position to deliver
Warner the stratospheric prots that the expensive, effects-laden, action/
adventure-oriented lms were bringing to the other majors. With Orions
line of credit set at $90 million, it was obvious that the company could not
afford to make such lms. As a matter of fact, Orion had to pass on Raiders
of the Lost Ark (Spielberg, 1981) due to its high cost and the principal players demands from the lms gross.22 As a result, the deal between the two
companies lasted only four years (19781981). During the period, Orion produced 23 lms for the major with only 2 box ofce hits, 10 (Edwards, 1979)
and Arthur (Gordon, 1981).23
After the termination of the contract in 1981, Orion made the decision to
venture into the distribution business by taking over Filmways, an independent distributor that had emerged through a merger between American International Pictures and Filmways in 1978. With a distribution apparatus in
place and a library of more than 800 titles from Filmways that could be exploited in the video and cable markets, Orion proceeded to make a number of
deals to raise production and marketing funds. Strictly adhering to a philosophy of minimum economic risks,24 the company started preselling the ancillary distribution rights of its upcoming lms to a number of parties. These
deals included an agreement with RCA/Columbia for foreign theatrical and
161
video rights; with HBO for cable and pay-TV rights; with Vestron for home
video rights; and agreements with foreign distributors, some of which were
willing to buy the whole Orion roster of lms (in the area of 8 to 12 lms per
year). With the receipts from theatrical distribution in the U.S. market and
the funds from preselling the rights of its lms in all other ancillary markets,
Orion accumulated substantial capital to self-nance lms for theater and
television exhibition and therefore start competing directly with the majors.
By early 1985 the company was in a position to nance and distribute at
least one picture per month and, in the words of Eric Pleskow, the companys
president and CEO, to be as voluminous a supplier of motion pictures to the
world as any other company.25
Arguably, the most important deal Orion made during the rst half of the
1980s was with HBO. The spectacularly successful pay cable channel had
already become one of Orions main stockholders when the latter went public, acquiring 8.5 percent of the company and providing the main nancial
pillar of Orion throughout the period from 1982 to 1985, which saw a series
of deals between the two companies, bringing substantial capital to Orion.26
The partnership was further extended in February 1985 when HBO and
Orion signed new deals according to which the former acquired the nonexclusive pay cable rights for the next 14 Orion lms as well as the domestic
home video rights to 40 lms from Orions (ex-AIP, ex-Filmways) library.
According to Variety, only the 1985 deals with HBO brought Orion funds
within the region of $50$75 million, bringing up the level of total revenue
that the company generated from its partnership with HBO (since 1982) in
excess of $150 million.27 As a result Orion was able to self-nance a record 17
pictures scheduled for release in 1986, including Mamets debut feature.28
Very early, Orion Pictures established a reputation for making quality
lms,29 for being a sanctuary for creative lmmakers,30 and for nourishing chancy, low-budget properties.31 If one takes a look at the Orion library
of titles, one will nd critically acclaimed lms by Woody Allen (all his lms
from Midsummer Nights Sex Comedy [1982] to Shadows and Fogs [1992]),
as well as Milos Formans Amadeus (1983), Francis Ford Coppolas Cotton
Club (1984), Alan Parkers Mississippi Burning (1988), and Jonathan Demmes
Something Wild (1986) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991). One would also
nd Paul Verhoevens rst American feature, Robocop (1987), Oliver Stones
Platoon (1986) and Kevin Costners Oscar-ridden Dances with Wolves (1990).
In 1987, Orion Pictures demonstrated a remarkable achievement for an
independent company by capturing the largest share in the American lm
market.32 Three of its 1986 lms, Platoon, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Hoosiers, received 18 Academy Award nominations collectively and shared
6 Oscars. Platoons domestic gross surpassed the $100 million benchmark,
and the company invested bigger sums in its 19871988 releases. Furthermore, it established a new distribution arm for the American home video
162
Movies
market (Orion Home Entertainment) and ventured in the television market

with the very successful series Cagney and Lacey. Additionally, Orion Classics,
a semiautonomous division Orion had set up in 1984 to distribute mostly nonU.S. lms, had two big hits in Claude Berris Jean de Florette (1986) and Manon
des Sources (1986), which together grossed $10 million in the U.S. box ofce.
Orion, however, did not manage to repeat the success of 1987. Excessive
spending (by the companys standards) and a series of ops culminating in
the extremely poor $459,000 gross of The House on Carroll Street (Yates, 1988)
brought Orion back to a normal 4.2 percent in 1989 and 5.6 percent of the
American lm market share in 1990. The nancial success of the 1990 western Dances with Wolves raised Orions stake to 8.5 percent in 1991.33 However, even though Orion Pictures managed to repeat the success of Costners
lm in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, a lm that also scooped all ve
major Oscars in March 1992, it nally went bankrupt in November 1991. Its
library of titles was subsequently bought by Kirk Kerkorian, already owner
of the M-G-M and United Artists lm libraries.
This brief account of the history of Orion Pictures reveals certain interesting issues regarding the industrial/economic background of House
of Games. The rst important parameter is that the lm was nanced by a
company that was considered to be friendly toward creative lmmakers and
consequently thought to exercise minimum control over the creation process
or, at least, less control compared to the traditional majors. As Mike Medavoy, Orions head of worldwide production, stated, Mamets body of work
as a playwrightSexual Perversity in Chicago, American Buffalo and Glengarry
Glen Ross was reason enough for us to give him a shot at directing.34 Secondly, it is clear that the lm was produced during the most successful period of Orions history (19861987), a fact that potentially reinforced the
degree of freedom Mamet enjoyed during the production of the lm. Finally,
through the distribution deals with HBO, RCA/Columbia, and various foreign distributors, Orion not only managed to provide the full budget for the
lm with zero nancial risk for themselves but also to secure exhibition both
in the United States and abroad for a feature with no established director or
marketable stars. With global distribution and exhibition secure and with
a nancerdistributor not in the business of interfering with the [production] process the lmmaker was in a position to make the lm according to
hisvery specicvision and hence avoid potential compromises in creative
decisions.35
Unlike lmmakers such as Jim Jarmusch, Joel and Ethan Coen, or Gus Van
Sant, who retained creative control of their rst movies through independent
nancing and sometimes self-distribution,36 Mamet managed to achieve this
rare feat (for a $5 million production) within the independent structure of
Orion Pictures presents a Filmhaus production of a David Mamet lm.
163
FIRST-TIME FILM DIRECTOR

Prior to House of Games, Mamet had already achieved fame in Hollywood
with two star vehicle scripts for big studios. The rst was an adaptation
of the James M. Cain novel The Postman Always Rings Twice (1934) for the
Lorimar/M-G-M production of Bob Rafelsons same-titled lm (1981) with
Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange. The second script was also an adaptation,
this time of Barry Reeds novel The Verdict, for the Fox production of Sidney Lumets The Verdict (1982) with Paul Newman. Mamet was nominated
for an Oscar for his work on the second script in the 19821983 Academy
Awards. The critical and commercial success of these lms and of a string
of off-Broadway and foreign productions of some of his plays,37 which culminated in the presentation of the Pulitzer Prize for Best American Play to
Glengarry Glen Ross in 1984, provided Mamet with substantial clout, which
he subsequently used for achieving his objective, to make the transition from
playwright and screenwriter to lm director.
In 1985, Mamet began to work on two scripts. One was an assignment
for Paramount, The Untouchables (De Palma, 1987), loosely based on the successful television series of the same title. The second was a screenplay based
on a short story written by himself and Jonathan Katz under the working
title The Tell, which later became House of Games. His decision to direct the
latter himself stemmed in many ways from a wish to retain the copyright of
his written work in the medium of cinema. Accustomed to authorship rights
in the terrain of theater, where he enjoyed a much greater fame, and as his
screenwriting reputation was growing stronger, Mamet became more sensitive to the issue of defense of his intellectual property in his cinema career. In
particular, the fate of Sexual Perversity in Chicago (1974), the rst adaptation
of one of his early plays, which hit the screens as About Last Night . . . (Zwick,
1986) and had very little to do with the themes and the spirit of his original
play, provided the spark in Mamets desire to make the leap behind the camera.38 As Mamet put it in one of his essays:
I have never been much good as a team player or employee, and it was difcult for me to adjust to a situation where because I say so was insufcient
explanation. When you write for the stage, you retain the copyright. The
work is yours and no one can change a word without your permission.
When you write for the screen you are a laborer hired to turn out a product, and that product can be altered at the whim of those who employ you.
(original italics)39
As his work on the script for The Untouchables continued and in the wake
of creative differences with Art Linson and Brian De Palma (the screenwriter
had submitted four drafts of the screenplay, but the producer and director of
164
Movies
the lm wanted further changes),40 Mamets interest in directing House of

Games led him to reject packages that gave him the screenwriters credit but
stipulated the appointment of an already established lmmaker to direct the
lm. These proposals mainly originated from big studios and included the
complementary terms of a big-budget production and the signing of stars
for the two central roles of Margaret and Mike.41 The studios reluctance to
nance an expensive production headed by an individual who was driven by
his wish to maintain control of his work as a writer can be mainly understood
as a refusal to grant a rst-time writerdirector the nal cut of the lm, a
condition that was nonnegotiable for Mamet.
Mamets persistence in this issue, which, apart from his views about copyright, can be explained by the major role language plays in his plays and
screenplays, essentially left him with one option, to nance and produce the
lm independently. This option generally entails certain fundamental characteristics that shape the production of a lm in very specic ways, especially
during the mid-1980s when independent production had started ourishing but had yet to reach the frenzy of the late 1980s and early 1990s. These
characteristics include: low budget, unknown actors, nancial insecurity, and
often, no guaranteed distribution. Those features, however, are counterbalanced by the considerably higher degree of freedom a lmmaker enjoys as
opposed to studio-controlled lm production. It is not surprising then that
Mamet chose to go independent because in his opinion good moviemaking
require[d] not conspicuous expenditure but disciplined imagination.42
Mamets decision to reject studio packages and embrace independent lmmaking to maintain control of his written material paved the way for other
playwrightscreenwriters who also made the leap to directing. A year after
Mamet, Sam Shepards rst feature as a writerdirector, the rural drama
Far North (1988), was also produced independently (a collaboration between
Circle JS Productions and Nelson Entertainmentthe latter an independent
production company specializing in horror lms that had decided to branch
out to prestige drama) and distributed by Alive Films, a short-lived distributor of the 1980s. Shepard chose a similar arrangement for his second (and
for the time being last) directorial effort, the western Silent Tongue (1994),
which was produced as a collaborative project by three independent companies (Mire, Belbo Films, and the French Canal+) and distributed by Trimark
Pictures, a company in the mold of Orion that went out of business in 2000
and whose library of titles is now controlled by the largest contemporary independent production and distribution company in U.S. cinema, Lions Gate
Entertainment.
Equally, Neil La Bute, the only American playwright besides Mamet with
a signicant lmmaking career, had his rst lm, the controversial drama In
the Company of Men (1997), produced independently (by Canadian-based Alliance Atlantis) and distributed by Sony Pictures Classics, the classics division
165
that has traditionally enjoyed the largest degree of autonomy from its parent
company, Sony Pictures.43 More generally, for writerdirectors who wanted
to retain creative control over their lms, independent lmmaking was the
only option, and Mamets deal with Orion and Filmhaus became a formula
that was copied in the future.
A FILMHAUS PRODUCTION OF A
DAVID MAMET FILM
The independent producer whom Mamet approached with the script for
House of Games was Michael Hausman. Until 1986, and via his company
Filmhaus, Hausman had been associated with a variety of lms spanning
from key independently nanced and released features such as Alambrista!
(Young, 1977) and Heartland (Pearce, 1980) to independently produced but
studio-nanced and distributed lms such as Mikey and Nicky (May, 1976)
and Places in the Heart (Benton, 1984). Hausmans credits, furthermore, extended to other areas of lm production such as production manager in The
Heartbreak Kid (May, 1972) and as second unit or assistant director in lms
such as Rich Kids (Young, 1979), Hair (Forman, 1979), Silkwood (Nichols,
1984), and Desert Bloom (Corr, 1986).
Hausmans experience in the lm production business and his knowledge
of the craft of lmmaking were instrumental in Mamets attempt as a rsttime director. As Mamet himself has documented in one of his essays, Hausman was the driving force behind the organization of the lms production.
Strictly adhering to the axiom all mistakes are made in preproduction,44
the producer ensured the smooth operation of the lms production by planning carefully the stage of principal cinematography and by developing a
close working relationship with the director.45 Hausman also received another credit in the lm as a second assistant director, helping Mamet with
the technical aspect of the lm, an aspect to which Mamet admitted complete ignorance prior to shooting House of Games.46 Furthermore, Hausman
secured nancing and distribution by making a deal with Orion Pictures
who advanced the money by preselling the lms rights to a cable distributor (Home BoxOfce) and to foreign theatrical distributors on an individual
basis.47
Although the role of Michael Hausman was fundamental in these areas of
the production of House of Games, further evidence suggests that the lms
mode of production was not a clear instance of the package-unit system that
typied Hollywood cinema since the 1950s. According to this system of lm
production:
A producer organised a lm project: he or she secured nancing and combined the necessary laborers (whose roles had been previously dened by
166
Movies
the standardised production structure and subdivision of work categories)

and the means of production (the narrative property, the equipment and
the physical sites of production).48
Even though Hausmans work in securing nancing and arranging the

means of production generally conforms to this denition of the package,
there are certain elementsspecic to the productionthat indicate transgressions from this denition. This is especially at the level of the division of
labor and the role of the director in the overall organization of the production.
Before discussing the exact nature of those transgressions and the ways they
have shaped the production of the lm, we need to examine the properties of
the House of Games package.
The main ingredients of the package, gathered by Hausman, included the
director, his script, the organization of production by Filmhaus (which also
supplied the lower echelon workers for the lm), and the complete nancing
of the project by Orion. However, within this structure, there was a second mini-package put together by Mamet that included the more creative
aspects of the production such as the actors, the music composer, the set
designer, and the costume designer, all previous collaborators on his work
in the theater.49 This type of arrangement has not been a rare phenomenon
in low-budget productions, as the director is normally bestowed with the
power to select the principal players provided that he or she remains within
the allocated budget. Furthermore, there has been a long-standing tradition
in independent (and often studio) lmmaking where a director has worked
with the same players in lm after lm. From John Cassavetes who employed
actors Gena Rowland, Peter Falk, Seymour Cassel, and Ben Gazzara; editor
Tom Cornwell; cinematographer Al Ruban; and composer Bo Harwood in a
series of lms he wrote and directed to more recent independent lmmakers such as Kevin Smith who used actors Ben Afeck, Jason Lee, and Jason
Mewes; composer David Pirner; production designer Robert Holtzman; and
editorproducer Scott Mosier in the majority of his lms, the independent
sector is full of examples of lmmakers who work consistently with a small
and trusted circle of friends and collaborators.
What makes House of Games interesting in this respect, however, was that
the majority of Mamets key collaborators had very little or, in many cases,
no experience whatsoever in lmmaking prior to House of Games, despite
years of experience in theater production, particularly in producing Mamets
plays since the 1970s. Specically, the music composer, the production designer, and the costume designer of the lm had never worked in cinema
before Mamets rst lm. Also, actors such as W. H. Macy, Mike Nussbaum,
and J. T. Walsh had previously appeared only in a handful of lm productions, whilst other actors in key parts such as Ricky Jay (the man from Vegas)
and Steve Goldstein (Billy Hahn) made their cinema debut in House of Games.
167
Additionally, and following traditions in American theater (and in independent cinema), some of the players took on more than one role in the production of the lm, such as Scott Zigler and Patricia Wolff who are credited
as actors and production assistants, Ricky Jay who is credited as actor and
consultant in condence games, and, of course, Michael Hausman, who is
credited as producer and second assistant director.
This second mini-package functioned as an ensemble, an intricately linked
group of creative units whose contribution to the production and aesthetics of the lm is far greater than the sum of individual contributions. This
suggests that the division of labor during the production of the lm did not
follow the strict hierarchy that has traditionally characterized the mode of
production of mainstream Hollywood lms. The transgression in the division of labor from the dominant model does not imply that there was no
pecking order in the production process or that Mamet, as the lms director,
did not have the nal say in such questions as frame composition or editing.
Rather, it demonstrates that the creative aspect of the lms production was,
more forcefully than is usual, shaped by the dynamics of a group of players
whose long-time collaboration on stage under Mamets tutelage inuenced
both the nature of the division of labor in the upper ranks of the lms production and eventually the aesthetics of the lm.
In transferring distinct practices from stage to lm production and assimilating these to traditions of independent lmmaking, Mamet demonstrated
that, unlike Hollywood mainstream cinema, which is considerably more resistant to foreign inuences, independent cinema is a mode of lmmaking
that is open to inuences from other media and modes of productions (such
as theater and the working methods of theater companies). In this respect,
Mamets success in assimilating his theater-originating methods of work to
independent cinemas tradition of lmmakers working with a small circle of
friends and collaborators in lm after lm paved the way for the introduction
of further outside inuences that made American independent cinema even
richer in terms of the directions it could follow.
A characteristic example here is Kevin Smith, who burst into the independent scene only a few years after Mamet and introduced an equally distinct
mode of lmmaking. As noted earlier, Smith also worked with a small circle
of friends and collaborators who have participated in most of his lms. In
this case, such a system of production has provided the lmmaker with the
freedom to create a distinct lmic universe that exists across all his lms and
that is realized through relentless cross-referencing of characters, narrative
events, and in-jokes from all his lms. This practice reached a remarkable
extent in 2004 with his lm Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back, which contained
so many references to his previous lms that lack of prior knowledge of
Clerks (1994), Mallrats (1996), Chasing Amy (1997), and Dogma (1999) can render Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back incomprehensible. With other independent
168
Movies
lmmakers importing new ideas and practices (Smiths inspiration for such a
universe was the medium of comic books), one can only expect that American independent cinema will continue to be a locus of innovative trends that
expand the language of cinema.
THE MAMET AESTHETIC
House of Games tells the story of Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), a
clinical psychologist who, in her attempt to help one of her patients, becomes
involved in a series of adventures with a gang of con artists led by Mike (Joe
Mantegna). Although Margaret believes that she has been allowed access to
the planning and execution of one of the gangs elaborate tricks to eece an
unsuspected businessman, she nally comes to understand that it was she
who had been the mark of the con all along. The lm ends with Margarets
violent reaction to the realization that she had been played by the con artists and her recognition of a surprising truth about herself.
This narrative premise functioned as a vehicle for the articulation of a
number of distinct themes, which characterized Mamets previous work
as a playwright and which include: the destiny of the lumpen proletariat
in corporate America, the education of the innocent, the dynamics of the
teacherstudent relationship, the meaning of everyday transactions, and
the truth behind deceptive appearances.50 More importantly, however, this
narrative premise was mainly realized through the use of a specic set of
stylistic choices whose particular combinations signaled the beginning of a
distinct aesthetic view that came to permeate all future Mamet lms. This
view can be seen as a product of an amalgamation of theoretical concepts and
ideas that stem from Mamets readings of the Aristotelian concept of narrative unity, the Eisensteinian theory of montage, the Stanislavskian notion
of physical acting, and the assimilation of the last to particular patterns of
speech delivery by Mamets actors. These were developed by Mamet and a
group of theater actors and practitioners, many of whom are present in the
credits of House of Games.
More specically, Mamets distinct aesthetic view relies upon a use of lm
style that sits uneasily with the notion of classicism in American cinema. This
is because, although narrative construction in Mamets lms follows for the
most part the basic principles of classical narrative (causal coherence, continuity, and character motivation), it often departs from those principles and
follows a logic of its own. These departures are mainly manifest in several
clear breaks from the rules of social and/or cultural verisimilitude, which immediately provide the story with a high degree of implausibility compared to
a classical narrative. Equally, the lm style employed to support such a narrative generally adheres to the rules of continuity and transparency, though,
on several occasions, it also breaks those rules and consequently evokes a
169
strong sense of constructedness and/or articiality. These effects are mainly

conveyed through the frequent absence of realist conventions in parts of the
lms mise-en-scne, including frame composition, camera movement, and editing. For this reason, although the lm style is at the service of the narrative,
it also comments on the narrative and breaks the spectators engagement
with the story in ways that a classical style would never do.
This paradoxical (for an American lm) relation between narrative and
style has its roots in Mamets view of realism as a discourse that should seek
to express rather than to convince.51 For Mamet, style should be used to
serve the aesthetic integrity of the lm, which is not necessarily constructed
according to externally imposed standards of realism and verisimilitude.52
What Mamet seems to object to here is the use of a lm style that does not
respect the central idea of the lm as it is put forward by the written text,
which, of course, explains the lmmakers stern opposition to any changes
made to his scripts. As Joe Mantegna stated in an interview: He [Mamet]
has painstakingly, specically created his dialogue to get whatever impact
he expects to get out of it. . . . 99 times out of 100 Ive done everything hes
written as written.53
More importantly, however, Mamets objection stands as a powerful
critique of a stylistically determined mode of lm practice such as the
mainstream classical Hollywood cinema. Given the fact that the classical
Hollywood cinema favors a specic use of lm style that serves a particularly constructed narrative and a mode of production that has traditionally
treated the screenplay as work-in-progress and excluded the screenwriter
from the stages of lm production and postproduction, it is obvious that
Mamets approach to lmmaking stands rmly outside such a mode of lm
practice. This is the reason why Mamets style strikes critics as articial and
unnatural, despite the fact that it is organically connected to narratives that
are often contrived and implausible.
Mamets distinct approach to lmmaking and his refusal to comply with
pillars of classical lmmaking in House of Games (but also in his later lms
such as Homicide [1991], Oleanna [1994], The Spanish Prisoner [1997], The
Winslow Boy [1998], and State and Main [2000]) locate him rmly at the
core of the independent sector of American cinema, at a time when independent cinema was gathering momentum before the watershed year of 1989.
It is important then to acknowledge his contribution during the lean years
of American independent cinema and to place the distinct formal and aesthetic propositions his lms made alongside ones made by other important
parental gures of indie lmmaking, such as John Sayles, Jim Jarmusch,
Wayne Wang, Spike Lee, Victor Nunez, and Gus Van Sant.
Furthermore Mamets focus on narratives about grifters and condence
tricks reinvigorated a type of lm that had been popularized in the 1970s
and early 1980s with The Sting (G. R. Hill, 1973) and The Sting II (Kagan,
170
Movies
1983). Following Mamets House of Games, a number of similar lms were

made, almost all paying homage to Mamet and almost all by independent
companies.54 These include: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) distributed by
Orion; The Grifters (Frears, 1990) distributed by Cineplex ODEON; Traveller (J. N. Green, 1997) distributed by October Films; Mamets second con
artist lm The Spanish Prisoner (Sony Pictures Classics); Where the Money Is
(Kanievska, 2000) distributed by USA Films; Condence (Foley, 2003) distributed by Lions Gate Films; and Criminal (Jacobs, 2004) distributed by Warner
Independent Pictures.
A brief discussion of a scene from House of Games will demonstrate Mamets distinct aesthetic vision, highlight the lms almost anticlassical aesthetics, and illustrate its status as a con artist lm.
A HOUSE FULL OF GAMES OR THATS
WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU SAW
After a patient of hers threatens to commit suicide because he cant pay a
large gambling debt and therefore the gangster (Mike) whom he owns the
money to would sooner or later kill him, Dr. Margaret Ford breaks the codes
of her profession and goes herself to the debt holder to convince him to leave
her patient alone. As it turns out, Mike (the gangster) is not as tough as
Billy had implied and is willing to forget Billys debt, provided that Margaret
would help him beat one of his opponents in a card game in-progress. What
Margaret has to do is pretend that she is Mikes girlfriend and look for a
specic signier in his opponents behavior during the game, a tell, as Mike
puts it, that would signal whether his opponent is blufng or not. Margaret accepts Mikes offer and joins him in the back room where some serious
money is at stake in a game of poker.55 During the previous scene, however,
the spectator nds out that Billys debt to Mike is a mere $800, a piece of
information that Margaret, rather implausibly, misses. This consequently
implies that there are other latent reasons for Margarets direct involvement
with Mike and his company, reasons that have to do with her compulsive, and
therefore not clearly motivated, character.
While the spectator has formed the expectation that Margaret, the procient psychologist, will catch the tell and be instrumental to Mikes objective to beat his opponent from Vegas and consequently achieve her own goal
(protect her client), editing and narration play a number of tricks to the spectator. In the early parts of the scene the man from Vegas is strictly framed
either between Mike and Margaret who occupy the two sides of the frame or
in the corner of individual frames, surrounded by the other card players.
Such stylistic choices and the way the compositions are edited suggest that
the man from Vegas is trapped, and there is no way that he can come out as
the winner of the game.
171
In latter parts of the scene, however, editing and narration seem to suggest a different outcome for the game. This time the man from Vegas takes
a central position in the frame, and it is Mike and Margaret who are isolated
from the group and play against them. The compositional isolation of Mike
and Margaret from the other players juxtaposed with the central position
of the man from Vegas (who is now the character spatially supported by
the other present characters) shifts the balance to his favor and prepares the
spectator, who is still expecting that Margaret will help Mike win the hand,
for a narrative surprise.
When the man from Vegas wins the hand, the rst subsequent shot is of
Mike and Margaret shocked from the defeat. Slowly, Mike leans backwards
and ends up off screen leaving Margaret alone in the frame, totally isolated
from the rest of the card players. The relation of this shot to the previous
group of shots seems to suggest that Margaret is responsible for their defeat, a
piece of narrative information that stands at odds with what the spectator has
previously witnessed, namely, Margaret following Mikes instructions and
catching his opponents tell.
Finally, two subsequent shots of two card players who are peripheral
to the story seem to create an idea that ends up informing the rest of the
lm. Even though the narrative value of both these minor characters is too
insignicant to suggest that those two shots connote a particular idea,56
the equal duration of the shots (2.5 seconds each) and, especially, the highly
stylized nature of the compositions (both shots were lmed with wideangle lenses that distort the distance between camera and object; both shots
were photographed from unusual camera angles while also there is a lack of
background diegetic sound at that point), along with the break they introduce to the pattern of the scene, provide them with an added value for the
spectators understanding of the real meaning of the scene. The two shots
come to reinforce the idea of a set up, of a constructed reality that Margaret
is shortly to discover and the spectator is invited to discover at that exact
moment.
In light of discovering the true meaning of this scene as a set up to con
Margaret out of her money and not as a trap to trick the man from Vegas (as
both the main character and the spectator originally thought), one can begin
to understand Mamets use of style in House of Games as a means to visually
support an idea, namely, that the development of the narrative does not occur
through the actions of a psychologically motivated protagonist who wishes
to achieve a goal. In other words, lm style is used to negate the unfolding of
a classical narrative and to imply the existence of a second, more powerful,
and up to that point, latent narrative agent whose goals, at the last instance,
frame the actions of the main protagonist. This narrative agent is eventually
concretely personied in the characters of the con men (and in particular the
character of Mike) but only in the nal scenes of the lm.
172
Movies
Furthermore, throughout the poker game sequence the rules of cultural

verisimilitude are broken repeatedly demonstrating further the very specic
logic Mamets story follows. Even if the spectator does not have any knowledge or experience of card-playing, he/she should be in a position to question the plausibility of several events that take place in the scene. Thus, the
fact that Mike nods to Margaret that he is holding three aces (after spending
considerable time explaining to her what a tell is) is the rst clue that this is
not a real game. Later on, Mike reveals his cards without covering the bet
(if accepted, the check should have been written in advance and placed in the
pot). After threatening Mike and Margaret with a pistol, the man from Vegas
puts the weapon down on the table (running of course the danger of having
the pistol taken by any one of the other players). In the midst of all this, Joey
watches calmly the whole incident from a distance and is not ordered to
move to a place where he can be visible to the man from Vegas. All the above
actions clearly deny any sense of verisimilitude in the scene.
Mamet also makes a number of other stylistic choices that succeed in
discarding the armor of an externally imposed realism from the lm. The
most obvious one is the staging of condential information within earshot
of characters who dont hear them.57 For instance, Mike tells Margaret to
keep looking for his opponents tell while sitting opposite him at the poker
table; Margaret tells Mike that she caught the tell while standing only a few
feet away from the man from Vegas; and so forth. Rosenbaum has rightly
argued that Mamet uses conventions of theater space, which, unlike the usual
conventions of lmic space, allow such staging of conversations.
The poker game sequence is a blueprint for understanding the rest of the
lm as the events depicted in this scene are replicated in a much more elaborate way throughout the rest of the lm. Thus, in this scene, Margaret agrees
to play Mikes girlfriend to help him eece the man from Vegas and discovers that she was the actual mark of the con. In the rest of the lm, Margaret
agrees to play Mikes wife to help him con a businessman only to discover
that she was the mark of the con once again, only this time Margaret does
not realize it until after handing them over $250,000 of her savings.
House of Games did not prove the commercial success Orion, Filmhaus,
and David Mamet might have hoped. The lm grossed $2,585,639 at the U.S.
box ofce, which means that it did not manage to recoup its negative costs.
The failure of the lm could partly be explained by the distributors decision
to center the advertising campaign for the lm on Mamets transition from
a writer to a lmmaker, while also highlighting the lms generic status as
a tense noir thriller. Opting for such an approach the distributor directly
targeted audiences familiar with Mamets theatre and literary background
rather than dedicated cine-philes who patronize art cinemas and watch lowbudget indie lms. For instance, in the lms trailer there is no reference to
Mamets Oscar nomination for The Verdict or his association with The Postman Always Rings Twice, both commercially successful lms.58
173
Despite its commercial failure, however, House of Games did its job in introducing Mamet the lmmaker in American cinema, and in the following
years, the once full-time playwright and screenwriter made the transition to
a full-time lmmaker with nine feature lms in 20 years, the vast majority
of them low-budget independent productions (Mamet still writes plays but
at a much slower pace than in the 1970s and 1980s). Furthermore, the lms
independent status, primarily exemplied by the nancer/distributors
hands-off approach to creative decisions during the production process
and its ability to guarantee complete nancing and global distribution and
exhibition for the lm allowed Mamet to transport his distinct dramatic
approach from theater to the medium of cinema and therefore maintain his
idiosyncratic voice, which had made him one of the most important contemporary American playwrights, in a different medium. In terms of production practices, this creative freedom manifested mainly in the way the
division of labor was arranged at the top echelon of the production crew.
This is where a number of creative players were allowed a much more signicant input in the production process, to the extent that the term collaborative business (a term that normallyand ironicallydesignates a strictly
hierarchical and detailed division of labor in Hollywood cinema) was put
into question. For that reason, the lms mode of production can be seen
as different from the production mode that, according to Bordwell, Staiger,
and Thompson, has exemplied historically mainstream classical American
cinema.
CONCLUSION
In many ways, the production history of House of Games points toward the
name of the game in the post-1989 years when major independent distributors such as Miramax and New Line Cinema, the classics divisions, and larger
independent distributors such as Lions Gate have followed Orions steps and
have institutionalized American independent cinema. From the independent
movement in the early 1980s, which consisted of a small group of lms
per year, American independent cinema has now become a relatively distinct
category of lmmaking both in the global entertainment industry and in public discourse.59 With the existing distribution companies branching out into
nancing independent productions alongside the more traditional buying
of distribution rights of completed lms, Orions impact is evident. This is
even more so when companies such as Miramax and New Line recently invested in multimillion dollar productions such as Shakespeare in Love (Madden, 1998$24 million budget), Confessions of A Dangerous Mind (Clooney,
2000$35 million budget); and The Four Feathers ($80 million budget) all
three for Miramax, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy (Jackson, 20022004) for
New Line Cinema, in the same way that Orion gambled with the expensive
revisionist western Dances with Wolves in 1990.60
174
Movies
The institutionalization of American independent cinema has succeeded in

making a particular brand of lmmaking marketable at a global level and in
effect helped a very large number of personal, idiosyncratic, and offbeat lms
receive theatrical distribution and often nd an audience. And as Orion allowed a lmmaker such as David Mamet to make lms with a very particular
anticlassical aesthetic that goes against fundamental Hollywood rules, other
independent distributors took chances with lms that pushed the envelope
in terms of aesthetics and representations often getting into uncharted territory. Thus, Miramax allowed lmmakers such as Kevin Smith to make lms
such as Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001), which has so many references
to other Smith lms that it might prove incomprehensible to audiences with
no prior knowledge of Smiths previous lms. After seeing it at Sundance, independent distributor Artisan (now part of Lions Gate) purchased the rights
to The Blair Witch Project (Myrick and Snchez 1999), a horror-home moviein-the-woods shot with a digital camera that had little chances of a commercial theatrical release; the lm, a spectacular success, proved well worth
the risk. And Focus Features, Universals classics division, nanced and distributed Ang Lees controversial Brokeback Mountain (2005), a modern-day
western featuring gay cowboys, a taboo subject in the genre as dened by the
lms of the majors.
Whether major independents, independents, or classics divisions, in the
nancing, production, and/or distribution business, these companies have
managed to create an institutional apparatus that differs from the one that
characterizes mainstream Hollywood cinema. Despite the differences, though,
this apparatus has existed in a symbiotic relationship with the majors, making for a well-oiled entertainment machine that covers all audience tastes and
preferences.
NOTES
1. Geoff King, American Independent Cinema (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 71; Emanuel Levy, Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film (New York: New
York University Press, 1999), 46; Peter Biskind, Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax,
Sundance and the Rise of Independent Film (London: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks,
2005), 17.
2. Yannis Tzioumakis, American Independent Cinema (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 13.
3. Gabriel Synder, Aviator Ready For Take-Off: Scorsese, DiCaprio Reteam for
Pricey Hughes Biopic, Variety, June 9, 2005, 9.
4. Levy, Cinema of Outsiders, 3.
5. Yannis Tzioumakis, Major StatusIndependent Spirit: The History of
Orion Pictures (19781992), The New Review of Film and Television Studies 2, no. 1
(2004): 88.
175
6. Patrick McGilligan, Breaking Away Mogul Style, American Film 5, no. 8

(1980): 29.
7. David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (London: McGraw-Hill,
1985), 360.
9. Tino Balio, Introduction to Part I: Responding to Network Television, in Hollywood in the Age of Television, ed. Tino Balio (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), 7.
12. Jim Hillier, The New Hollywood (New York: Continuum, 1994), 22; Tino Balio,
Introduction to Part II: Responding to New Television Technologies, in Hollywood
in the Age of Television, ed. Tino Balio (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), 281.
13. Justin Wyatt, The Formation of the major independent: Miramax, New Line
and the New Hollywood, in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, ed. Steve Neale and
Murray Smith (London: Routledge, 1998), 8687.
14. Stephen, Klain, Prods over-value US art mart: Classics eye upfront stakes as
terms stiffen, Variety, May 4, 1983, 532.
15. Claude Brodesser, Fox: A Brighter Searchlight, Variety, April 7, 2003, 55.
16. Dana Harris, Hwood Renews Niche Pitch: Studios Add Fresh Spin as They
Rev Up Art Divisions, Variety, April 7, 2003, 1, 54.
17. The only source that estimates the size of the lms budget is Cinebooks Motion
Picture Guide Review (a database of reviews available in Microsofts Cinemania CDROM, 1996 and 1997).
18. The brief account of Orion is based on a more extended piece I wrote on the history of the company, titled Major StatusIndependent Spirit: The History of Orion
Pictures (19781992). See Tzioumakis, Major Status, 87135.
19. Anne Thompson, Rise and Shine: Mike Medavoy Interviewed by Anne Thompson, Film Comment 23, no. 3 (1987): 56.
20. Mike Medavoy with Josh Young, Youre Only As good As Your Next One: 100 Great
Films, 100 Good Films, and 100 for Which I Should Be Shot (New York: Pocket Books,
2002), 103.
21. Erik Pleskow (President and Chief Executive Ofcer of Orion Pictures [1978
1990] and chairman of Orion Pictures [19901992]), interview with the author,
June 24, 2005, Weston, Connecticut.
22. Mike Medavoy (Head of Worldwide Production, Orion Pictures [19781990]),
interview with the author, June 15, 2004, Los Angeles, California.
23. Besides the two Dudley Moore vehicles, which recorded $37 and $42 million in
terms of lm rentals, respectively, Orion delivered 6 moderate hits (including Excalibur [Boorman, 1981]), while the company saw 15 lms that lost money at the
American box ofce. See S. Hanson, Orion: Looking to the Stars, Stills, February
1985, 25.
24. Balio, Introduction to Part II, 278.
25. HBO & Orion Still Going Steady As Paycabler Picks Up 14 Films; Homevideo
in $5075 mil Deal, Variety, February 27, 1985, 44.
26. HBO & Orion Still Going Steady, 44.
176
Movies
27. HBO & Orion Still Going Steady, 44.

28. Thompson, Rise and Shine, 60.
29. Hillier, The New Hollywood, 14.
30. Clarence Brown, Down the Drain with the Ninja Turtles: Hollywoods Last
Creative Sanctuary Has Fallen to the Vultures, The Guardian, February 6, 1992, 29.
31. McGilligan, Breaking Away, 31.
32. Richard Maltby with Ian Craven, Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1995), 481.
33. Hillier, The New Hollywood, 21.
34. Medavoy, Youre Only As good As Your Next One, 169.
35. McGilligan, Breaking Away, 29.
36. John Pierson, Spike Mike Slackers and Dykes: A Guided Tour Across a Decade of
American Independent Cinema (New York: Hyperion/Miramax Books, 1995), 339 40.
37. Those hits included Glengarry Glen Ross (1983) at the National Theatre in London and at the Golden Theater in New York (1984), The Frog Prince (1985) at the
Ensemble Studio in New York, and Edmond (1984) at the Royal Court Theatre in
London. See Leslie Kane, Chronology, in David Mamet: A Casebook, ed. Leslie Kane
(Garland Publishing: New York, 1992), xxxiiixxxv.
38. As one critic poignantly noted, the lm, a loose adaptation of Mamets circular,
fragmentary and acerbic play of the 1970s sexuality, smooths the rough edges into a
linear 1980s narrative of capitalist redemption, in which a disaffected young Chicagoan nds afuence and romance through suffering repentence [sic] and entrepreneurial hard work. Indeed, the transguration of Mamets play is so drastic as to call
into question the notion of adaptation itself. Varun Begley, On Adaptation: David
Mamet and Hollywood, Essays in Theatre 16, no. 2 (1998): 16667.
39. David Mamet, A Whores Profession: Notes and Essays (London: Faber and Faber,
1994), 162.
40. David Mamet, Some Freaks (London: Faber and Faber, 1990), 136.
41. Roger Ebert, House of Games, Chicago Suntimes, October 16, 1987, http://rogere
bert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19871016/REVIEWS/7101
60301/1023 (accessed February 13, 2008).
42. David Mamet, Jafsie and John Henry: Essays on Hollywood, Bad Boys and Six Hours
of Perfect Poker (London: Faber and Faber, 2000), 98.
43. According to Variety, Sony Pictures Classics is one classics division the heads
of which have employment contracts with their parent company that give them
autonomy over business decisions. Christopher Grove, Crouching Indie, Variety,
May 14, 2001, 35.
44. Mamet, Some Freaks, 125.
47. Since there is no available public documentation of the deal in question, this
conclusion has been inferred by cross-referencing three main sources: Hillier, The
New Hollywood, 21; Balio, Introduction to Part II, 278; and Thompson, Rise and
Shine, 5859.
48. Bordwell et al., The Classical Hollywood Cinema, 331.
177
50. Besides his plays, these themes can be found in the ve volumes of collected
essays Mamet has published: Writing in Restaurants (London: Penguin Books, 1987);
Some Freaks (1990); The Cabin: Reminiscence and Diversions (New York: Vintage Books,
1993); Make-Believe Town: Essays and Remembrances (London: Faber and Faber, 1996);
Jafsie and John Henry (2000). These themes can be also seen in a number of interviews
Mamet has given, some of which could be found in Leslie Kane, ed., David Mamet in
Conversation (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001).
52. Mamet, A Whores Profession, 202.
53. Leslie Kane, Mantegna Acting Mamet, American Theatre 8, no. 6 (1991): 23.
54. The one exception is Matchstick Men (2004), which was directed by Ridley Scott
and was nanced and distributed by Warner.
55. The phrase Thats what you thought you saw is uttered in the diegesis by
Joey when he explains to Margaret that the fact that she saw him slipping $20 in an
envelope does not mean that he actually did it.
56. Throughout the sequence these two characters are heard only when clichd phrases are uttered (such as Im going south and cards of the players, three good players)
a fact that further decreases their importance in the scene. As I mentioned previously,
however, they are important in terms of their placement within the frames.
57. Jonathan Rosenbaum, House of Games Capsule, The Chicago Reader, http://
onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/10149_HOUSE_OF_GAMES
(accessed February 13, 2008).
58. Yannis Tzioumakis, Marketing David Mamet: Institutionally Assigned Authorship and Contemporary American Cinema, The Velvet Light Trap 57 (2006): 62 63.
60. Biskind, Down and Dirty Pictures, 330, 450, 464.
chapter 10
Piercing Steven Soderberghs Bubble

R. Colin Tait
In 2004, a major controversy erupted in Hollywood after lmmaker Steven

Soderbergh signed a six-picture deal with billionaire entrepreneur Mark
Cubans HDNet lms. The project involved Soderbergh making low-budget
movies exclusively with high-denition (HD) technology that would enjoy
simultaneous release in theaters on DVD and were available to download
via the Internet, thus entirely eliminating the exhibition window for a lms
theatrical release. This gesture not only leveled a urry of criticism at the
lmmaker as well as Cuban, but their enterprise ultimately met with mixed
results, barely making a dent at the box ofce and hardly registering in Soderberghs canon.
The controversy surrounding Bubble (2006) raises several questions. The
rst of these relates to why studios and exhibitors were so violently opposed
to a shift in exhibition paradigms and went as far as to rally Hollywood
executives and prominent lmmakers (such as M. Night Shyamalan) to denounce Cuban and Soderberghs enterprise. Furthermore, is it possible that
the lms slow roll-out over several lm festivals, in addition to the negative
publicity it garnered along the way, largely inuenced the way that the experiment was received and largely factored into its commercial reception?
Finally, despite the lms status as a failed experiment, it is nevertheless
crucial that we situate Bubble as a properly historical document and examine
the lms resonance not only to contemporary lm culture but to the future
industrial trends it anticipates and likely embodies.
At the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival, the unlikely trio of billionaire Mark Cuban, his business partner Todd Wagner, and lmmaker
Seven Soderbergh held a press conference to announce their new enterprise
180
Movies
together. That there was another announcement at North Americas leading

business festivalwhere more lms are bought and sold than any other
was not surprising, but the content of the announcement was. It sent reverberations of fear and uncertainty through the industry for the next several
years. Cuban and Wagner had signed Steven Soderbergh to a long-term deal
in order to secure his services for the launch of several related enterprises:
the Landmark theater chain, recently acquired by Cuban; the HDNet television channel; and Magnolia pictures. Soderberghs Bubble would effectively
brand the venture, bringing his high-prole status to the mixture of independently nanced HD lmmaking (as opposed to studio projects such as
Michael Manns Miami Vice or Brian Singers Superman Returns, both shot in
HD and both costing $135 million and $270 million, respectively) along with
an appropriately smaller scale of artistic ambition and distribution model.1
The three gures shared the belief that the contemporary industry structure
was broken beyond repair by excessive overhead costs, piracy, and consumer
demand for instantaneous content, particularly on the lower-end and independent side of the distribution equation. Day-and-date release, then, offering the consumer the ultimate choice of venue, was their unique solution to
this problem. What they could not have predicted was the overwhelming and
virulent resistance to their scheme the uniformity of objection related to
the absolute collapse of the exhibition windowas Bubble would be released
simultaneously in Cubans theaters, be made available on DVD through his
nascent video exhibition arm Magnolia Pictures, and also available for download in the coming days by way of the Internet.
The idea created a restorm of industry resistance before the project was
even underway and mostly from the exhibition side of the equation. M. Night
Shyamalan helped inspire a negative buzz for Bubble, rst denouncing the
lm at the 2005 Directors Guild of America Feature Directors night dinner
and raising the stakes even higher when he followed up these comments as
the invited speaker for the 2006 ShowWest convention for exhibitors. Here,
Shyamalan defended the studios and exhibitors position, stating:
We have these business guys coming in, many of whom havent been part
of the industry, saying, This is how its gonna be. And then you had a few
(directors) voices in support of the experiment. And I went whoa, whoa,
whoathis is sacred to me. Im not gonna let the theatrical experience just
go away like this. I made it clear that night that were all losing faith and
that we dont have to stand by and let this art form be rolled over.2
Shyamalans stance was obviously echoed by the American exhibitors, who

presumably had the most to lose with any shift in distribution patterns. As
exhibition revenue relies almost solely on lling seats for high-prole blockbusters and selling consumers popcorn, this was obviously the most resistant
181
faction that day-and-date release offended.3 In response, the larger exhibition

chains such as Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Theatres, Loews Cineplex,
and Cinemark USA boycotted 2929 and Magnolia products (also owned by
Cuban and Wagner) adopting a zero-tolerance stance on Cuban and Wagners releases.4 On the studio side, other executives lined up to denounce the
idea, including those who had worked with Soderbergh at Warner Brothers.
Throughout the movie industry, CEOs and lmmakers criticized Soderbergh and his backers by wholly objecting to their new scheme. At the heart
of the issue was the fact that the movie, along with the industrial formulation
that it represented, had the potential to disrupt the business model that had
been operating for years, in effect undermining the entrenched system. The
studios, slow to accept any deviation from the industry normsas exemplied from their slow acceptance of sound technology in the days of early
cinema through to todays new technological rollouts, which include video
game consoles such as Microsofts X-Box 360 and Sonys Playstation 3, not
to mention the effect of viewership lost to iPod technologies and bittorrent
softwareretrenched themselves and brought the full force of their media
and industry control to bear on the trio. In other words, it may be that the
industry resistance played itself out through its ancillary industries, particularly in the media outlets owned by the larger studios, which essentially created the consensus view of Soderberghs, Cubans, and Wagners enterprise
before anyone had even seen the lm.
Though the connections between Cuban, the rogue billionaire and amboyant owner of the Dallas Mavericks who established his fortunes during
the high-tech boom of the 1990s, and Steven Soderbergh, the man who became independent cinemas de facto poster boy, were not initially clear; the
two gures shared similar outsider statuses, affording them to be innovators,
while at the same time becoming xtures on the contemporary business and
lm scenes, respectively.
Cuban and Wagner surely t the criteria of Shyamalans description of
business guys. Though Cubans entrepreneurship extended to many different avenuessports teams among other enterprisesit wasnt until he created the TV station HDNet and bought the boutique Landmark theater chain
that he entertained the idea of making movies through his production house,
2929 Pictures then HDNet lms. At that point Cuban and Wagner had secured a vertically integrated exhibition and distribution wing for themselves,
whose ability to broadcast in the HD format required a great deal of area
bandwidth but, more importantly, demanded that a certain amount of guaranteed content was available for broadcast at a given time. With the advent of
extremely high-quality home entertainment equipment, including 5.1 Surround Sound and widescreen home theater technology, the industry was slow
to answer the demand for high-resolution productsbest exemplied by the
all-out format war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technologiesand there
182
Movies
was a huge opportunity to be seized by someone who could recognize the new
shifts in the system, particularly when it came to content provision via the
Internet. At the time, however, their problem was that aside from sports programming, there was not a great deal of original material that was available
for broadcast in the HD format. They would simply have to create it in order
to be successful. This is precisely what Cuban and Wagner were attempting, while at the same time seeking to associate themselves with like-minded
artistic gures such as Soderbergh, Hal Hartley, and, eventually, Brian De
Palma instead of strictly independent artists. The venture, therefore, would
attempt to bring industry-wide acceptance of low-key lmmaking by leading
directors, while at the same time bringing high exposure to the creative possibilities of the HD medium.
One of the great advantages that HD affords a potential lmmaker and
ultimately the exhibitor is the ability to reduce the costs of manufacturing
35 mm prints in addition to streamlining the lmmaking process. According
to independent producer James Schamus, the protability of any independent lm is entirely dependent on how well a producer is able to sidestep
the ancillary costs of a lms release. The brunt of these costs come from
the elusively titled print and advertising (P&A), which Schamus describes as
cover[ing] anything from the design and printing of posters . . . the striking
and shipment of release prints, the cost of print, radio and TV advertising,
the care and feeding of stars and other talent as they travel promoting the
lm, and the various other costs.5 In our present environment, a lms P&A
is known to effectively double the budget of most mainstream releases, making even a typical Hollywood product extremely difcult to recoup its costs.
For a lm such as Spider Man 3, whose nal production budget was $258 million, the lm must ultimately make approximately $600 million if the lm is
to even come close to breaking even.6 Wagner has cited gures that negative
costs and P&A have jumped up to 85 percent and 110 percent, respectively,
making the prospect of moviemaking an extremely risky venture even in
the optimal of circumstances.7 For the purposes of independent or digital
lmmakers then, reduction of the initial investment costs provides a decided
advantage in the marketplace, affording the production team to effectively
sidestep most of the obstacles to a lms protability and allowing a direct
conduit to immediately recoup their costs with day-and-date release. In the
case of Bubble, the lms initial roll-out over festivals cost next to nothing
to advertise, save for Soderberghs various appearances with the work, and
avoided the cost of having to manufacture a master print, as most festival
theaters are now equipped to show digital works. The lms instantaneous
release and exhibition not only allowed the lm to travel but reduced the
expense of having to spend unnecessary funds on advertising. Using Cuban,
Wagner, and Soderberghs model, a lm is able to effectively avoid one-half
of the overall cost of lmmaking and exhibiting, making it an extremely
183
streamlined and cost-efcient means of production, particularly for independent and digital lmmaking.
Cuban and Wagners solution to the earlier problemslack of content and
printing costswas simply to set themselves up as producers and become
directly responsible for creating their own products, while at the same time
affording artists absolute freedom to express themselves with the costefcient, high-quality recording and distribution technologies. Soderbergh
was a natural choice, if only because he was known as the premier lmmaker
for doing things on the cheap and consistently under budgetsomething
that obviously appealed to two businessmen in their rst foray into the
emerging business of HD digital lmmaking.
At the same time, Soderbergh was extremely interested in altering the industry model, particularly as it related to smaller, more esoteric lms such as
his recent digital projects Full Frontal (2002), K-Street (2004), and his other
collaboration with George Clooney on the HBO series Unscripted (2005).
What the television, pay-per-view, DVD, and Internet content provision afforded was the opportunity for smaller audiences to nd his lms outside of
the theaters, as the larger chains rarely carried these more artistic works to
begin with. What was at stake, therefore, was the opportunity for digital and
predominantly HD works to nd audiences through emerging new venues,
echoing the new emphasis on content and programming rather than lms in
and of themselves. The key factor missing from the arguments against the
enterprise was that the lms that Soderbergh, Cuban, and Wagner championed were precisely the lms that were generally left out of the distribution
part of the equation, so the exhibitors and studios resistance was largely
disproportionate when considering Bubbles scale. The intense animosity toward Soderbergh and his backers was grossly overstated, particularly when
considering the fact that the scale of his lma $1.4 million on-location set
with no starswas a far cry from the Hollywood blockbuster. In todays gures, $1.4 million is a paltry sum for a feature lm of any standard but even
more so when considering Soderberghs pedigree, which includes a 2001
Academy Award win for Best Director.
For Soderbergh, it was important that the work emerge from two particular factors: It needed to be both site and medium specic. Soderbergh had
found his experiences working with nonactors James Carville and Mary Matalin in K-Street invigorating and was looking to nd an excuse to combine
these elements.8 Bubbles setting, a doll-factory in Ohio, served as the synthesis of all of these artistic choices, and the lmmaker cast his leads from the
town in order to reinforce the verisimilitude of the lm. Finally, Soderbergh
knew that the HD format was the perfect medium for this kind of industrial
and artistic experiment, stating, I was interested in this because I knew that
creatively [. . .] this was the only way to get a lm like Bubble made, period.9
At the same time, the lm represented a continuation of the run-and-gun
184
Movies
style that had characterized the lmmakers evolution since his debut lm
Sex, Lies, and Videotape. After initially becoming the poster boy for the independent lm moment with his explosive debut, Soderberghs career went
through several phases that were a direct result of the way his lms were
initially received and also the way in which Soderbergh wanted to make his
lms. This created the reputation of the lmmaker being a cold technician
rather than an engaged auteur personality, which eventually factored into
the critical reception of most of his lms from his debut onward. Sex, Lies, and
Videotape seemed to capture the zeitgeist of post-Reagan America, along with
the new tone of Generation-X brand angst; after the lms high prominence
at both the Sundance and Cannes Film Festivals, it seemed that the lmmaker
would be able to write his own ticket. However, when he won the Palme D Or
at Cannes he stated that it was all downhill from there and ended up forgetting the award under his seat. Beginning with Kafka in 1991 and leading to the
universally panned Schizopolis in 1996, Soderbergh made a series of lms that
diverged widely from the model that critics and industry would likely have
set out for him. After the critical and commercial failures of his postSex, Lies,
and Videotape periodbeginning with the box-ofce failure of Kafka (1991)
through to the release of Schizopolis (1996)Soderbergh re-entered the
mainstream and displayed remarkable business acumen from that point forward, beginning with Out of Sight in 1997. Central to his success was not only
his protable partnership with A-List star George Clooney and their production company Section Eight Pictures but also his incredible ability to deliver
high-quality product at a budget that was far below the cost of other lmmakers.
At a time when most lms as banal as Brett Ratners Rush Hour 3 (2007) cost
in excess of $140 million, Soderbergh was still capable of making movies for
less than $50 million. Full Frontal (2002), for instance, only cost Harvey
Weinsteins Miramax $1 million, despite the fact that it featured A-list actors
such as Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt. To put this gure in context, this is often
what a script or even a development deal would cost in contemporary Hollywood gures. Soderberghs technical savvy made him a rarity in Hollywood
and had made him a virtual vertically integrated industry in and of himself,
producing, writing, directing, editing, and manning his own cameras as cinematographer. When he beat himself for the Best Director Academy Award
for Trafc rather than Erin Brockovichhe further solidied his reputation
within the Hollywood community by also becoming an actors director, a fact
that both Julia Roberts Best Actress win as well as Benecio del Toros Best
Supporting Actor win attested to. With Trafc, despite the fact that the lm
was easily the most visually stunning of the year, Soderbergh invalidated
himself from competition in the best cinematographer award, due to his desire to add the credit Directed and Photographed by Steven Soderbergh, as
the writers union would not allow this title to supersede writer Steven
Gaghans own. Eventually he went with the pseudonym Peter Andrews to
185
display his displeasure with the union, a practice that he continues to this
day.10 With 2002s release of Oceans 11, the lmmaker afforded himself the
possibility to become a self-nancing entity, as exhibited by the fact that he
(as well as the actors on the lm) made more money from the lms phenomenal success than with anything that they had made previous to Oceans. This
is also true of partner George Clooney, who bought his mansion in Italys
exclusive and expensive Lake Como with his portion of Oceans prots. The
success of Oceans set the course of Soderberghs career for the next several
years as it not only afforded him the ability to take risks in his lmmaking
practices (as exhibited by his collaboration with James Cameron in Solaris,
2002) but also allowed him to help out friends he admired within the industry,
including Christopher Nolan, Todd Haynes, and Richard Linklater, in addition to nancing George Clooneys directorial efforts in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) and Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) as their executive
producer. Thus, Soderbergh provided himself with the rare opportunity to
exist as both an insider and an outsideroutside the critical and academic
community while at the same time standing at the center of the industry as
the Vice President of the Directors Guild of America. Though many of Soderberghs lms were often perceived by critics as interesting failures as well
as being cold and impenetrable to audiences, the director was a rarity in
Hollywood, a gure who allowed himself to work in every possible genre in
stylistically innovative ways, while at the same time providing himself with a
stable nancial model to fund these pet projects through his efforts with
Clooney. Interestingly, this nonmainstream fare has most often served as
prime fodder for critics who have seemingly relegated Soderberghs experimental (and independent) work as too intellectual. The best example of this
negative critical reception includes the response to Soderberghs Schizopolis,
Full Frontal, Solaris, and, most recently, The Good German. Because he never
behaved in the manner that critics would have him make lms, Soderbergh
has often been accused of being out of step with his audiences, despite the fact
that his lms stand up and certainly reward extra viewings. In all cases, the
lmmaker has been accused of attempting to talk down to his audience with
these experiments or, in the case of the lighter Full Frontal, telling a joke that
only he and his friends enjoyed. On the other hand, the more artistic lms
that Soderbergh executive produced during this period, ranging from Pleasant ville (Gary Ross, 1998); Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes, 2002); Good Night,
and Good Luck; and Syriana (Steven Gaghan, 2005) to Michael Clayton (Tony
Gilroy, 2007), have all been extremely well-regarded by critics even though
they paradoxically exhibit stylistic traits that can all be traced back to the directors inuence. Soderbergh has always implemented new technologies into the
Hollywood lmmaking process, as demonstrated by his Dogme-inspired lm
Full Frontal, his hybridized docu-drama K-Street for HBO, and his important
cinematographic innovations with tinting lm stocks beginning with The
186
Movies
Underneath (1995), in addition to his inclusion of different mediums (including full-frame video on screen) into the mainstream. Indeed, many of todays
aesthetic and technical hallmarksincluding the handheld cinema verit cinematography, and bleached lms stocks found in Spike Lees Clockers (1995)
and even Steven Spielbergs Saving Private Ryan (1998)can be at least in
part attributed to the inuence of Soderberghs revolutionary technical, cinematographic, and stylistic contributions. Finally, as an executive producer
with as many producing credits to his name as he does for direction, Soderbergh was acutely aware that the industry model was in need of repair, if not
a complete overhaul.
Ultimately what Cuban and Wagner received in collaboration was a third
interested partner who was immersed in the culture and who was also seen
as enough of a Hollywood outsider to be able to pull it off, and who was
a director whose efforts always came in under schedule and under budget.
Soderbergh was respected enough within the industry to act as a lightning
rod for other interested directors to participate, as evidenced by Brian De
Palmas eventual signing with HDNet for 2007s Redacted, shot in Iraq, in addition to lmmakers such as David Lynch and Francis Ford Coppola adopting HD and digital formats with Inland Empire (2006) and Youth Without
Youth (2007), respectively, though not for HDNet lms.
Though the studios were loath to admit it at the time, from the vantage
point of 2004, the industry was facing a huge crisis, not only of leadership but
due to the old studio model losing billions of dollars to piracy, bootlegging,
and illegal downloading of its lms. According to Steven Daly, Internet piracy, including peer-to-peer le sharing via platforms such as bittorrent software, cost the studios at least $7 billion in 2005.11 From 2003 to 2005, studios
were presented with three consecutive years of declining box-ofce totals,
descending by 3.4 percent for 2003, 0.4 percent for 2004, and 8.9 percent
for 2005 for a total of 12.7 percent for the three-year period.12 These gures
are particularly vivid when put in relation to the huge takes of the previous years, particularly those ushered in by Spider Man (Sam Raimi, 2002),
which grossed $821,708,551 worldwide.13 Though the movie industry was
hemorrhaging dollars in excess of those of the music conglomerates (in the
billions), nevertheless, there was ample cause to nd, or at least to propose,
alternatives to the Hollywood model of production and distribution. What
seems to be at the heart of the piracy issue, as proven by the success of iTunes
amongst other new music distribution and technological shifts in the industry, is ultimately the question of instant access and availabilityan issue that
Cuban, Wagner, and Soderberghs proposal sought to remedy. Their rationale
was that if people wanted to watch the lm at home, in theaters or vice versa,
it didnt matter to them, provided that people ended up watching the lm, period. Soderbergh commented, I wanted them to sell the DVD in the lobby of
the theatres, which they actually did in Cubans Landmark Theater chain.14
187
The main problem was that the current industry model relies heavily on
the sale of DVDs and the lms acting as advertisements to draw people in.
Adam Liepzig reports that the major studios derive most of their prots not
from the theatrical release of a lm but ultimately from consumers adding it
to their DVD collections.
Since few movies earn that much [200 million at the box-ofce], the studios have increasingly relied on the home-video market, where the equation
is much more in their favour, to help recover losses and to make a prot.
For example, a DVD costs about $2 to manufacture and $2 to market. It
is then sold wholesale to retailers at $16 a unit, amounting to a $12 prot.
Since manufacturers suggested retail prices are usually $20 to $30 a DVD
(typically discounted by 20 percent), a DVD can return tens of millions of
dollars in prot to the studio.15
Unlike the production of the lm, which currently runs in the hundreds of
millions of dollars range, DVDs are relatively inexpensive to manufacture
($2) and can be sold for $20 plus upon their release. Exhibitors and theater
owners are also in need of products, which in Hollywood are ultimately interchangeable but at the same time are still extremely necessary for putting
people in seats. Producer James Schamus describes this phenomenon quite
succinctly when he explains exhibitors, ironically, dont make their make
their money from exhibition but by selling moviegoers heavily marked-up
popcorn and pop before the shows.16 With this in mind, we can see why the
exhibitors had some pronounced reservations to the idea. On the other hand,
we can also see the prevalent attitude on the consumer end against what can
be seen as double-, triple-, and quadruple-dipping on the part of the movie
industry. Resistance to this industry-wide practice can be seen as motivating the more illegal end of Internet piracy, perhaps justied by pirates as a
rebellious gesture against the industrys constant reselling of its catalog to
the same consumers, particularly with the release and re-release of special
editions on DVD. A prime example of this phenomenon can be found in the
constant opening and closing of the prestigious Disney Vault, whose scarcity spurs consumers into buying and rebuying movies that they have bought
several times over in order to own the latest digitally remastered version.17
We might, therefore, possibly see a move by consumers toward ownership, or
at least possession, but we should also measure the fact that that they may not
necessarily be willing to pay repeatedly for the same experience, especially
if they have seen the lm in the theaters rst then paid several times over to
own the DVD. Day-and-date release partially solves this consumer quandary,
nipping the idea of instantaneous access in the bud, while at the same time
providing a series of formats for the consumer to own the experience
something that appeals to the collector as well as the casual viewer.
188
Movies
The idea of digital projection, as found in Cubans Landmark Cinema

chain, has only recently met with some malleability from the exhibitor community as well. A case in point occurred in 2002, when George Lucas attempted to retrot theaters with digital projectors in order that his Star Wars
(particularly Attack of the Clones, 2002) lms could be shown in their proper
HD format rather than be transferred to lm and projected via a 35 mm print.
As he had done earlier, with the advent of THX sound, Lucas actually offered to pay for the theaters purchasing digital projectors in order to ensure
that his lms could be seen in what he viewed as the most appropriate manner. Then as now, any suggestion of change to the contemporary industrial
models was met with a great deal of resistance, despite the fact that in the
long run, HD digital projection eventually became a reality for many theater
chains, though, admittedly, this is still the exception and not the rule.18
At the same time, the movie industry of the past 30 years has been refashioned to the point where a lm is only one stop in Hollywoods recovery of
prots. The movie, as viewed in theaters, more often than not only serves as
a larger advertisement for the ancillary products the home conglomerate can
shill. Star Wars is the ultimate example of the shifts within the industry, as
the lms spawned hundreds of micro-industries in their wake, ranging from
lunch boxes to action gures to books to a lucrative video game industry, all
inspired by the series.19 The average cost of todays Hollywood blockbuster
exceeds $150 million and poses huge problems for studios, who now rely
almost solely on the ancillary industries (such as soundtracks and spin-offs)
and foreign box-ofce gures to recover their investment in a lm. In this
vein, we should recall that according to Laura M. Holson, foreign advertising
gures have become staggering, to the point where Sony Pictures reportedly
spent upwards of $70 million (roughly 70 times Bubbles entire budget) to
promote The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard, 2006) in Europe alone.20 When
taken in relation to a lms total cost we can see that the P&A effectively
doubles a studios initial outlay of capital to the point where a lm must make
approximately twice its weight in rentals if a lm is to turn a prot. At this
point in history, this often means that a Hollywood Blockbuster must make at
least half a billion dollars before it starts to make money. This is where DVD
sales enter the equation, as the system has shifted inevitably to the foreign
box ofce and to DVD to recover their investments. The relative success
or failure of a DVD, like the lm itself, can be easily measured by sophisticated computer tracking systems, such as the one employed by Wal-Mart,
the worlds largest DVD merchant, which accounts for 50 percent of the entire
DVD market. DVD sales can be tracked and further copies manufactured by
individual title, making the prot margins even more effective by way of the
instantaneous systematic assessment of supply and demand. It seems necessary to iterate that the window of a DVDs success or failure already operates
on such razor-thin margins of prot.21
189
The issue of release windows from exhibition to DVD sales, then, is an

extremely volatile one, ultimately complicating the issue even further when
adding the overall effect of piracy to the equation. This is just as true for
lmmakers and may help to explain M. Night Shyamalans resistance to the
idea, as he has stated that The Sixth Sense DVD paid for the whole cost of his
house.22 Since the initial run of a lm will likely anticipate the manufacture
and sale of its DVD equivalent, any shrinking window will not only diminish
the effectiveness of this strategy but likely ease the ultimate demand for the
DVD sale. The additional market of the HD TV industry further problematizes the issue as consumers are now capable of watching similar quality fare
in their homes through video-on-demand technologies, which potentially bypass the theater and the video store and go directly to the consumers home.
Finally, the rise in illegal movie downloading via the Internet, where the
same peer-to-peer le sharing technologies that devastated the music business could potentially divert further prots from Hollywood, causes another
problem because newly bootlegged Hollywood lms are often available by a
lms rst weekend release in high quality forms on the Internet, which can
be easily viewed on domestic home theater systems.
In the minds of Soderbergh, Cuban, and Wagner, then, the system was already broken. Their partial solution to this problem was the day-and-date release strategy that Bubble would be the rst to exploit. By releasing Bubble in
theaters and on DVD and making it available (and cost-effective) over the
Internet, they effectively solved the problem by giving the consumer instant
access to the product that they wanted to watch. In their mind, the question
of choice and formatin other words, the idea that consumers want to watch
lms the way that they want to, whether on home video, via their computers,
or in the theaterslies at the heart of the illegal activity of movie downloading. In the music industry, iTunes has at least provided a stopgap measure
(and industry alternative) to illegal le sharing, as it provides a venue for the
instantaneous access to newly released content and has diverted some illegal
trafc to ensure the recovery of prots. The day-and-date release strategy,
at the very least, can be seen as a viable alternative to the ultimate loss that
a newly released blockbuster lm will likely face in the longer term. Thus,
Cuban and Wagners plan ultimately helps to stem the diversionary tide of
prots by allowing the consumer their respective choice of format and by
providing the immediate access that consumers crave. Predictably, the idea
met with a great deal of resistance throughout the industry.
We can look at the reception of Bubble in two waves because it was largely
received in the popular press in two corresponding phases. These phases
roughly responded to the manner in which the idea of the lm was received
in the year anticipating its release, followed by generally warm reviews of
the lm upon its theatrical run. In articles that responded to the idea of the
lm, these sources were further split, on the one hand representing industry
190
Movies
retrenchment against the idea and generally denouncing the idea in the popular press. On the other hand, articles in favor of the idea also provided a
great deal of ancillary information about how the current industry model
operated, using Soderberghs lm as a launching pad to discuss what the
day-and-date release meant or could mean to the industry.
The New York Times Manohla Dargis was among the rst mainstream
critic to comment on the lms potential in a feature piece in 2005. The timing of this article coincided with the Bubbles release throughout the festival
season and features the director speaking on the behalf of the new enterprise.23 In a contemporary article written from the lms debut at the earlier
Toronto International Film Festival, Christopher Borrelli wonders if the
lms mandate, to show ordinary people in their environments, is relayed
with any sense of condescension; he eventually comes to the opposite conclusion.24 Both pieces concentrate on the lmmaking processthe 18-day
shoot, the use of nonactors, and the implementation of HD technologies to
the industry modeland additionally to Bubbles low-key aesthetic.
While the lm received admiration and intrigue on the one side of the
equation, on the other hand, industry sources began denouncing the project
before it even began. This includes the reportage of industry-wide resistance
to the HD format, as reected in Scott Kirsners piece on the inltration of
digital cinematography in mainstream Hollywood fare, in addition to his
initial interview with M. Night Shymalan, which brought the industrial debate into the mainstream.25 Adam Liepzig uses Bubble and the industry model
that it could potentially disrupt to discuss the larger issue of the DVD market. When the lm was nally released on 32 screens on January 27, 2006,
it was generally quite well-regarded by critics, who found it an extremely
engaging return to form for the lmmaker, with Entertainment Weeklys Owen
Glieberman calling it devious and fascinating, Roger Ebert calling it hypnotic, and Lou Lemenick characterizing it as a deadpan commentary on
the emptiness of middle-American life, which Soderbergh managed to pull
off . . . without condescending to the characters.26 Ironically enough, and despite the industrys resistance, Bubble was one of Soderberghs best-reviewed
lms in years and did not face the same tone of negative criticism that accompanied some of his other, more esoteric works. Most critics agreed that
the lm was a return to form for the director, with Ebert calling it brilliant. Many reviewers seemed swayed by the lms potential to change the
industry model, with many centering on the experimental nature of its
low-key aesthetic. In this regard, The Boston Globes reviewer Ty Burr calls
the lm an experiment worth seeing, while Dargis review calls the lm a
wilfully perverse excursion into experimentation.27 Critics on the negative
side seem to have really hated the lm, with comments such as staggeringly
clueless and [b]oring as [s]h*t.28 The most intelligent negativity came
from Marjorie Baumgarten, who remarked that the lm would more likely
191
be remembered for its method of manufacture and release than for any inherent qualities of its own.29
Despite the overall critical consensus that the lm was a good one, the
lms release was tempered by its lack of access to screens overall, and it
played for under a month in Cubans Landmark chain until February. Regardless of the prot-sharing incentives that Cuban and Wagner offered to
theaters willing to carry the lm, the overall resistance on the exhibition
side doomed the lm to a poor box-ofce total and virtual invisibility in the
video stores. Its lackluster box-ofce performance seemingly buoyed National
Theatre Owners President John Fithians victory over Cuban, and he was
able to conclude that the exhibition window should not shrink accordingly.
Here, he was able to restate his earlier opinion, calling the lm a radical
and misguided experiment.30 At the same time, even Fithian agreed that
the lm eventually caused studios and exhibitors to sit down and talk with
the creative community about this issue, and that it got us all together.31
Cuban, on the other hand, reported that Bubble exceeded even his modest
expectations, and the higher prole that the lm garnered as a result of the
related controversy resulted in it grossing approximately $5 million in
total returns, including box ofce, DVD pre-orders and other revenues (presumably meaning pay-per-view receipts), which approximated a viewership
of 500,000 people.32 This would seem to indicate that the radical and misguided experiment served its purpose by overperforming in its new venues
(DVD, theater, and pay-per-view) by expanding the exhibition venues horizontally, by way of Internet and cable delivery systems.
HDNet lms released other lms between 2005 and 2007, including Hal
Hartleys Fay Grim (2006), Broken English (Zoe Cassavettes, 2007), and Enron:
The Smartest Guys in the Room (Alex Gibney, 2005). Ironically, among these
works it was the documentary that was the most protable, and the exhibitors that showed the lm were offered back-end revenue in order to show it,
as Cuban kept writing them cheques.33 With the release of Brian De Palmas high-prole Iraq drama, Redacted, it seemed as though the enterprise
including the overall controversy that the trio courtedwas on the cusp of
success. However, despite the overall positive reviews of the lm, the HDNet
experiment may have reached the end of its course. Though Cuban and Wagner are experimenting further with the industry model, possibly making Redacted available in what they call Ultra HD Video-on-Demand, they moved
the lmmaking end of their business from HDNet to 2929 Productions ultimately ending their role as producers.34 Their rationale was that three years
on to the project, they no longer saw the need to convince people to produce
in HD. Furthermore, [n]ow that people have accepted that digital technology can create wonderful artistic works, it is now but one more choice
available to the independent artist choosing to work in lm.35 It is unclear
whether this will mean a contractual renegotiation between Cuban, Wagner,
192
Movies
and Soderbergh, though it is rumored that his upcoming lm on Spalding

Gray, Life, Interrupted, will still be produced through HDNet lms. Regardless, since Bubbles release and the industrys resistance to it, the structure
is already in the process of changing, particularly when it comes to online
and video-on-demand delivery. The overall effect can already be seen in WalMart and Amazon.coms competition to provide high-speed delivery of movies online, in addition to the recent announcement that iTunes will now make
Disney lms available for download on its Quicktime player. In this sense,
aside from the controversy that surrounded it, we should see Bubble as a properly historical document, perhaps going as far as to distinguish the lm as
the zero-moment of the coming digital era and the moment that the industry
realized it had to change in order to ensure its long-term survival.
NOTES
1. Miami Vice, http://www.boxofcemojo.com/movies/?id=miamivice.htm; Superman Returns, http://www.boxofcemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm.
2. Shyamalan, qtd. in Gregg Goldstein, Shyamalan: Day and Date Life or Death
to Me, The Hollywood Reporter, October 28, 2005, http://www.hollywoodreporter.
com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001391595.
3. Schamus, James, To the Rear of the Back End: The Economics of Independent
Cinema, in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, ed. Steve Neale and Murray Smith. New
York: Routledge, 1998: 91105.
4. Goldstein 2005.
5. Schamus 1998: 93.
6. Spider Man 3, http://www.boxofcemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman3.htm.
7. Hernandez, Eugene, TRIBECA 06: In a Time of Change for the Movie Business, Talking About Emerging Distribution Platforms, Indiewire, April 27, 2006,
http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2006/05/tribeca_06_in_a.htmlHernandez 2006.
8. Soderbergh, Steven, Directors Commentary, Bubble. Magnolia Pictures, 2006.
9. Soderbergh, qtd. in Hernandez 2006.
10. This was not Soderberghs rst run-in with the writers union, as he changed his
writers credit to Sam Lowrya name inspired by the bureaucracy of the system
in Terry Gilliams Brazil (1985)to reect his dissatisfaction with the union for
his writing credit for The Underneath (1995). Since then, Soderbergh has begun to
use the name Mary Ann Bernard for his own work as an editor from Solaris (2002)
onward.
11. Daly, Steven, Pirates of the Multiplex, Vanity Fair, March 2007.
12. Yearly Box-Ofce, http://www.boxofcemojo.com/yearly.
13. Spider Man, http://www.boxofcemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman.htm.
14. Soderbergh, Directors Commentary.
15. Liepzig, Adam, How to Sell a Movie (or Fail) in Four Hours, The New York
Times, November 13, 2005.
16. Schamus 1998.
193
17. The present author has bought at least four separate versions of the original
Star Wars trilogy: two versions on VHS and two on DVD.
18. Burr, Ty, Celluloid Zero, Entertainment Weekly, April 15, 2002.
19. For the historical overview of this issue, see Jon Lewis, Following the Money
in Americas Sunniest Company Town: Some Notes on the Political Economy of
the Hollywood Blockbuster, and Thomas Schatz, The New Hollywood, in Movie
Blockbusters, ed. Julian Stringer. London: Routledge, 2003.
20. Holson, Laura M., More Than Ever, Hollywood Studios are Relying on the
Foreign Box Ofce, The New York Times, August 7, 2006.
21. See Liepzigs description of a weekend total for the DVD market of a lm;
Liepzig 2005.
22. Goldstein 2005.
23. Dargis, Manohla, Director Zigs From Stars to Nonactors, The New York Times,
September 22, 2005.
24. Borrelli, Christopher, Main Street U.S.A.: Filmmakers see the Midwest through
many lenses, The Toledo Blade, October 16, 2005.
25. Kirsner, Scott, Digital Cinematography, The Hollywood Reporter, July 13, 2006,
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_
id=1002688109; Kirsner, Scott, Director M. Night Shyamalan on New Technologies,
Filmmaking, and the Theatrical Window, http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2006/07/
director-m-night-shyamalan-on-new.html.
26. Glieberman, Owen, Review: Bubble, Entertainment Weekly, January 25, 2006;
Ebert, Roger, Review: Bubble, The Chicago Sun-Times, January 27, 2006; Lumenick, Lou, The New York Post, 2006. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10005849bubble/?beg=19&int=20&page=2.
27. Burr, Ty, Review: Bubble, The Boston Globe, January 27, 2007; Dargis, Manohla,
Review: Bubble, The New York Times, January 27, 2006.
28. Atani, Jay, Bubble Movie Review, Filmcritic.com, January 2006. http://www.
lmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/Bubble; Douglas, Edward, Review: Bubble,
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=12875.
29. Baumgarten, Marjorie, Review: Bubble, The Austin Chronicle, January 27, 2006.
30. Hollywood Reporter.com, Studio Brieng, January 31, 2006, http://imdb.com/
title/tt0454792/news.
33. Thompson, Anne, Soderbergh, Outsiders Challenge Studio Model, The HollywoodReporter.com, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_busi
ness_display.jsp?vnu_content_id_htm.
34. Brian de Palmas Redacted to Hit TV via Ultra HD Video on Demand, Variety,
August 10, 2007.
35. Hernandez, Eugene, Cuban and Wagner Change Course at HDNet Films as
Redacted Stirs Venice, Telluride and Now, Toronto, IndieWire, September 6, 2007.
chapter 11
Celebrity Juice, Not From Concentrate:

Perez Hilton, Gossip Blogs, and the
New Star Production
Anne H. Petersen
In early May of 2006, Tom Cruise grinned wildly at the reader from the cover
of Entertainment Weekly. Only instead of promoting Mission Impossible 3, Cruises
million-dollar smile was paired with a questioning caption: Is Tom Cruise
Really Worth $100,000,000? For a star whose box ofce track record has
established him as one of the few remaining sure-res in an industry with increasing resemblance to a Las Vegas craps table, the gravity of such a headline
is immense. Arguably the most iconic actor of the last 20 years, considerable
damage must have been inicted in order for anyone, let alone a national magazine, to question the drawing power of the cinematic colossus that is Cruise.
Many will argue that Cruise shot himself squarely in the foot with a year
of Scientology speechifying, couch-jumping, his public condemnation of psychiatry, and the micromanagement of ance Katie Holmes, and they are
correct: Cruises actions were a clear departure from his once immenselyprivate personal life. But what truly brought Cruises actions into the limelight, what scrutinized them, parodied them, and facilitated their massive
proliferation, is an institution even older than Hollywood: celebrity gossip.
Us Weekly, People, and Entertainment Tonight, of course. Even more signicant
to the deterioration of Cruises image, however, is the advent of the Internet
Adapted from Petersen, Anne Helen. Celebrity Juice, Not From Concentrate: Perez
Hilton, Gossip Blogs, and The New Star Production. Jump Cut 49 (2007). http://
www.ejumpcut.org/currentissue/PerezHilton/index.html. Used with permission.
196
Movies
gossip blog. With easy accessibility and immediacy, gossip blogs have set up
shop in the massive mechanism that is the Hollywood star system. By combining snarky commentary with links to the actual video, clips, and recollections of Cruises recent television appearances, gossip bloggers have been
credited with causing Cruises star to begin its fall, M:I:III to perform below
expectations, and Entertainment Weekly to question his worth on the marquee.
The greatest evidence of Cruises descent came in an August 22, 2006, article
in the Wall Street Journal, where Paramount CEO Sumner Redstone publicly
severed the studios ties with Cruise, explaining his recent conduct has not
been acceptable to Paramount.1 As evidenced by the case of Cruise, a blogger may use posts to signicantly inuence box ofce pulls and simultaneously dent, inate, and damage a star image.
The most notorious of these bloggers is Perez Hilton (real name Mario
Lavandeira) whose blog currently boasts more than a million hits a day.
Along with fellow gossip bloggers at The Defamer, Lainey Gossip, The Supercial, Jossip, and Pink Is the New Blog, Perez and his blog function as the newest component in the business of entertainment, integrating the established
mechanism of gossip with the new, immediate accessibility of the Internet.
Hilton and his blog may be situated within Richard Dyers landmark meditation on stars, with particular focus on the bloggers novel role in the production of stars. As Paul McDonald notes in The Star System, much of the work
on stars in the last two decades has focused on stars as a phenomenon of
consumption, rather than one of production, effectively los[ing] sight of
where stars come from.2 While McDonald primarily concerns himself with
star production on the part of the studio, the blogger occupies a unique position in the entertainment industry, functioning as both producer and consumer of the star image, providing a rich site for analysis.
I focus specically on Hilton, in part because his blog is the most read,
most publicized, and most thoroughly pervaded by the bloggers own personality. As such, it exemplies the union of traditional gossip columnists and
new media technologies. But even more interestingly, Hilton, as an openly
gay queen with an unabashed affection for all things camp, complicates
these phenomena of production and consumption. Whether by comparing
an unattering photo of a celebrity to a celebrated drag queen or launching
incessant campaigns to out a star, Hiltons position in the queer community
cannot be discounted. The gossip blogger may be traced in relation to ve
key aspects of star productioneconomics, manipulation, fashion, magic/
talent, and the nature of the medium, with attention to the extent to which
each element of production is (or is not) inuenced by Hiltons queer identity.
Ultimately, the gossip bloggers use of new media may be situated as a stripping of the mediated mechanisms of the entertainment business. New media
technology makes such mechanisms visible, and gossip bloggers utilize this
visibility to inuence consumption. Bloggers illuminate the star system, and
Celebrity Juice, Not From Concentrate
197
in so doing, alter our expectations and understanding of stars and their importance in contemporary society.
One of Dyers major assertions focuses on the fact that society, as opposed
to the success or failure of a lm, truly makes or breaks a star. How we feel
about starswhether they are likable, admirable, down-to-earth, worthy of
devotion, glamorous, and so forthdetermines whether or not we attend
their movies. With this in mind, as Internet gossip continues to proliferate,
how does it inuence, much more than printed media, our perception and
subsequent consumption of stars? How are Internet gossip sites any different
than the gossip columns of Classic Hollywood? The answer is in front of my
eyes as I type this sentence on my laptop: Blogs represent a recent yet significant component of new media, a term loosely dened as the current cultural
shift resulting from the ubiquity of and reliance on computers, digitalization,
and the Internet.
Blogs rst garnered attention as a means of rapid-re discourse surrounding the 2004 presidential campaign. At the time, their ability to swiftly post
material, engender debate, and garner a readership that was at once loyal and
diverse served as a remarkable point of interest. Blogs emerged as a new way
to stimulate discourse, disseminate opinion, and reach out to the technologydependent audience. The gossip blog serves the same function, focusing
on the new business of entertainment: smut and glamour. As tickets sales
and television viewership continue to drop, the industry has amped up promotion of its most reliable commodity, namely, celebrities. Whether its shots
of Britneys crotch or Angelinas babies, the buying and selling of celebrity
informationpictures, video, gossip, interviews, exclusivesserves as a solid
foundation for the market. Stars are a near inexhaustible resource: While one
may fall, another will certainly rise in her place. Indeed, the dynamicism of
celebrity culture is what keeps us hookedsomeones always falling in or out
of societys graces. We want the dirty details and the sparkling gowns, the
mugshots, the sex tapes, and the latest proof of Jennifer Anistons nose job.
The gossip blog trades on this very desire: Even though Perezs catchphrase
announces his blog as Hollywoods most hated website, hes actually providing the exact sort of sustained feed necessary to generate and maintain
societal interest. Hollywood may dislike his speculative and snarky ways, but
Perez keeps attention focused exactly where the industry wants it most: on
the product.
Gossip blogs, PerezHilton.com in particular, follow the same general format. A picture is posted; the picture is accompanied by a comment, story, or a
link to a more detailed article. The picture itself is the focal point of the post,
but the text inuences the manner in which the picture is received. The text
and photo, received in tandem, thus become part of the stars image. I use
the word not in its traditional senseas a visual representation of a thing
but in Dyers conception of the image, which he summarizes as a complex
198
Movies
conguration of visual, verbal, and aural signs. . . . it is manifest not only in

lms but in all kinds of media texts.3 Bloggers concentrate not on only the
image itself but also on the means of its production. While the public has
long been knowledgeable of the strings of productionJoan Crawfords persona and name were chosen through a Photoplay contest; Rita Hayworths
cosmetic transformation was highly publicized, to name just a fewthe difference is that those strings were meant to be seen. Like any other part of a
stars public image, they were constructed and willfully disseminated by the
studio. Yet, bloggers, even more than the gossip columnists who came before
them, have broken through those walls, effectively exposing the phenomena of production. Here, for the purpose of better understanding its contemporary importance, star production is explored through four of Dyers
categories: economics, fashion, magic/talent, and the nature of the medium.
ECONOMICS
Stars are essential to the business of Hollywood: More than any other
cinematic variable, they may be used to predict or ensure the success of a
lm. And yet, as Dyer explains, even in Hollywoods heyday, stars did not
absolutely guarantee the success of a lm. Stars move in and out of favour,
and even at the height of their popularity may make a lm that nobody much
goes to see. . . . for this reason stars were a very problematic necessity from
an economic point of view.4 In other words, stars represent the ultimate in
Hollywood paradoxes: A studio needs them, but they cannot insure them
with good roles or promising parts. The studio must rely on their specic
appeal in a specic societal moment. As society is historically as moody as
a 13-year-old girl, this makes for mercurial rises and falls. For most of the
twentieth century, the task of recording (and inuencing) a particular stars
fortunes (and appraised economic value) fell to print media, specically the
form of the gossip column.
Celebrity gossip is as old as Hollywood itselffor decades Louella Parsons,
Hedda Hopper, and dozens of others served to arbitrate and disseminate all
the star news that was t to print. But with newspapers and magazines, the
reader had to wait for a weekly update on the dynamic star lifestyle. The wait
was cut with the introduction of celebrity news, especially Entertainment
Tonight and E!, a network devoted exclusively to celebrity culture and entertainment. The majority of E!s programming schedule is lled with repeat
broadcasts of True Hollywood Story, 50 Biggest Fashion Mistakes, and similar
productions, and while these shows undoubtedly contribute to a stars image
and subsequent economic value, once produced, they remain staticunable
to match their content with that of the ever-uctuating star. E!s daily gossip
show Talk Soup does provide dynamic, up-to-date accounts of a star society.
But the show is more of a forum for other gossip guests, not a gossip-getter
199
itself. Talking gossip heads, including Perez and other gossip bloggers,
now regularly appear to dish on specic stars or subjects. Whats more, a onetime broadcast requires the viewer to be present at a certain time, in a xed
location.
But the Internet, with the mobilization enabled by wireless technology
and PDA devices, is accessible at all times, in nearly all places. Because Hilton
posts continuously throughout the day, the consumer can check in several
times, charting the progress of a celebrity event; the sheer volume of posts
allows for a more minute examination of rises and falls. In this way, Hiltons
blog proves reexive: it serves not only as a detector of public disfavor but
a catalyst for it as well. Farming gossip from a variety of sources, Hilton
disseminates this news to an audience of millions, thus amplifying public
awareness. Even if a star was not previously in public disfavor, the fact that
Perez reports that she is effectively morphs rumor into reality, working to bolster or break the economic value of a star.
Hiltons treatment of TomKat (gossips moniker for Tom Cruise and
Katie Holmes) exemplies this relationship between blogging and the stars
economic value. In a post from June 1, 2005, just weeks after the rst public
appearance of the couple in Rome, Hilton highlights a suggestive gossip bit.
Quoting the National Enquirers story of Cruise gifting Holmes with a hightech GPS phone that could track her whereabouts, minute by minute, Hilton follows with his own commentary: That story is just so ridiculously
sublime, who cares if its true! Here, Hiltons afterthought is signicant
while he acknowledges that the gossip may be far-fetched, his perpetuation
of such a story subtly inuences the reader to believe that regardless of its
veracity, such behavior may be believably attributed to the stars in question. Put differently, even a story acknowledged as fake may inuence a stars
image, simply by associating that star with a certain type of behavior. Such
stories also set a precedent: From June 1st on, Hilton posted dozens of quips
concerning Cruises purported micromanagement and control-freak antics
with ance Holmes. Each story made the next more believable, leading to
Hiltons speculation that Holmes was paid by Cruise to bear his child in synchronization with the premiere of Mission: Impossible III.
Once again, it matters little whether or not Cruise actually paid Holmes.
What matters is that the item was so heavily circulated by Hilton and other
bloggers that it has appreciably deteriorated Cruises star.5 Granted, print
gossip was publishing the same bits of gossip, but pressure from advertisers
and libel laws generally hold them more responsible for the factualness of
their gossip. Whats more, the frequency with which Hilton blogged these
bits substantially intensied their effect and inuence as discussed later,
the categorization function of the blog allows the reader to click on a link
labeled TomKat and read Hiltons critical posts in succession, further intensifying the negative sentiment and suspicion of Cruise.
200
Movies
Mission: Impossible 3 opened with a disappointing $48 million in domestic

box ofce a stellar number for most lms but well below the opening weekends of both Mission Impossible 2 (Woo, 2000) and War of the Worlds (Spielberg
2005), a statistic that lead CBS blogophile Melissa McNamara to title her
May 10 article Did Bloggers Doom M:i:III? McNamara cites Hiltons call
for a boycott of the lm as a potential explanation for its underwhelming
performance, quoting his May 5th post proclaiming, If you believe that good
should triumph over evil . . . if you believe in the power of the people, democracy, free speech, and popping pills. . . . Then join the campaign!6 Clearly a
blogger with Hiltons readership may potentially alter public perception of a
star. With the release of M:i:III, the evidence leads us to believe that he may
likewise possess the power, even more than print gossip, to inuence the
economic value of a star.
Perezs ability to economically affect a star thus established, the question remains: Why would he choose to do so? Perez effectively launched a
campaign against Cruise and his movie, but to suggest he did so arbitrarily
is to neglect one of the juiciest rumors in Hollywood: namely, that Cruise is
an intensely closeted homosexual. Perez promotes/demotes a star based on
their skill of production: For him, one practice particularly denotes an inattention to the current attitude of star consumers and that is a refusal to come
out of the closet. For Perez, denying ones homosexuality reinforces what he
views as the myth of gayness as box ofce poisonstars who view homosexuality as a potentially negative component to their star images are woefully ignorant of burgeoning societal acceptance on all fronts.7 Furthermore,
and perhaps even more economically importantly, such thinking neglects the
homosexual community as star consumers. Many homosexuals, especially
self-identifying queens such as Perez, have embraced the fabulousness of
Hollywood glamour as part of their external culture. As homosexuals statistically enjoy relatively large sums of expendable income, they should be
acknowledged and appreciated as a signicant segment of star consumers.8
In other words, for Perez, neglecting or insulting such a key segment of the
consuming public constitutes poor image production values and merits exposure and ridicule through his blog.
FAGALICIOUS: PEREZ AND OUTING
Perez self-identies as an outing homosexual. While the rst waves of
massive outing resulted from deaths by AIDS in the 1990s, many homosexuals, following the lead of Michael Musto and Michaelangelo Signorile, came
to regard outing as a moral obligation to the gay community. As Richard
Mohr explains in Gay Ideas, to accept the closet is to have absorbed societys
view of gays, to accept insult so that one avoids harm.9 Perez wholeheartedly espouses this ideology, inspiring both criticism and praise.10 As Mohr
201
elaborates, to break such a community-dening convention is to appear to

be a traitor to the community. But what appears as treason to some can actually be social reform, as exemplied by civil disobedience, in which, when
one breaks a current convention, one hopes thereby to establish a morally
improved community.11 While Perez does not use the exact rhetoric, he,
like many others, believes that there is no right to any closet, especially the
celebrity closet.12
Perez hints at the homosexuality of a number of celebritiesCruise, John
Travolta, Clay Aiken, Jodie Foster, Queen Latifah, among others. His disdain
for these celebrities hinges on what he perceives as their refusal to emerge
from their very obvious closets. He disseminates this criticism through a
number of channels, from the boycott of M:i:III to calling his readers to send
owers (and providing a link to do so through ftd.com) to both closeted and
open homosexuals on National Coming Out Day.
Starting in September 2005, Perez embarked on a full-edged campaign
to out former NSyncer Lance Bass. He focused on slips in Basss production
of a straight imagefor example, Hilton coined the term man-sharing to
explain the fact that Bass and friend Reichen Lehmkuhl, an openly gay reality
star, were consistently photographed wearing each others clothing. Perez
was not only criticizing Bass refusal to come out but his faulty image production. Hiltons efforts culminated in the July 26th, 2006, cover of People Magazine, with a picture of Bass and the announcement IM GAY. Members of
Basss family had read bits on his purported homosexuality in blogs such as
Perezs, leading the actor to at last publicly proclaim his sexuality. Perez defended his actions, explaining, I know there is some controversy about outing people, but I also believe the only way were gonna have change is with
visibility. . . . if I have to drag some people screaming out of the closet, then
I will. I think that lots of celebrities have an archaic fear that being gay will
hurt their career but look at Rosie. Look at Ellen.13 Indeed, coming out has
served as an immense boost to Basss formerly stagnant careersupporting
Hiltons underlying assertion that coming out isnt just a moral obligation,
its an aspect of economic production.14
In 2001, Cruise led suit against Chad Taylor, aka Kyle Bradford, over an
interview with international magazine Acustar in which the former porn star
claimed to have engaged in a homosexual affair with Cruise. The Complaint
of Defamation, available in full at The Smoking Gun, claims:
Bradfords defamatory remarks are of the kind calculated to cause Cruise
harm in his profession and his ability to earn [. . .] Losing the respect and
enthusiasm of a substantial segment of the movie-going public would
cause Cruise very substantial sums. While the plaintiff believes in the right
of others to follow their own sexual preference, vast numbers of public
throughout the world do not share that view and believing that he had a
202
Movies
homosexual affair and did so during his marriage, they will be less inclined
to patronize Cruises lms.15
In other words, Cruise believes that public insinuation of homosexual activities will damage his star image and, in the process, his economic value.
Perezs criticism of Cruise is thus double-sided: If Cruise is indeed gay, he is
not only shirking his personal responsibility to the homosexual community
but perpetuating what Hilton views as an antiquated equation of homosexuality with economic depreciation.
Cruise has produced and proted from an unambiguously heterosexual
star image. As an actively outing gay man, Perez subverts Cruises meticulous production, calling attention to the manner in which Cruise has constructed himself, focusing on his overly public relationship with Holmes.
Through posts and gossip proliferation, Perez supplants Cruises star image
with one of his own: as a closeted homosexual whose efforts at production
are so poor, so out of touch with society, that bloggers could pull them apart
and expose them to the consuming public. In essence, Cruise misjudged his
consumershis conspicuous heterosexual displays only bolstered Hiltons
claims. Perez claims, being gay is not a death sentence in show business. We
need to get out of that mind frame. Its 2006, people!16 And in 2006, while
being gay may no longer economically kill a star, being the target of Perezs
production-exposing blog very well may.
MANIPULATION
Dyer positions manipulation as the second component of the phenomenon
of star production. In his conception, out of this emphasis on manufacture,
there develops an account of the star system as pure manipulation. That is,
both stardom and particular star are seen as owing their existence solely to
the machinery of their production.17 Hilton and the gossip blogger function
as star manipulators themselves but likewise put pressure on the idea that
Hollywood can manipulate an image to please the public. Gossip bloggers are
simultaneously engaged in and critical of the systempointing to its holes
as they stitch themselves into the fabric. Perezs choice of cousin/namesake, Paris Hilton, exemplies this paradoxical practice.18
Interestingly, the underpinning of Perez and his blog is the empty promise of a starand not just any star, but Paris Hilton, who has built her celebrity on being nothing but herself and doing nothing but existing. Paris
Hilton is what Daniel Boorstin denes as a pseudo event; or, as Dyer summarizes, a star who appear[s] to be meaningful but [is] in fact empty of
meaning. Thus a star is well-known for her/his well-knownness, and not for
any specic quality. Perez, like Paris, is a signier of celebrity. People talk
to him, give him clothes, and feature him in articles not because of any talent
203
of his own but for becoming well-known through his association with stars.
In similar fashion, Perez has manipulated his image through his blog to be
that of the quintessential schwag-seeking star-lover. These are their public personalities, but as Boorstin points out, stars do not have a strong
character, but a denable, publicizable personality: a gure which can become a nationally-advertised trademark.19 Both Paris and Perez perform
as nationally-advertised trademarks: They trade public appearances for
cash, make outlandish statements to generate press, and sell their image,
whether on t-shirts or lunchboxes, to the highest bidder. The persona, Web
site, graphics, catchphrases, and content of Perez Hilton and perezhilton.com
are all legally trademarked.
Such immaculate control over a rather outlandish image speaks to an additional facet of Perezs public persona: his camp sensibility. As Susan Sontag notes in her seminal essay, indeed the essence of Camp is its love of the
unnatural: of artice and exaggeration.20 Reading through Perezs posts,
his love of and revelry in the spirit of extravagance, corny amboyant
femaleness/exaggerated he-man-ness, and things-being-what-theyrenot all hallmarks of campis overwhelming.21 Perez commits the bulk of
the blog to the lives of high-prole celebrities, but he also consistently celebrates campy idols: Chyna, an androgynous professional female wrestler;
British glamour model Jordan, known for her amboyant personal life and
multiple breast enhancements; plus others as various as singer Ricky Martin
and fashion maven Karl Lagereld. But these pseudo-stars represent only
the most exaggerated of Perezs camp tastes; indeed, these men and women
are so fantastically camp that its difcult for those unacquainted with camp
to appreciate such posts.
In contrast, Perezs attention to Paris Hilton exemplies a subtler form
of camp taste that permeates the blog, based more on a love of surfaces and
instant character that constructs what Sontag refers to as a mode of enjoyment, of appreciationnot judgment.22 Paris may very well be empty of
meaningshe has manipulated her image to be that of a jet-setting, spoiled,
ditzy fashionista, nothing but surface and image, as one-dimensional as the
photos that appear on the screen in front of us. Producing such a tightly
controlled image, devoid of nuance or complication, is a feat worthy of celebration. Perez lauds Pariss immaculate self-construction, but the manner in
which he does sowith an underlying sense of camp effectively undercuts
the seriousness with which Paris takes herself.
For camping, at its heart, is innately duplicitous: There is a straight,
public sense of a thing, contrasted with a private, zany experience.23 Put
differently, there is the way that the star means her image to be perceived
and the very different way that camp receives it. Reveling in this disparity
between intended and received meaning, camp makes the means of manipulation obvious to the point of enjoyment. With his blog, Perez has free license
204
Movies
to camp writ large blogging to an audience of millions; he lets others in on

what has long been a members-only form of humor.
Perez characterized his early career by lambasting Paris on a regular
basisin a post from November 5, 2005, Perez proclaims Paris new book
allows YOU the opportunity to confess your deepest, darkest, dirtiest secrets to the bitch thats . . . outskanked you and whom we all aspire to be!
But in the last year and a half, Paris and Perez have become friends: Perez
has posted dozens of photos documenting his attendance at various events
hosted or attended by Paris. Here, the celebrity blogger is interpolated
into the world of the pseudo-event. While the photos undoubtedly assist in
manipulating Perezs own star image as gossip authority, the fact that the
photos are sweaty, somewhat unattractive, ordinary, and even boring affects
the star of both Hiltons in a different way. By posing for and posting these
photos, Perez reies the pseudo-event of both Paris and himself; at the same
time, he calls attention to the fact that Paris has normal, boring house parties like anyone else exposing the cracks in her image as impeccably styled
socialite.
Such exposure was made possible by new media. The fact that Perez could
attend a party by himself, shoot dozens of pictures on his digital camera,
and post those photos the next morning attests to the immediacy of the
blogger. Usually, gossip mongers are forced to wait for paparazzi photos to
accompany their columns, which are published weekly or daily. Perez transcends the traditional model by going to the celebrity herself, documenting the night, posting it on his blog, and making it an event. Lev Manovich
emphasizes, with new media, a new area has emerged. As professional
technology becomes accessible to amateurs, new media professionals create
new standards, formats, and design expectations to maintain their status.24
Amateur photographer and Web designer Perez takes blurry photos on his
digital camera. He posts them to his blog using a preset template. Yet, these,
and other photos posted to the Personally Perez section of the site, have
worked to close the gap between professional blog sitesGawker is a good
example of a slick, professional siteand amateur sites such as Hiltons. If
Perez is getting the rst-hand scoop, he maintains his status, regardless of
amateur standards. Or, better yet, Perezs style rst-hand star-loving, low
production standards, camp humorbecomes the new standard.
FASHION
Celebrity fashion has always generated gossip, and Internet gossip takes
no less of an interest. While fashion may appear the purest, most supercial
form of manipulation, as I. C. Jarvie points out, one function a star serves is
to x a type of beauty, to help a physical type identify itself.25 In this way,
types of beauty are made to dene attractiveness.26 Dyer likewise asserts
205
that a change in fashion is a change in social meaningwhen a star dyes her

hair from blonde to red, for example, it constitutes a change in the social
meaning of her star. If, as previously asserted, stars rise and fall because of
the ability of their individual social meanings to resonate within society, then
a change in fashion can prove disastrous or fortuitous. The gossip blog does
more than display the fashion of the starthrough the innate functions of
the blog, it subtly calls attention to fashion as a means of production.
Perez Hilton is by no means the blogging authority on fashion. For sites
devoted to celebrity fashion, see The Sartorialist or Manolos Shoe Blog. With
that said, Perez, like all those interested in celebrity gossip, cannot escape
commentary, criticism, and promotion of fashion. The dependence of Internet gossip on visual imagery makes it a constant topic: With each picture,
one is immediately drawn to comment on appearanceclothes, face, hair,
shoes, skin tone, handsand use it as a starting point for interpreting the
meaning or signicance of the photo. Perezs camp sensibilities naturally
translate to an attention to fashion and surface. As Dyer explains in his essay
Its Being So Camp As Gets Us Going, camp is a way of prising the form
of something away from its content, of reveling in the style while dismissing the content as trivial.27 Focusing on these elements of style, Perez has
his clear favorites and, of course, his subjects of consistent ridicule. What
distinguishes Hiltons treatment of fashion from print media lies in two key
components to the blog: categorization and reader response.
Blogs often build sorting and categorizing options into their design.
Perezs categorizing method is rather straight-forward: Each photo receives
several tags, one for each star pictured, plus additional tags if it falls into a
Perezpre-established category, including Gay Gay Gay, Fashion Smashion, Fun n Fluff, and SIGHtings. As evidenced by the titles, in sorting
a picture into an established category, Perez establishes the meaning of the
photofor example, a photo of Jake Gyllenhaal and a male friend working
out, once led under Gay Gay Gay, takes on new signicance. The same
holds true for Perezs labeling of fashion: Placing a photo in Fashion Smashion, as opposed to Fashion & Beauty, automatically tips off the reader as
to the intended meaning. Print media uses a similar technique to distinguish
between the front pages (lled with celebs wearing beautiful dresses) and
the back pages (What Were They Thinking, fashion designer critique of
fashion mistakes, etc.). The blog one-ups the fashion mag with its ability to
catalog all Fashion Smashion posts, from one week to one year ago, in one
easily clickable location. Manovich calls attention to the manner in which
New Media creates predened menus (Perezs database of photos, sorted
into categories) prepped for user-selection, a process that allows end users
[to] feel that they are not just consumers but authors creating a new media
object or experience.28 When a reader uses the StarSeeker pull-down menu
to select a category, he is creating his own experience of the blog, viewing
206
Movies
it in a completely different form, order, and context than it was originally

displayed.
This power of authorship over ones own gossip experience takes on
particular meaning when applied to fashion. Scrolling through the Fashion Smashion section, posts that initially appeared in no relation to each
other coexist on the same page. Jennifer Lopez appears smartly dressed and
styled in a post titled THIS is why Jennifer Lopez is a style icon followed
by a picture of Kirsten Dunst, hair and dress haphazard, stumbling down
the street. The contrast changes the meaning of the original postLopezs
fashion sense and classiness are heightened, while Dunsts are lessened. In
this way, Perez assists in establishing stars as superlativesan idea key to
Dyers conception of the star. Perezs sorting allows the reader to insinuate
Lopez as the most stylish, while Dunst becomes the most bag-ladyish.
The star thus dissolves into the superlative, [is] indistinguishable from it,
they become superlative.29
Hilton pressures notions of fashion by inviting readers to comment on or
decide whether an outt, dye job, or new look is attractive. On May 8, Hilton
posted a picture of Jessica Simpson presenting at the 2006 ALMA Awards,
which honor Hispanics in Hollywood. Hilton challenged his readers to examine Simpsons curly auburn bob, tightly tted orange dress, and deeply
bronzed skin, and debate Jessica Simpsons New Look: Love it or Leave it?
YOU Decide! Over 300 reader comments follow, including She looks like an
oompa loompa, and Does anyone else ever notice that in some pictures she
looks like an old ass Texan grandma? As the comments proceed, they transcend mere fashion commentary, declaring, She is trying way too hard these
days to be something she not, She and her sister symbolize everything that
is wrong with our culture, and kinda racist to go in black face (or in this
case brown face) to the ALMA awards, no? Here, we see a change in fashion
denote a change in social meaning: As opposed to her former All-American,
blonde-haired, innocent image, this picture encapsulates the change in Simpsons star and social meaning following her divorce from Nick Lachay. From
reader responses, we gather that she appears as an absurd and fake chameleon, racially insensitive, and an embodiment of all thats wrong with our
country. While many visitors to Hiltons site do not participate in or read
comments, such commentary nevertheless documents greater societal reactions.30 Unlike letter sections in print gossip, these responses are immediate, uncensored, and interactivethey feed on one another, constructing an
overarching sentiment toward the star and his/her fashion choice. In this
way, they constitute a veritable goldmine of public opinion, a way to monitor
how society feels about a particular star at a particular moment.
As celebrities are dependent on visual imagery to maintain their presence
in society, fashion will most likely always be a determining factor in their popularity. Gossip bloggers represent a heightened awareness of fashionnot
207
only through their ability to post large numbers of images but also through
the particular characteristics of the blog that pronounce and reify the social meaning of each fashion choice and, by direct association, the star who
wears it.
MAGIC AND TALENT
Public sense of a stars magic and talent likewise inuences production
and consumption. Dyer explains that a very common view . . . though not
intellectually very respectable, is that stars are stars because they are exceptional, gifted, wonderful.31 If we accept this idea, then we must determine
at what an actor is exceptional or giftedaccording to Dyer, the skill is not
acting in the classic sense, as numerable examples show. Skill then at being
a certain sort of person or image.32 Hilton and his blog showcase magic and
talent in becoming a certain sort of image in two ways, functioning as pure
fan and as critical observer.
There is no doubt that Hilton is a fan. It seems a requisite for blogging
with such frequency and passion. When dealing with his favorite stars (Paris,
Madonna, Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, and Angelina Jolie), Hilton is not
shy in expressing adoration. The words brazilliant, hot, and this is why
we love convey affection and admiration. For Perez, such admiration is
often explicitly linked to a smart self-marketing move on the part of the star.
On April 16th, following the birth of Gwyneth Paltrows son Moses, Perez
posted the following:
Do the laws of supply and demand apply to the paparazzi? Gwyneth Paltrow hopes so! The new mom to Moses was glowing as she carefully unveiled her new baby boy to the world, in front of A LOT of paparazzi,
which means that no one particular shot will be worth more than the other.
In fact, all of them will be worth probably the same and the market will be
saturated with that shot. Knowing Paltrow, she will probably not keep new
baby Moses in hiding, hoping that by doing the same repetitive tasks with
the baby each daymaybe even wearing the same clothesthe paparazzi
will see no monetary incentive to follow her around every day. Yay for
economics! Enjoy your mommy time Gwyneth.
With this post, Perez lays bare the economics of the paparazzi and Paltrows
savvy manipulation of them. With her babys photo so readily available, the
market will close for new pictures, allowing Paltrow and her family privacy
from the paparazzi. In a similar vein, following the much-anticipated birth of
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitts daughter Shiloh Nouvel, Perez posted, Shes
such a smart cookie! On the same day The Baby was born, Santa Angelina
had her lawyers snatch up the domain name ShilohNouvelJolie-Pitt.com.
Crafty! (May 31st). His praise for Jolie is not based on any acting skill but
208
Movies
on her knowledge and control of the media. Control over media extends to
control over ones own image; the tighter hold a celebrity possesses of his/
her own image, the more authentically magic and talented he/she appears.
One may readily discern who does or does not have magic and talent in
Perezs eyes through observation of his posting styles. In his opinion, there
are two categories of stars: those who deserve to be famous and those who
do not. His posts concerning real stars focus on lifestyles: their ability to
present themselves as a particular type through commodity consumption.
In these posts, the woman is presented as spectacleher clothes, her children, her dining habits are deconstructed and analyzed, all because she is
interesting enough (talented enough) to garner such attention. Put differently,
she deserves the attention of the media, Perez, and his readership, for she has
produced her image so skillfully as to appear seamless, believable, real.
Conversely, celebrities who do not deserve attention are ridiculed for their
attempts at spectacle. Their displays of conspicuous consumptionas dened by Dyer, the way by which the wealthy display that they are wealthy;
the very backbone of the star lifestyleare criticized instead of celebrated.33
Perez calls attention to stars that continue to posture as famous long after the
capital of their talent has been exhaustedfavorite examples include Jennifer
Love Hewitt, Tori Spelling, and former boy band members. Unlike the caricatures of celebrity in which Perez revels, these stars land somewhere between
the truly magical and the truly camp; they are neither a pure construction
nor pure talent but a sad mess in between. In the language of camp, theyre
simply not bad enough to be good.
THE NATURE OF THE MEDIUM
Dyer stresses the manner in which the close-up reveals the unmediated
personality of the individual, and this belief in the capturing and the unique
person of a performer is probably central to the star phenomena.34 The
close-up, a key element to narrative cinema, should create what Bela Balazs
terms a silent monologue, forming a connection between the star and the
viewer. The medium of Dyer and Balazss discussion is lm, but the same
principle may be readily applied to the Internet blog. The medium in question is both the celebrity photo and the blog; their collective nature performs
a specic function in connecting or alienating the viewer from the star.
In his essay The Face of Garbo, Roland Barthes draws attention to the
power of the close-up. Barthes asserts that, Garbo still belongs to that moment in cinema when capturing the human face still plunged audiences into
the deepest ecstasy, when one literally lost oneself in a human image as one
would in a philter, when the face represented a kind of absolute state of the
esh, which could be neither reached nor renounced.35 He concludes that,
the face of Garbo reconciles two iconographic ages, it assures the passage
209
from awe to charm, situating Audrey Hepburn and her unique specication of the face, which has nothing of the essence left in it as the face of
charm. As such, Garbos singularity was of the order of the concept, that
of Audrey Hepburn is of the order of the substance. The face of Garbo is an
Idea, that of Hepburn an Event.36 Barthes was writing in the late 50s, but
this idea of cultural signicance connected to the close-up still applies. With
New Media, we have moved to yet another iconographic age: from awe to
charm to disbelief. If the face of Garbo is an Idea, and Hepburns face is an
Event, then the face of Jessica Simpson, of Angelina Jolie, of Paris Hilton is a
Question. Is the photo real? Have wrinkles been airbrushed; have the lips had
collagen injections? Has the picture been manipulated to represent an idea
or event that does not, in fact, exist? Whose image has been recycled to form
that of the new celebrity? In short, Photoshop and digital technology have
forever altered the meaning of the close-up and the celebrity photograph in
general, working to endlessly question the signs of star production.
As a thoroughly postmodern facet of new media, Photoshop allows for perpetual reselection: If a celebrity doesnt like her lips, they may be airbrushed
to resemble another set, one more compatible with her desired image. In this
way, rather than assembling more media recordings of reality, culture is
now busy reworking, recombining, and analyzing already accumulated media
material.37 To put it in Manovichs terms, a star is thus the author of the
object of her image; as she composites her image from pieces that she did
not create, the creative energy of the author goes into the selection and
sequencing of elements rather than into original design.38 Production of
star image in postmodern times dictates a process of selection, attempting
to reproduce the awe and charm of earlier un(digitally)mediated stars. The
resulting image is an attempted semblance to the ideas of awe and charisma
made iconic in the faces of both Garbo and Hepburn.
Hilton and his fellow gossip bloggers call attention to the mediation that
occurs in the postmodern, Photoshop-dependent era. In other words, gossip
bloggers attempt to answer the question posed by the images of contemporary stars, repeatedly addressing issues of manipulation. Wielding his own
rudimentary knowledge of Photoshop, Perez uses the paint function to
point to specic questions of production. In this way, Perez denies stars the
chance to author themselves by drawing attention to their attempts. With a
picture of Victoria Beckham posted March 7, 2006, Hilton declares, Victoria
Beckham would be so pretty . . . if she hadnt had so many damn procedures.
In the accompanying photo, four hand painted arrows point to Beckhams
nose, cheeks, brow, and breasts. This photo, along with dozens of others
posted under the category Knifestyles, make visible the question of the
mediated image, simultaneously providing an answer.
Perez, like many other gossip bloggers, follows Beckham very closely,
and with good reason: Like Paris, she is composed only wholly of surfaces, a
210
Movies
true pseudo-event. She rst came to fame as a member of The Spice Girls, a
group composed of ve women, each of whom took on a singular personality characteristic to be emphasized through their dress, attitude, and general
image. The group was extravagant, enormously successful, and wholly dependent on surface-level stereotype: pure camp. Beckham, formerly Victoria
Adams, was labeled Posh Spice, a look she manifested in the form of short
black dresses, heavy eyeliner, and disinterested stares in public appearances,
a somewhat blunt evocation of classic Hollywood sophistication. Beckhams
current look is a selection of past posh looks, revamped in order to disassociate herself from the connotations of her old image, that is, fake, cheap glamour. Beckham is attempting to author herself. After several failed albums,
Beckhams former avenue to stardom is essentially blocked. The only way
for her to still be a star is to continue appearing in public as a star. In other
words, she shows up places where one is certain to be photographed, such
as Ivy in London, Koi in Los Angeles, or at Fashion Week in Paris, in out ts
that solidify her selected posh image. The contents of Beckhams category on
Hiltons Web site are variations on this self-same theme: Posh dines out with
fashionable husband; Posh goes skiing in all leather; Posh tries on shoes with
Katie Holmes at Barneys. Regarded collectively, they illuminate Beckhams
attempt at image production.
Beckham, along with stylish, soccer-star husband, David Beckham, has
successfully acquired the visual accouterments and commodities of a posh
lifestyle. To sustain her star, Victoria Beckham need only sustain her established image, even if this process necessitates plastic surgery and a suspected
eating disorder. If the reader selects the Victoria Beckham category, Perezs photoshopped post of Beckhams surgeries appears between numerous
others, exclamations of Feed me! scrawled beside bony arms and Beckhams
somewhat emaciated face. When regarded as such, Hiltons posts serve as an
amplication and critique of Beckhams process of image selection.
Dyer and Balazs believe that the close-up possesses the ability to connect
star to viewer by portraying the uniqueness of the individual. In a world
dominated by new media, uniqueness is impossible, even irrelevantstars
succeed in connecting to the individual through their ability to best select
pre-established traits, poses, ideas, and images to form a composite of a likable
star. The manner in which they do so is heavily reliant on new technology
plastic surgery and Botox, of course, but also new media technologies such
as Photoshop, ofcial Web sites, and the proliferation of their image on sites
such as Hiltons. While Hilton and others undeniably take part in the perpetuation of this cycle, republishing photos and reifying images, they likewise
draw immediate attention to the cracks in their carefully crafted image. This
process represents the new nature of the medium, with skill of construction
(and resultant believability) functioning as the key determining factors of a
stars popularity.
211
CONCLUSIONS
Through his blog, Perez has initiated a new way to perceive stars, using
a sort of absolute value scale to evaluate the signs of production. To obtain Perezs attention and endorsement, a star must be completely surface
levelglaring signs of production, pure camp, bad enough to be goodor so
skilled at production as to erase such signs entirely. The million-plus readers
of his blog have, perhaps obliviously, begun to co-opt this method of judgment. What does this tell us about the state of the star system, the gossip it
inspires, and the society that consumes it?
To address this question, one must only return to the example of Cruise,
a major star for the last 20 years. In 1983, there was something distinctive
in the way that Tom Cruise appeared in All the Right Moves (Chapman)the
lm opens with shots of his dreary mill town home, shifting to a sleeping
Cruise, who awakes with an endearing bleariness, his eyes still sparkling
from dreams. Throughout the lm, Cruise is earnest, impassioned, and
cockyhis set, square jaw; his self-assured irtation with girlfriend, Lea
Redmond; the affected swagger of the 56 man. This lm, juxtaposed with
Risky Business (Brickman, 1983), released just months apart, is what rst
made Cruise a star: He appears equally authentic as a home-alone son, taking over the mansion and the scrappy cornerback, desperate for a way to
escape the steel legacy of his family. His image, meticulously constructed
by top publicist Pat Kingsley, served as the common denominator of the
lms that solidied Cruises starTop Gun (Scott, 1986), The Color of
Money (Scorsese, 1986), Born on the Fourth of July (Stone, 1989). In short,
his image was so unied, so believable, that the signs of this construction
were invisible.39
In 2002, David Thomson wrote that for Cruise to maintain his star, he
would have to remake himself at every turnand there may not be enough
good people to trust. He is very professionalbut is there now a profession?40 Thomson returns us to an essential realization: While I would not
go so far to assert that the profession is completely dead, its clear that
the star system will never be the same, and the emergence of New Media,
gossip blogs included, is the reason. Cruise was often likened to another
broad shouldered ladys man by the name of Clark Gable, and for a time, he
seemed ready to join the colossal stars of the pastGable, Grant, Garbo,
Hepburnas one who could play both the everyday and the extraordinary.
He was simultaneously likableyou could be pals, if he moved into the rambler next doorbut, at the same time, on a completely different level, untouchable, godlike, a Top Gun, worthy of devotion and admiration. A large
part of that which established the above stars was a conation of star image
and star rolethe fact that Cary Grant married his fth wife at age 76 only
reinforced his image as the ultimate likable cad; you looked at a picture of
212
Movies
him, watched a lm of his, heard gossip about him, and it all fed back to a
single united image, so immensely attractive in its harmonized message.
What has changed, then, and where Cruise has run into trouble, is that
in the age of New Media, there are no colossal stars, nor will there ever
be. No one is larger than liferather, they are manipulated simulacrums of
life. With New Media, there are simply too many aspects of the image, too
many roads leading to a permanently decentralized Rome. I am in no way
asserting that the images of Gable, Garbo, or Grant were not, at their heart,
constructionsthe public was more accepting then; there were fewer discourses surrounding the star, which allowed the viewer to forgo skepticism,
nding herself willing to believe. The problem, then, is that we are no longer
willing to believe anythingwe have been disillusioned and made skeptical
by so much technology, so much manipulation, that perhaps the only lm
that we are willing to believe is that of a plane ying into the World Trade
Center. And even then, theres a cult of doubting conspiracy theorists. Tom
Cruise has fallen from the limelight because he attempted to make the shift
from twentieth- and twenty-rst-century star, trading his rare appearances
and relative secrecy for overexposure and outspokenness.41 Before our current age of digitalization, Cruises infamous couch-jumping would have been
documented and disseminated but, after a few months, perhaps forgotten,
fading from public consciousness. New Media, however, allows that tape to
be circulated and viewed again and again, its audio track morphed into a
dance remix.
The legends of the early stars of cinema were in large part attributed to
the novelty of the medium, and we have become wearied, disaffected, and unimpressed by mere lm projection. We clamor for the next level, demanding
immediate access to photos, lm, music, and gossip. We are addicted to the
likes of Perez Hilton because he feeds us exactly what we want: He makes
visible the signs of production, telling us where to direct our consumption.
Our inability to be awed, our reluctance to believethis is what has changed
the star system.
As a lm scholar, I suppose I thrive on my own ability to make visible
the signs of production, to draw attention to why we like stars. In this way,
I am not so different from PerezI write scholarly papers, he posts snarky
postsbut we both concentrate on and call attention to the machinery of
Hollywood. At the same time, Im saddened by my own assertion that we will
never again believe enough in anything to hold it up for true adoration. But
Perez and I grew up in the 80s, when Cruise, Madonna, and Michael Jackson
were indeed larger than lifethey were still something to believe in, especially as children. So long as our generation is a part of Hollywoodboth
as scholars and gossips, viewers and fansthen a modicum of fascination
and adoration will remain. I do wonder, however, what will occur when my
own children, the babies of New Media, are born into a world that is rapidly
213
becoming digitalized and, as such, turning into an immense image of itself,

an overwhelming Questionwhat will remain for them to believe in, and who
will think it important, as both Perez and I so obviously do, to tell them the
answers?
NOTES
1. Paramount: Cruise is Risky Business. CNNMoney.com. 23 August 2006. http://
money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/news/newsmakers/cruise_paramount/index.htm?cnnyes
(accessed 10 October 2006).
2. Paul McDonald, The Star System (London: Wallower, 2000), 2.
3. Richard Dyer, Stars (London: BFI, 1998), 35.
4. Dyer, Stars, 11.
5. At the time of writing, Mission: Impossible 3, with a domestic gross of $133 million (compared with a budget of $150 million+) clearly performed far below expectations.
6. Melissa McNamara, Did Bloggers Doom M-I-iii? CBS News Online. 10 May
2006. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/blogophile/main1600758.shtml
(accessed 16 May 2006).
7. Bear in mind, this is more of a suggestive hopeful vision than reality: While
Perez asserts that star consumers have become accepting of homosexuality, in reality,
coming out would in all probability signicantly decrease Cruises earning power.
8. According to a survey conducted by the Simmons Market Research Bureau,
gays represent the ultimate DINK marketDouble Income, No Kids. The annual
value of the gay and lesbian market exceeds $514 billion; the average household income for gay men was $52,624, 41 percent above the national average.
9. Richard Mohr, Gay Ideas: Outing and Other Controversies (Boston: Beacon Press,
1992), 31.
10. In a post from July 14th, 2006, in response to criticism from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation for speculating about sexuality, Perez writes, We
dont have the support of our people, and we love it! If were hated, that means were
doing something right. . . . We dont need your support, bitches. Michael Musto has
been outing people for years, and he is our hero!
11. Mohr, Gay Ideas, 28.
12. As he proclaims in a broadcast of Ring My Bell, posted on perezhilton.com on
October 18th, 2006, if youre a celebrity or a politician, youre fair game.
13. Did Gossip Blogger Out Lance Bass? MSNBC.com. 27 July 2006. http://www.
msnbc.msn.com/id/14065223/from/ET/ (accessed 15 October 2006).
14. Bass is currently developing a reality show for UPN; in October of 2006, Bass
and Reichen were presented with the Human Rights Campaign Visibility Award.
15. Tom Cruise v. Chad Slater aka Kyle Bradford. Thesmokingun.com. 2 May 2001.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/chadslater1.html (accessed 15 October
2006).
16. Did Gossip Blogger Out Lance Bass?; While Perez remains rm in his stance
that coming out as a homosexual will not damage ones career, I must agree with
Cruise: His star image is predicated on such an intense sense of masculinity that
214
Movies
coming out as a homosexual would undoubtedly deharmonize his constructed image.

Granted, Perez seems to be arguing that his attempts at hiding his homosexuality
his relationship with Cruise in particularhave already enacted such a deharmoniza
tion. . . . so why not come out?
17. Dyer, Stars, 13.
18. In a recently televised Queer Edge interview, Perez explains the genesis of his
name as such: While club-hopping on New Years Eve in Miami, as they left each
club, the promoter would exclaim Oh dont leaveParis Hilton is coming later.
According to Hilton, after the third or fourth club, he realized that Paris Hilton denitely wasnt comingthey were simply using the promise of her name to convince
people to stay and buy more drinks. He turned to his friends and announced, Puhlease, Paris Hilton is not showing up, but Perez Hilton might! Watch the interview
in its entirety at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOOcM6lEu7c&search=perez
%20hilton; Dyer, Stars, 13.
19. Daniel Boorstin, The Image (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), 162.
20. Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
1968), 275.
21. Sontag, Against Interpretation, 27983.
22. Sontag, Against Interpretation, 286, 290.
23. Sontag, Against Interpretation, 281.
24. Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media (Cambridge: The MIT Press,
2001), 120.
25. I. C. Jarvie, Towards a Sociology of the Cinema (London: Routledge, 1970), 14.
26. Ibid.
27. Richard Dyer, The Culture of Queers (New York: Routledge, 2002), 43.
28. Manovich, The Language, 125.
30. Reader-response also provides a forum for the debate over Perezs outing. Following an August 6th post in which Perez asserts the homosexuality of Clay Aiken,
Nancy responds: Once again, Perez. . . . It is not your right nor is it your responsibility to out someoneand to even ask people to do the dirty work for you. What
is up with that? It is nothing short of vicious. Katie expands this thought further,
writing, Just because you are a amboyantly and openly gay person and that works
for you, doesnt mean that it will work for everyone. Your work and much of your
image, or gimmick per say, is based on being gay. This is not true for Clay Aiken.
He found fame through American Idol. A majority of American Idols viewers are
religious middle Americans. Furthermore, America is not yet a country where most
of its general population can look at an entertainer purley for talent and not judge
them based on their personal lives.
35. Roland Barthes, Mythologies (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970), 56.
36. Barthes, Mythologies, 57.
215

39. For more on Kingsley and her skill at managing Cruises image, see Anne
Thompson, Pitt vs. Cruise: A Tale of Two Publicists, The Hollywood Reporter,
5 June 2005.
40. David Thomson, The New Biographical Dictionary of Film (New York: Alfred A
Knopf, 2002), 193.
41. As Anne Thompson makes clear, this overexposure and outspokenness can be
traced to Cruises choice of publicist. After ring Pat Kingsley in March of 2004, he
hired his sister, Lee Anne DeVette, also a Scientologist. DeVette served as Cruises
publicist until November 2005, at which point Cruise replaced her with veteran publicist Paul Bloch. Although DeVettes ofcial reason for leaving was to spend more
time with various philanthropies, the move is widely regarded as part of Cruises
strategy to rehabilitate his image.
chapter 12
Big Bucks and Fake Tears:

Celebrity Journalisms Hyperreality
Zachary Snider
How else to represent this new world than through post-modernist

atness? The post-modernist motto is: You cant beat trash culture, so
join it.
Todd Gitlin
CAREER FORMATION IN THE
HYPERREALITY MATRIX
At the impressionable age of 20, I was hired by the Manhattan branch of
what, for purposes of this chapter, Ill call Stars Today, which, for decades,
has been Americas beloved daily syndicated entertainment news show. For
the past nine years I have served as an associate producer for Stars Today in
New York City, Los Angeles, and London, where I worked the press lines for
awards shows, lm premieres, benets, and other events and where I animatedly asked stock (but apparently necessary) questions to countless celebrities, including Who are you wearing?! and What are you doing next!?
With boom mics and NTSC tapes ying at my head, the rest of my
workdays were spent at lm press junkets in private luxury hotel rooms;
jam-packed press conferences; in-studio confessional interviews; behind-thescenes of various lm shoots; exclusive album recordings; Broadway play
rehearsals and backstages; personal viewings of celebrity homes; among
innumerable other celeb-infested events. As a nonthreatening (and uncommonly innocent-looking, which always opens more doors in this industry)
young blond male (still) under 30, I became a very trusted entertainment
218
Movies
television Boy Wonder, at the demanding side of the executive and coordinating producers and high-prole PR agents with whom I had established
professional relationships, on both sides of the Atlantic.
The purpose of this chapter is a proposal, or a pleading, perhaps, for viewers to heighten their sense of awareness, of perception and interpretation, of
what newsboth (supposed) hard and soft newspresents to them. With
visual media serving as humanitys best and allegedly most-trusted friend
in the twenty-rst century, particularly for the Millennial generation, many
regular television viewers do not initially realize that nearly every news segment transmitted via satellite is editorialized for competitive and capitalistic
gain and that actual reality, or hyper-reality, as Baudrillard refers to the
mass medias format of projected reality, can never be actual reality at all.
Even as someone who has been a manipulator of media for his entire professional life thus far, I, too, like any other television viewer, inevitably fall prey
to the hyperrealistic ideas unconsciously absorbed by my oft-media-dictated
and -affected psyche.
Prior to being hired by Stars Today, I had conducted celebrity interviews
and written feature stories for my university newspaper, as well as having
spent a year on the editorial staff of a renowned Manhattan theater magazine,
for whom I interviewed and wrote articles about stars of the stage, screen,
and television. As a ravenous young adult, barely into college I knew I wanted
to hang out with celebrities for a living because I had spent my childhood
and adolescence seeing all of their lms, buying their CDs and cassette tapes,
and video-recording their TV shows. This American popular culture obsession is certainly not uncommon. I can only imagine how affected my celebinfected mind would have fared as a teenager in the twenty-rst century, since,
from Facebook to Flavor of Love, the Millennial generations philosophical
intuitions of every aspect of their lives seem to be shaped solely by celebrity
culture.
In college, when my peers were happily doing keg stands and shot-gunning
Keystone, I was in a tuxedo at the Tonys, a Ferragamo jacket at the MTV
Video Awards, or illegally sipping Veuve Clicquot at a Julia Roberts tribute
gala. My entire adult life thus far has consisted of conditioning my formerly
sheltered suburban mind to understand the plights and puppeteered dichotomies of the celebrity brain, per se, as well as to explore precisely why audiences want what they want.
Later, while pursuing my Ph.D. in London, I developed career multiple
personality disorder: Mornings I lectured to creative writing, media theory,
and literature classes about Foucaults, Baudrillards, Lyotards, and Derridas
concepts on reality (or the lack thereof ), and nightly I would interview current celebrities such as Sienna Miller, all the while pretending to care with
whom Jude Law was committing indelities. Thus, I can completely relate to
Big Bucks and Fake Tears
219
Baudrillards characterization of himself: What I am, I dont know. I am the

simulacrum of myself.1
I knew I needed to collapse and sprawl across Roland Barthess postmodernist couch and hear about the lack of reason in reality, after having
to tell my classes, Sorry, Ive not nished marking your term papers about
Death of the Author. Um. At the last minute I had to go interview Queen
Latifah in Prague.
THE TELEVISION PRODUCER AND HIS OTHER
Now, Ive got at least three different versions of a career Other, one a
postmodernistpsychoanalytic theory scholar, another a Hollywood television producer, the third a guilty, a naughty mix of the two. In regards to this
formulation of an Other, Toffoletti states:
Baudrillards displacement of a psychoanalytic model of subject constitution proves immensely signicant for forging alternative understandings
of subjectivity in contemporary life. In a context where the real gives
way to the hyperreal, Baudrillard seeks to put an end to dialectics, to a
value system by which identity is forged through differentiation from the
Other.2
With this in mind, I myself, after having been submersed in the entertainment industry but having also been inducted into academia, am also an
example of Baudrillards forged identity of his Other explanation. My version of reality became an entirely skewed version of actual reality, where
celebrities seemed to be genuine peers and colleagues in my life, both for
work and play. It is our shows job to pretend for the rest of America that
our visual, editorially edited images of celebrities are realistic representations of these televised public gures so that our viewers can forge personal,
upfront relationships with the celebrities they follow faithfully. Hollywood,
and the small celebrity-oriented world within Manhattan, is a sort of plastic
Disneyland for those of us who work in television. For comparisons sake of
this ultimate hyperreality, which is not far-off from Hollywood: It was the
controversial French philosopher Jean Baudrillard who pointed out that the
true role of Disneyland was not to provide a childlike escape from the reality
of life, but to persuade us that the utter fantasy of modern American life is
in fact real.3
As television producers, we are the pushersthe persuadersof what
Baudrillard refers to as this utter fantasy of American life, bringing viewers
a sort of fantastical Hollywood-as-the-adult-Disneyland slide show of images. We create a fantasy world for our viewers but ironically, if not hypocritically, do our best to make you believe that your fantasy is reality.
220
Movies
WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT . . .

Soon after the turn of the millennium, I worked on a piece for the Michael
Jackson Radio City Music Hall tribute, where we produced footage of Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor emerging from a towncar in the middle of midtown
with thousands of fans nearby cheering them on. When, in actual reality,
a rather mortied midtown crowd had gone disturbingly quiet (which never
happens), as though two extra-terrestrials had landed in the center of New
York City. Our joyous, cheer-crazy footage hid the actual, realistic moment,
which would have appeared like a misplaced scene from Close Encounters of
the Third Kind.
When a megapop star released a CD, while producing/fantasizing our
warped television reality, we got soundbites from her about how she protected her virginity and stayed away from drinking or drug use. Later, in
actual reality, I watched the pop princess, with hands rubbing all over a boyfriends clothed private parts, accept drugs and alcohol and partake in her
party favors, with her dancers. Our moralistic, promotional segment was the
antithesis of the orgy that went on downstairs at a now-defunct club.
During another segment, we aired soundbites of a teen heartthrob walking the red carpet into an awards ceremony, proclaiming he was looking for a
special lady, while earlier that day I had watched his notoriously overprotective manager grab the stars rear and kiss him backstage. This was followed
by some other homoerotic canoodling backstage during rehearsals, but of
course none of this footage was aired, which Im sure was appreciated by the
celebrity and his drooling female fan following.
For an entire week in London, we followed around another major star as
she promoted her new book. Our footage showed her reading the entire story
to a group of inner-city British schoolchildren, all of them captivated by her
prose. When, in actual reality, more than half of the children had sprawled
out on the carpet, napping, whispering loudly to each other, and bored to
tears. Later, our crew captured her walking the red carpet into an awards
show; we did not air the footage of her skipping the entire show, opting to
instead slip out the backstage door into her towncar, after having thanked
her fans and announcing how excited she was for the show.
But I am not writing a gossip column here.
Rather, this is our job. We get paid for this. It is our duty to ignore and
erase actual reality for the expectation of our fans and the reputation of
our celebrity clients. Stated again: We create your fantasy as your desired
reality. Every day is comprised of a series of meticulous, manipulative steps
to create what Baudrillard refers to as hyperreality, in order to seduce the
American public to feature prominently into our Nielson ratingsespecially
during Sweeps Week, when the most ultradramatic, overhyped stories conveniently emerge, which is also the time of the year when celebrities are most
221
promotional of themselves because they know their audiences want to know

all their dirty little secrets. Entertainment television producers must have a
hybrid, paradoxical version of reality and lead this hybrid life in order to play
the middleman between celebrity life and our audiences actual real lives.
ENTERTAINMENT VS. INFORMATION:
AMERICAN CULTURE IS POP CULTURE
While, for example, I can understand why Daniel Radcliffe and his young
Harry Potter costars will never feel like regular people due to never getting
the chance to develop or even know their true selves; and, for example, I can
empathize with Tom Cruise for crazily jumping on Oprahs couch and subsequently being conveniently let go from his Paramount contract; and, for
example, I can even relate to Bjorks desire to wear an entire feathered swan
to the 2001 Oscar ceremony . . .
I still question relentlessly why the American public wants what it wants
in terms of celebrity culture. Similar to anything else that is captured on
camera, entertainment news is (obviously) not real. As soon as a correspondent, celebrities, or any montage of footage is lmed with expensive camera
equipment and distributed via mass satellite feed to the American public, a
representation of real Hollywood is catered buffet-style for tabloid-obsessed
America. Defensor analyzes Baudrillards oft-studied and taught Procession
of Simulacra in regards to this idea:
All reality, he claims, can be concerted into signs which are empty. If you
have worked in a public relations ofce, an advertisement company, or a
political campaign stable, you can have some idea of what he is saying. The
image is all. Thats how the sale is made. Thats how the votes come in.
And the alienation of signs from reality becomes even greater as the draft
text goes to the editors who do not worry about the reality, but are concerned about what will the audience say?4
Regardless of your abhorrence or appreciation for popular culture, it is obvious by reading any online services Most Viewed News Stories (i.e., Yahoo!
News, Google News, MSN) that celebrity-oriented headlines top Americas
information priorities, even that over politics and election coverage, Iraq war
updates, or health and safety issues.
Even todays hard news programs and footage are criticized for placing
importance on providing entertainment rather than information. Much of the
in-depth hard news coverage is now lmed and produced like Jerry Bruckheimer Hollywood blockbusters, no matter if its about international wartime
affairs or a local childrens spelling bee. This suggests that, today, perhaps
all news is entertainment news. Lerner states of the millennial generations
222
Movies
relationship with hard news: 21% of Americans younger than 30 consider

comedy showscomedy shows!a primary source of political news.5
This borderline sensationalistic style of news reporting in the twenty-rst
century has now placed entertainment values over the provision of information; network competition has become so erce that it seems every aspect of
news reporting has become for capitalistic gain. For the American public, the
desire for subjective entertainment has now superseded that of the desire for
objective information. Lerner also comments about this parasitic relationship between visual consumer expectation and network nancial gain:
We live in an age when cameras are ubiquitous and access to what had
once been off-limits is virtually universaloperating rooms, police cars,
the boudoirs of the rich and famous. Increasingly, events unfold in real
time, and thanks to reality TV and the proliferation of media, the public
sphere is larger than it ever has been before. At the same time, television
docudramas and movies that are based on a true story encourage us to
believe that we can view the world from on high, like omniscient narrators.
But nothings really changed. The idea that we know the real people
behind the celebrity remains an illusion no matter how often our overexposed movie stars visit Jay Lenos couch or how many embarrassing
admissions they make on Larry King Live.6
Every local pre-primetime ve oclock news often covers and presents epiclike news stories with Oscar-worthy cinematography about anything and
everything, borderlining sensationalism and yellow journalismbut this
method of combo-entertainment-information presentation has become expected by American audiences. Thus, since most news in the twenty-rst century is often overdramatized, it would make sense that Hollywood-oriented
program content is the most popular. Lawson proposes that todays news
production style and content is executed more like ctional works than concise, nonbiased, ethical reporting:
The obvious temptation is to blame journalism, and its certainly true that
these blockbuster news stories are partly shaped by the fact that todays
journalists (in print and television) have much more space and much less
fear of legal censure than did their predecessors. But I think the news increasingly feels like a novel or screenplay because so many people now
live like gures in ction, dening themselves as characters within what
artistic criticism calls a structured narrative.7
There must be some truth to Lawsons ction styled interpretation of todays news production; otherwise, television stars (who are actually supposed to be nonbiased or nonpartisan reporters) such as Katie Couric or
Anderson Cooper wouldnt have such a prolic fan base. Couric, formerly
223
with well-adored Matt Lauer on The Today Show another form of entertainment newsbecame Americas Sweetheart, whose life was trailed by
her audience of faithful followers who wanted to know every soap operatic
detail about her husband, children, network reputation, and so forth. Likewise, if Cooper didnt have his gray-haired, Indiana Jones-like stud character
personae, bravely trudging through jungles and Middle Eastern battle elds,
his reputation of a journalistic yet heroic, modern-day Gulliver or Gilgamesh
wouldnt have been cemented by his adoring viewership.
PARASITES AND THE LOSS OF MEANING

The majority of the audience for a television news program such as Stars
Today immediately interprets information, camera footage, and headlines as
authentic, forgetting that all meaning of celebrity culture has been manipulated by us as television producers, writers, and directors, thus putting our
own often ethically questionable editorial spin on whatever allegedly newsworthy information we are reporting to you. As far as meaning is concerned
for audience consumption, shows such as Stars Today disguise soap-operatic
tabloid information, complete with characters who have newsy lingo and language, prompting viewers to consider that they need to know the celebritysupported and endorsed facts we provide. The meaning of this editorialized
information is plastically altered for its famished, avaricious audience of persons who long to be closer to real celebrities, the majority of whom are never
presented in a real or unbiased manner. When any celebrity is lmed, photographed, or scribed about, it is impossible for these representations to be real,
yet their faithful fan followings often fail to realize this. Toffolletti analyzes
this concept as per Baudrillards take on television itself:
For Baudrillard all the media of information and communication neutralize
meaning, and involve the audience in a at, one-dimensional media experience, which he denes in terms of a passive absorption of images or
resistance to meaning, rather than an active processing or production of
meaning.8
This suggests that, according to Baudrillard, the audience is to blame for their
hungry consumption of these editorial images and their inability to decipher
the real from the unreal, the meaningful and the meaningless, the true and
the false.
In opposition, it is easy to simply blame the mediaparticularly entertainment news shows such as Stars Today and gossip magazines such as Us
Weekly for spoon-feeding the American public this coveted footage and the
reporting of their beloved celebrities. And admittedly, we, as entertainment
informants, are at fault, at least partially.
224
Movies
Were to blame, perhaps even more so than our audiences willingness to

believe our footage, all of which is, of course, advertised as honest reporting
with journalistic integrity. Thus, if the relationship between entertainment
television production and its audience is equally at fault for satisfying each
others desires (the audiences entertainment and informative wants; televisions monetary needs), wouldnt celebrities, who are the coveted program
content of these shows, be at fault, as well? Without newsworthy celebrities
(i.e., popular or controversial or trendy), shows such as Stars Today would
have no relationship with their audience to begin with. In regards to where
blame should be placed, Defensor states, without withholding his opinion,
The tragedy is that these do not only happen in advertising or PR agencies,
but also in the editorial and news ofces of some print and electronic media
who have lost their identities in this image and money jungle.9
This parasitic tri-prong relationship between American consumerist culture feeding off of whatever celebrities give them, in terms of products (both
handheld and artistic), body image, moral and ethical ideal systems, and all
areas of trends (domesticity, fashion, travel and leisure, etc.), has partially
alluded my psychology, because, since I have been of American voting age, all
of celebrity culture, for me, has been work.
EVERYONE LIKES TO BLAME THE MEDIA
Of all the contentious social issue topics my writing seminar classes dissect, whenever we get to the week on Body Image, every last student explains
that his/her own psychologically constructed body image is compounded from
unrealistic media simulacra. When teaching theory and critical thinking to
undergrads, popular culture examples always seem to be the most digestible.
Whenever I ask my students how they choose whom to compare themselves
in terms of media-dictated body image, the room falls silent. They palpably
do not understand where their often unattainable self-perceptions and aspirations of media-dictated body image derive from. Coulter recalls Baudrillards
object vs. subject separation of this rather quixotic self-perception:
For Baudrillard, consumer society is object-focused and, as such, always
disappoints. The object, however, does play a dramatic role. It designates
the real world and its absence. Objects are uncanny: There is always something in the object which the subject cannot comprehend, says Baudrillard. The more objects we accumulate, the more obstacles we place between
ourselves and relating. The object is a source of extreme paradox for consumer culture. By focusing on the object, rather than the subject, Baudrillard posits the object as a fully edged actor in consumer society.10
For television, and perhaps all of visual media, the collection or accumulation of rapid-re images is substituted for the accumulation of materialistic
225
or physical objects. Visual, quite often editorially altered images, are far easier
two-dimensional objects for viewers to consume than materialistic goods, so
the media is able to force syndicated point-of-sale transactions via this parade
of images at a much faster and more affective rate and at a larger volume.
While my students (and most Americans who have embraced or accepted
any overruling facets of popular culture) all blame the media, as is now overly
common to do in the academic classroom, no one wants to admit that his or
her own perception of him/herself has consciously or unconsciously evolved
from images of various celebrities and models, all of which are represented in
the form of unattainable but popular entertainment conglomerate-decided
efgies. The media always seems to be at fault, but many of my students do
not entirely know who and why they are blaming. Seaton states of this innate
insecurity and general unknowingness of todays university crowd:
But there is also another, less obvious, source of attraction to the notion that
there is nothing outside the text. Today Americansand, perhaps, young
people in particularare concerned about identity and seem often to be
searching for some sort of denite and secure identity . . . Advertising tells
us that everything we eat or wear, any game we play and, naturally, anything we buy, is a sign that tells other people something about ourselves.11
The media sells ideas and lifestyles more than it does physical products,
most of which are executed by celebrity culture, both directly and indirectly.
These images and lifestyles are implemented into mainstream popular culture directly by conglomerate-dictated trends, while viewers psyches are affected indirectly by the posh lifestyle trends they view, and often attempt to
emulate, compliments of lmed celebrity culture. The media is both a delight
and a demon to the Millennial generation, but theyre understandably and
forgivably unaware of who precisely is delighting and demonizing them.
In response to my question about how they derive their own personal body
image construction, my students unfalteringly ask, What do you mean? To
which my immediate, easy answer is this:
One evening during the Mission: Impossible 3 premiere, I stood on the red carpet outside of the Odeon Cinema in the middle of Londons Leicester Square.
My cameramen and sound guys towered over my 5'7, 140-pound frame as
I faced off with Tom Cruise, who, like a plastic Ken doll alien, had just landed
from outer space to answer questions about his wardrobe tonight and his stunts
in the lm. I erected my shoulders as high as theyd go, realizing that I was
speaking to a world-famous human being who, most likely, no longer actually
knows the difference between the real and the unreal. And then, mortifyingly,
I found myself neurotically having the following internal monologue:
Tom Cruise is my height! Hes a shorty! Although hes a bit bulkier and muscley, our body frames are essentially the same type. I bet we even have the same
226
Movies
waist size! Weve both got big glittery smiles, sparkly eyes and full heads of hair.
Tom Cruise is an international sex symbol! Ergo if Tom Cruise is wanted, desired and lusted after by the majority of the planet, thenWOW!I MUST be
okay, too!
At which point, while staring Tom Cruise in the face, I wanted to instead
slap myself across the face, having realized that even though my entire professional life had consisted of serving the American public celebrity fantasy
informationplasticized compilations of forged simulacra in the form of
20-second television promosI too had fallen prey to my own companys
salesmanship of entertainment-driven self-degradation and questioning of
self-worth. My microphone went limp at my side.
After confessing this neurotic self-comparison to my students, they understand my question, and their responses are typically delivered in comprehensibly narcissistic categories, narcissistic in the realm of mirrored
self-acceptance. The thin, peroxided girls want to emulate Charlize Theron
and Cameron Diaz; the black and Latina females nd acceptance from footage of J-Lo and Rihanna; the naturally curvier young women say they appreciate publicly proud celebs such as Kate Winslet and Scarlett Johansson.
Most of my male students compare themselves to David Beckham or other
popular athletes; hip-hop stars, the skin color of whom seems blessedly irrelevant to these Millennial students nowadays; indie and/or Emo bands such
as Panic at the Disco! or The Killers; or, for the beer-guzzling frat dudes, any
of todays Frat Pack lm stars, including Vince Vaughn and Luke and Owen
Wilson.
There is an image archetype for everyone as we near the end of the rst
decade of the twenty-rst century. For example, most recently, the fall television season of 2007 introduced a geek club of characters for nerd viewers to
relate to and women to nd cute, such as the protagonists of Reaper, The IT
Crowd, and Chuck, among others. These trends are conglomerately decided
for competitive purposes, not simply by chance, which is unfortunately what
the majority of the boob tubeconsuming public assumes.
CONFORMING TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL
HOLLYWOOD ARCHETYPE
Nowadays, this omnipresent, unidentiable but blamed force called the
media presents trends for its public to consume, thereby identifying and
cementing its publics self-worth. Ten, maybe even ve years ago, celebrities such as potato-shaped Jack Black; schlubby, shaggy-headed Will Ferrell; or blatantly average Taylor Hicks would absolutely not be featured in
prominent publications lists such as Americas Best Bachelors alongside
chiseled Brad Pitt, Hollywood classical George Clooney, or athlete-stud
227
Matthew McConaughey. Note: the aforedescribed qualities of these wellknown celebrities are not my personal, editorial physical descriptions, per se,
but rather, the socially connotated reputations of their appearances.
The publics consumption of these images of overweight, out-of-shape
celebrities who are now apparently considered sexy in the twenty-rst
century is perhaps acceptable nowadays because much of America is overweight and out-of-shape. The majority of this country does not synonymously resemble Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron, so the American public is
much more comfortable being told that celebrities such as Jack Black and
MoNique are desirable. This means that if a man resembles Jack Black, then
he is sexy and desirable enough to be a celebrity . . . ! I am not attempting
to dene beauty here but, rather, suggesting that television viewers narcissistically (but understandably) want conrmation or self-acceptance that
they too are desirable and celebrity-worthy, like these superstar Hollywood
images they watch daily. The parasitic relationship of these imageswhat
the media force-feeds us and what we will consciously or unconsciously
acceptis now more about deated self-worth than about the power or
presence of being a celebrity. In regards to this force-feeding of ideas and
images, Baudrillard cites four steps in the progression of an image into
simulacra:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The image reects a basic reality.

It masks and perverts a basic reality.
It masks the absence of a basic reality.
It bears no relation to any reality whatsoever.
Furthermore, Baudrillard notes the existence of simulation as something

of a step toward simulacra. Simulation is an imitation of the real that often
becomes confused for it. He also posits that we exist in a state of hyperreality,
where little distinguishes the real and the imaginary. This is perhaps most
readily apparent in television.12
This concept is impossible, as simulation, or an imitation of the real, can
never actually happen in the media because there is no reality. The fantasy
life, personalities, and images constructed around celebrity culture in entertainment television is this very state of Baudrillards hyperreality. Thus,
no accurate simulation, not even an imitation of the real, can be successfully
molded by television.
In the twenty-rst century, many (but not all) famous people who are considered celebrities are more Everymen or Everywomenor Everylosers
or Everynerds or Everygirl-next-doorsrather than the glittery, glamorous 1950s-esque celebrity personas. Much of the American public nowadays
wants their celebrities to reect an imitation of reality that is identiable
and relatable to them. In many cases, viewers prefer mirror imagetype
228
Movies
celebrity archetypes and images of themselves, so that, in our age of obsessive reality television fandom, the viewers themselves feel like celebrities,
thanks to the casting of celebrity types.
WHITE POWER
The majority of the stories we ran were increasingly considered edgy for our
mega media conglomerate parent company, predominantly because before the
emergence of these big and beautiful women, many of them non-Caucasian ladies, the majority of its channels and subsidiaries featured absolutely no facet of
nonwhite culture. It wasnt until just a couple of years ago when our executive
producers decided it may be benecial to our viewership if we had persons of
color as correspondents, in order to hook in new millennial audiences. In years
previous, even when doing man-on-the-street interviews (i.e., when a segment
producer socially/casually assaults passersby with a microphone and questions,
as his camera crew lms each assault), we were blatantly informed to not ask
ugly, overweight, or alternative-looking people, and especially, persons of
color.
The audience of Stars Today, along with most other mainstream American
entertainment news programs, is not in New York or Los Angeles. We cater
to the Neilson rating demographics of middle-aged, middle-class, Middle
Americansuburban, mostly female, mostly archetypal housewife viewers,
the vast majority of whom are Caucasian. Seaton humorously paraphrases
Sontags take on the dominance of white culture:
The late Susan Sontag was once willing, like many other advanced thinkers,
to think of cancer as a text revealing that one was guilt-ridden, uptight,
repressedin a word, bourgeois. It was with this notion in mind that she
once declared that the white race is the cancer of human history.13
With specialty cable channels including BET, LOGO, Oxygen, and Spike
now catering to very microscopic audiences, our twenty-rst century production strategy has had to adopt a more multicultural marketing strategy
and representation. Although this seems like a logical and welcome change
in the television industry, many top executives believe that steering away
from the aforementioned demographic is a ghettoization, or even a dumbingdown, of our program content.
In a sense, well-watched and -rated entertainment news television programs serve as the mediators between celebrities and their worshipping
audiences. Were the dysfunctional middle child of Hollywood, stuck in the
center, trying to make everyone happy. And if we can prot from both celebrities and their audiences, all the better.
229
DEATH OF THE TELEVISED TEXT/ ITS ALL

ABOUT YOU
Roland Barthess 1977 The Death of the Author critical commentary of
the literary and publishing communities is, strangely, as applicable for Hollywood and the television community. Although the high-brow, elitist, and
respected literary community is, by reputation, in opposition with the lowbrow, commercialist, and amoral television world, the audiences of these two
sparring communities are often one-in-the-same and share a great deal of
common characteristics. Because both the literary elite and Hollywood mass
culture must cater to their audiences with very similar methods of pleasured
satisfaction, Barthess proclamation that the audience has been given importance over the text itself seems wholly appropriate for entertainment news.
Now that technology and media rule popular culture over the printed
word, even entertainment news programs such as Stars Today are considered
texts, suggesting that the sole purpose of such programs is to please their
viewers but to also not simultaneously anger their celebrity clients. Its tough
making everyone happy. In The Death of the Author, Barthes wrote:
Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite
futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it
with a nal signied, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism
very well, the latter then allotting itself the important task of discovering
the Author (or its hypostases: society, history, psyche, liberty) beneath the
work: when the Author has been found, the text is explainedvictory to
the critic. Hence there is no surprise in the fact that, historically, the reign
of the Author has also been that of Critic . . . In the multiplicity of writing,
everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered.14
When audiences watch and interpret entertainment news shows, everyone is a

critic. The very program content of a 30-minute entertainment news episode is a collection of often overdramatically represented promotional segments in which very little happens. This segment collection of celebrity gossip
and soft news/feature stories is produced strictly to entice viewers to stay
on the same channel for 30 minutes preprimetime so that said entertainment
news show may secure these viewers for ratings.
Entertainment news television does not capitalize on its viewership by
providing its target viewer with a fantasy. Rather, we create fantasyor
hyperreality, as Baudrillard calls the realistic fantasticalpresented to
you, our faithful viewer, as the projected reality were convinced that you have
special ordered. With market research, competitive Neilson ratings proof,
and mega-media conglomerate-decided trends, were actually manipulating
each of our television-viewing audience members as a marionette, simultaneously telling you what you want to watch yet hypocritically convincing
230
Movies
you that were catering to your entertainment consumption needs and requests. Coinciding with Barthess The Death of the Author, this similar
Death of the Viewer concept for American television audiences prompts
viewers to not only embrace the clichd idea of dont believe everything you
see on television but, more so, to realize that, in the twenty-rst century,
it is viewers who should embrace the power of free and original thought
rather than accepting everything that we television producers passiveaggressively force-feed them. Without much of American television viewership making and pioneering this realization, the validity and reliability
of the inuence of The Media will continue to morph into a distrusted,
inauthentic, hyperreality rather than a necessary, trusted source of information and entertainment.
NOTES
1. Steven Poole, Obituary: Jean Baudrillard: French philosopher and sociologist
who explored the changing nature of reality in the media age, The Guardian (Guardian
Obituary Pages), March 8, 2007, ProQuest, http://www.library.manhattan.edu:2062/
pqdweb?did1229149761&Fmt3&clientId10762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
2. Kim Toffoletti, Media Implosion: Posthuman Bodies at the Interface: [1],
Hecate, 29, 2003, ProQuest, http://www.library.manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?did
592467571&Fmt3&clientId10762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
3. New Media Age, Hollywood writers strike is a symptom of a wider change,
December 13, 2007, ProQuest, http://www.library.manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?
did1399578861&Fmt3&clientId10762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
4. Benjamin G. Defensor, One Mans Meat, BusinessWorld, January 15, 2007, ProQuest, http://www.library.manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?did1194655301&Fmt3&
clientId10762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
5. Preston Lerner, Based on a True Story; An absolutely 100 percent factual account of Hollywoods gradual devaluation of realitydepending, of course, on how
you dene the words true, factual, and reality, Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles
Times Magazine), September 11, 2005, ProQuest, http://www.library.manhattan.
edu:2062/pqdweb?did894472081&Fmt3&clientId10762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
6. Lerner, Based on a True Story.
7. Mark Lawson, Comment and Debate: Front-page thrillers: The Hyper-reality
of ction techniques has transformed the way we consume the news, The Guardian
( The Guardian Comment and Debate Pages), December 7, 2007, ProQuest, http://www.
library.manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?did1394631951&Fmt3&clientId10762&RQT3
09&VNamePQD.
8. Toffoletti, Media Implosion.
9. Defensor, One Mans Meat.
10. B. Gerry Coulter, Passwords, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology (Book reviews/Comptes rendus), February 2005, 42, ProQuest, http://www.library.
manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?did815510401&Fmt3&clientId10762&RQT309&VN
amePQD.
231
11. James Seaton, The Word is Out, The Weekly Standard, February 25, 2008, ProQuest, http://www.library.manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?did1435702601&Fmt3&cli
entId10762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
12. Christopher Wright, Welcome to the Jungle of the Real: Simulation, Commoditization, and Survival, The Journal of American Culture, June 2006, 29, ProQuest,
http://www.library.manhattan.edu:2062/pqdweb?did1047821271&Fmt4&clientId1
0762&RQT309&VNamePQD.
13. Seaton, The Word is Out.
14. Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author, Image, Music, Text, 1977, North Carolina State University, http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/whatis.htm.
About the Editor

and Contributors
EDITOR
Robert C. Sickels is Associate Professor of American Film and Popular Culture at Whitman College. He has made several short lms that have played
nationally at festivals around the country. In addition to publishing numerous
journal articles and book chapters, he is also the author of American Popular
Culture Through History: The 1940s (Greenwood, 2004) and American Film in
the Digital Age (Praeger, 2009).
CONTRIBUTORS
Harry Brown is an Assistant Professor of English at DePauw University in

Greencastle, Indiana. His essays on American literature and digital games
have appeared in the Journal of American and Comparative Cultures, Works and
Days, Paradoxa, as well as several collections. His book, Injun Joes Ghost, was
published in 2004.
Mary P. Erickson is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon. She worked as a publicist for a Seattle
lm arts organization and with several independent lmmakers. She coedited a book with Janet Wasko titled Cross-Border Cultural Production: Economic
Runaway or Globalization?
234
Jeffrey Hirschberg is an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Television Arts program at Buffalo State College. He is a member of the WGA, a
professional screenwriter, and is currently writing a book on Heroes & Villains in American Film for Michael Wiese Productions (ThreeAct.com).
Sue J. Kim is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Alabama
at Birmingham, where she teaches cultural studies and literary theory. Her
essays have appeared in Modern Fiction Studies, the Journal of Asian American
Studies, and Narrative.
Ramon Lobato is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne and a
sessional lecturer at RMIT University. His current research examines the
relationship between lm distribution and globalization, and his work has
appeared in Camera Obscura, Media International Australia, Limina, Continuum,
and Studies in Australasian Cinema.
Kimberly A. Owczarski is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Texas at
Austin in the Department of Radio -Television-Film. She is currently nishing her dissertation on the relationship between the Batman lm franchise
and Time Warner. She has published articles in Cine Action, Journal of Film
and Video, and Spectator.
Anne H. Petersen is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Radio-TelevisionFilm at the University of TexasAustin, where she focuses on the intersections of celebrity culture and New Media. She currently serves as coeditor of
the online journal FlowTV, available at www.owtv.org.
Zachary Snider, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at New York University
and other Manhattan universities, specializing in courses in creative writing,
journalism, and postmodernism. He also works professionally as a television
and print journalist and writes ction novels and nonction publications.
R. Colin Tait teaches Asian Cinema and Contemporary Film Authorship at
The University of British Columbia. His current research interests include
contemporary Hollywood, politics, lm genre, and Fredric Jameson. He is
currently coauthoring a monograph on The Cinema of Steven Soderbergh with
Andrew deWaard.
Yannis Tzioumakis is a Lecturer in Media and Communication Studies at the
University of Liverpool. He has published widely on American cinema. His
book American Independent Cinema: An Introduction was published in 2006. He
is currently coediting American Indies, a book series dedicated to independent cinema, and contributing to a volume on Mamets The Spanish Prisoner.
Index
About Last Night . . . , 163

Access, piracy as, 29 32
Actors, 139 40
Adee, Peter, 8, 9 10
Adult industry, and piracy, 23 24
Aint It Cool News, 67
Aladdin, 8384
All the Right Moves, 211
AMC Theatres, 143, 181
America On Line (AOL), 70, 101
Amoco, 66
Amusement rides, 61, 7778, 80, 82,
89 90. See also Theme parks
AOL (America On Line), 70, 101
Arkin, Alan, 139
Armageddon, 8182
Artisan, 174
Asia, piracy in, 16, 22 23, 29,
30 31
Asphalt Jungle, The, 18
Assimilation, in movies, 6
Atari, 11112, 113, 116, 123
Audience, 10 11, 220 21
Authorship, piracy as, 25 28
Aviator, The, 15354
Awards, 141 42
Bad Company, 82
Bagdikian, Ben H., 57, 72
Baker, D., 104
Baker, Sala, 96, 9899, 100 101, 104
Balazs, Bela, 208, 210
Barthes, Roland, 26, 27, 2089, 229, 230
Bass, Lance, 201
Batdance (Prince), 5859
Batman: The Animated Series, 61, 63
Batman: The Escape, 61
Batman, The (television program), 68
Batman and Robin, 65 67
Batman Begins, 55, 68 69, 72
Batman Beyond, 68
Batman Forever, 64 66
Batman franchise, 5572; amazing
functions of, 56 64; high-tech synergy
and, 6671; Six Flags parks and,
60 61; synergy and media integration,
5556; toyetic Batman, 64 66. See
also Time Warner
Batman Gotham Knights, 67 68
Batman (movie), 5759, 63, 71
Batman Returns: The Ofcial Movie Book
(Burton), 62
Batman Returns (movie), 61, 62 64, 66
236
Batman the Ride, 61
Batmobile, 68 69
Baudrillard, Jean, 21819, 220, 221, 223,
224, 227
Baumgarten, Marjorie, 190 91
Bay, Michael, 81, 82, 125
Beckham, Victoria, 209 10
Berri, Claude, 162
Bettig, Ronald, 28, 29
Birds of Prey, 68
Black, Jack, 226, 227
Blackman, W. Haden, 122
Blair Witch Project, The: box ofce
earnings and distribution, 134; lm
festival release and distribution, 140,
174; as Web phenomenon, 37, 38,
47, 50
Blogs, gossip. See Gossip blogs
Bloom, Orlando, 82, 84, 87
Boorstin, Daniel, 202, 203
Borrelli, Christopher, 190
Boyens, Philippa, 96
Boynton Beach Club, 49
Bradford, Kyle, 201 2
Bradshaw, Peter, 105
Braff, Zach, 138
Brave New Theaters, 145
Brokeback Mountain, 129 30, 131, 174
Brooke-Rose, Christine, 98
Bruce Almighty, 23
Bruckheimer, Jerry, 8182, 83, 88
Bubble, 179, 180 81, 182, 18384,
189 91, 192
Buena Vista Pictures, 43 44. See also
Walt Disney Pictures
Buice, Susan, 51, 144 46, 147, 148
Burr, Ty, 190
Burton, Tim, 58, 61, 62 63
Cable and Satellite Broadcasting
Association of Asia, 16
Cable market, 157
Camp, 203 4, 205
Capote, 129 30
Carell, Steve, 23
Cassavetes, John, 156, 166
Cassidy Kids, The, 48
CBS Corporation, 67
Celebrities, homosexuality of, 200 202
Index
Celebrity gossip, 19899. See also Gossip
blogs
Celebrity journalism, 21730; audience
expectations, 220 21; blaming the
media, 224 26; career formation
in, 21719; conforming to personal
Hollywood archetype, 226 28; death
of televised text, 229 30; diversity
and, 228; entertainment versus
information, 221 23; parasites and the
loss of meaning, 223 24; television
producer and his Other, 219
China, piracy in, 22 23
Chronicles of Narnia, The, 46
Chronicles of Riddick, The, 125
Church, Thomas Haden, 139
Cinemark USA, 181
Classics divisions, 15859
Click, 144
Clockers, 186
Clooney, George, 137, 13839, 183,
184, 185
Cockroach capitalism, 23
Collette, Toni, 139
Consent Decree (1940), 4 5
Convergence Culture (Jenkins), 11617
Cooper, Anderson, 222, 223
Copyright, 17 20, 22, 24, 26 27, 61.
See also Piracy
Copyrighting Culture (Bettig), 28
Copyrights and Copywrongs
(Vaidhyanathan), 24
Copyright Term Extension Act (1998), 18
Costs: marketing, 8; piracy, 186; prints
and advertising, 182, 188; production,
1, 182
Country Bear Jamboree ride, 80 81
Country Bears, The (movie), 80 81, 82
Couric, Katie, 222 23
Crash, 104 5, 129 30
Creative Commons, 25
Cruise, Tom, 19596, 199 200, 201 2,
21112, 221, 225 26
Crumley, Arin, 51, 144 46, 147, 148
Cuban, Mark, 179 80, 18183, 186, 188,
189, 19192
Cultural Control and Globalization in Asia
(Pang), 29
Cyan Pictures, 49
Index
Daly, Steven, 186
Dances with Wolves, 162, 173
Dargis, Manohla, 99, 100, 190
Dark Forces, 120
Dark Knight, The, 70, 71
Da Vinci Code, The, 188
Day-and-date release strategy, 179,
180, 189
Dayton, Jonathan, 138
Deadroom, 48, 49
Death of the Author, The (Barthes),
229, 230
Dee, Jonathan, 11314
Defensor, Benjamin G., 221, 224
Dell, 69
De Palma, Brian, 182, 186, 191
Depp, Johnny, 82, 83, 84, 8587, 90
Digitization, 11516, 188
Directors, 13839
Disney, Walt, 7778. See also Walt Disney
Company; Walt Disney Pictures
Disney Vault, 187
Diversity, and celebrity journalism, 228
Downs, Hugh, 140
Dunst, Kirsten, 206
DVD market, 187, 18889, 190
DVD technology, and piracy, 23
Dyack, Denis, 114
Dyer, Richard, 19798, 202, 204 5, 207,
208, 210
EA (Electronic Arts), 117, 118, 120 21
Ebert, Roger, 93, 105, 111, 190
E! cable channel, 19899
Economics, and star production, 198 202
Eisner, Michael, 85, 89
Electronic Arts (EA), 117, 118, 120 21
Elliott, Ted, 8384, 88
Empire of Mind, The (Strangelove), 24 25
Empire of Their Own, An (Gabler), 4
England, copyright history, 17, 19
Enron, 191
Entertainment news television. See
Celebrity journalism
Entertainment versus information,
221 23
Entertainment Weekly, 55
Enter the Matrix, 111
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (movie), 111
237
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (videogame),

11112, 113, 116, 123
Evan Almighty, 23
Everything or Nothing, 121
Face of Garbo, The (Barthes), 2089
Fair use provisions, 18
Family Business, 3 4
Faris, Valerie, 138
Far North, 164
Fashion, and star production, 204 7
Fast and Furious, The, 10
Film festivals, 140 41, 142 43
Filmhaus Productions, 154, 159, 165 66
Filmways, 160
Fine Line, 132
Finn, Adam, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47
Fithian, John, 191
Florsheim, Bobby, 2
Focus Features, 130, 133, 141, 174. See
also Universal Pictures
Foucault, Michel, 26, 30
Four Eyed Monsters, 51, 144 46, 147, 148
Four Quadrants, 78
Fox Searchlight, 39, 136, 140, 141, 159.
See also Twentieth Century Fox
Fox (television network), 18, 61, 63
Franchise lms, 56, 89. See also Batman
franchise; Star Wars franchise
Free Culture (Lessig), 25
Free enterprise, piracy as, 22 24
Free speech, piracy as, 24 25
Frito Lay, 66
Full Frontal, 183, 184, 185
Fun With Dick and Jane, 43, 44
Gabler, Neal, 4, 5, 6
Galloway, Alexander, 123, 124
Garbo, Greta, 2089
Garden State: awards, 142; director, 138;
marketing, 13637; release strategy,
140, 141; storyline, 137
Gay Ideas (Mohr), 200 201
Giamatti, Paul, 140
Glengarry Glen Ross, 162, 163
Global Hollywood (Miller et al.), 28 29
Godfather: The Game, 125
Golumbia, David, 100
Gone with the Wind, 135
238
Index
Good Night, and Good Luck: actors,

140; awards, 142; director, 13839;
executive producer, 185; nancing and
production, 12930; marketing, 13637;
release strategy, 140; storyline, 137
Gossip blogs: Cruise, Tom, and, 19596;
fashion and, 2067; format, 19798,
205; function, 197; immediacy of, 204;
manipulation and, 209; star production
and, 19697. See also Hilton, Perez
Grant, Cary, 21112
Great Santini, The, 160
Greenlighting process, 112; audience,
built-in, 10 11; history, early studio,
4 6; horizontal integration, 67;
marketing, 710; production costs,
average, 1; screenplays, 13
Guardian, The, 43 44
Guber, Peter, 5758, 59
Haggis, Paul, 104
Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman, 146
Hausman, Michael, 154, 165 66, 167
HBO, 161, 165. See also Time Warner
HDNet Films, 179 80, 18182, 186,
19192
Head Trauma, 146
Hedge fund partners, 3
Hells Angels, 135
Hepburn, Audrey, 2089
High-denition technology, 179, 18184,
188, 189, 190
Hilton, Paris, 202, 203, 204, 209
Hilton, Perez: Beckham, Victoria, and,
209 10; camp and, 203 4, 205; Cruise,
Tom, and, 199 200, 202; fashion and,
205 6; function of blog, 197, 211, 212,
213; Hilton, Paris, and, 202, 203, 204;
inuence, 196; magic/talent and, 2078;
nature of the medium and, 209 10;
outing of celebrities, 200 201, 202;
queer identity of, 196, 200, 202; as star
manipulator, 202 4; on Talk Soup, 199
Holland, Del, 69
Hollywood archetypes, 226 28
Hollywood Pictures, 81. See also Walt
Disney Company
Holmes, Katie, 195, 199, 202
Holson, Laura M., 188
Homosexuality, of celebrities, 200 202

Horizontal integration, 67, 5556
House of Games, 154 55, 162, 163 64,
165 67, 168, 170 73
House on Carroll Street, The, 162
Howe, John, 98, 101
Hughes, Howard, 135
Huston, John, 18
Iger, Robert, 89
ILM (Industrial Light and Magic),
11213, 115, 116, 117, 122
Independence as marketing label,
129 48; actors, 139 40; awards,
141 42; challenges, 142 44; directors,
13839; independent trailblazers,
144 47; marketing strategies, 13536;
overview, 129 31; ownership issues,
13135; release strategy, 140 41;
storylines, 137. See also Marketing
Independent lms: history, 15559;
as label, 15354, 15556; major
studio lms versus, 3839. See also
Independence as marketing label;
specic lms
Independent Spirit Awards, 141 42
India, piracy in, 30 31
Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), 11213,
115, 116, 117, 122
Information versus entertainment, 221 23
Intellectual property. See Copyright;
Piracy
Interactivity, controlled, 44 47
Internet. See Web sites, movie
Internet downloads, 179, 180, 189
In the Company of Men, 164 65
Its Being So Camp As Gets Us Going
(Dyer), 205
iTunes, 189, 192
Jackson, Michael, 220
Jackson, Peter: King Kong, 50 51, 114;
Lord of the Rings trilogy, 96, 97, 98,
101, 102, 121
Jarvie, I. C., 204
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, 167, 174
Jean de Florette, 162
Jedi Academy, 120
Jedi Knight, 120
Index
Jedi Outcast, 120
Jenkins, Henry, 11617, 118, 120, 126
Jolie, Angelina, 2078, 209
Jones, Tommy Lee, 143
Kafka, 184
Katz, Jonathan, 163
Kaufman, Anthony, 147
Kelloggs, 66
Kelsey, Jane, 103
King Kong, 42 43, 44, 50 51, 114,
134, 141
Kinnear, Greg, 139
Kirsner, Scott, 190
Knowles, Harry, 67
K-Street, 183, 185
La Bute, Neil, 164 65
Ladyman, George, 61
Landmark theater chain, 180, 186,
188, 191
Lane, Anthony, 126
Last Romantic, The, 49
Lawson, Mark, 222
LDAC (Letterman Digital Arts Center),
11213, 115, 117, 122
Lee, Alan, 101
Lee, Ang, 174
Leggat, Graham, 122, 123, 126
Lemire, Christie, 138
Lerner, Avi, 130
Lerner, Preston, 221 22
Lessig, Lawrence, 24, 25, 28, 30
Letterman Digital Arts Center (LDAC),
11213, 115, 117, 122
Levin, Gerald, 60 61, 70
Liang, Lawrence, 30 31
Licensing Corp. of America, 59. See also
Warner Communications, Inc.
Liepzig, Adam, 187, 190
Lion King, The, 7879, 82
Lionsgate, 8, 39, 46 47
Little Miss Sunshine: actors, 139; awards,
142; directors, 138; marketing, 13637;
release strategy, 141; storyline, 137
Little Romance, A, 160
Loews Cineplex, 181
LOL, 48 49
Lopez, Jennifer, 206
239
Lord of the Rings: merchandise, 50;

race in, 93, 9596, 97104, 105 6;
videogame adaptations, 120 21
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the
Ring (movie), 96, 98
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the
Ring (videogame), 118
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
(movie), 97, 99, 11819, 121, 126
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
(videogame), 117, 118
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
(movie), 96, 97, 98, 100 101
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
(videogame), 11819, 121
Lucas, George, 112, 113, 11516, 117, 188
LucasArts, 11213, 115, 117, 118, 11922
Lucaslm: independence of, 132;
Letterman Digital Arts Center and,
11213, 115, 117; revenues, 39; Star
Wars franchise, 45 46, 47, 114
Lukk, Tiiu, 135, 138
Lurtz (Lord of the Rings character), 96, 97
Madsen, Virginia, 139 40
Magic/talent, and star production, 2078
Magnolia Pictures, 180, 181
Makoare, Lawrence, 96, 97, 9899, 104
Mamet, David: aesthetic vision, 16872;
early work, 162, 163; House of Games,
155, 162, 163 65, 166 67, 168,
170 73
Manipulation, and star production, 202 4
Manon des Sources, 162
Manovich, Lev, 204, 205, 209
Mantegna, Joe, 168, 169
Maori, 9697, 102 4
Marketing: costs, 8; greenlighting
process and, 710; strategies, 13536;
viral, 4750. See also Independence
as marketing label
Mass entertainment, movies as, 5
Matrix: Reloaded, 111
Matrix, The, 95, 111
Matrix trilogy, 111, 117, 124
McDonald, Paul, 196
McDonalds, 63, 64
McGregor, Judy, 103
McNamara, Mary, 139
240
Index
McNamara, Melissa, 200

Medavoy, Mike, 162
Media, blaming the, 224 26
Merchandising, saturated, 42 44
Meyer, Barry, 70
MGM, 18
Miami Vice, 144
Micheux, Oscar, 156
Michigan International Speedway, 68 69
Miller, Toby, 28 29
Mills, Mike, 143
Miramax Films: as independent lm
producer, 39, 136, 140, 15859, 174;
investment in multimillion dollar
productions, 173; Lord of the Rings
trilogy, 101; publicity and advertising,
136; as specialty studio, 132; takeover
by Disney, 158. See also Walt Disney
Pictures
Mission: Impossible III, 196, 199 200
Moguls, 4 6
Mohr, Richard, 200 201
Molyneux, Peter, 123
Morawiec, Peter, 120
Morris, Wesley, 99
Mortensen, Viggo, 100 101
Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA), 16, 20 21, 23, 29, 30
Movie attendance in theaters, 50
MPAA (Motion Picture Association of
America), 16, 20 21, 23, 29, 30
Mrs. Doubtre, 134
Multiculturalism, liberal, 94 95, 99,
104, 106
Multiplier theory, 9 10
Munich, 129
My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 10, 133
MySpace, 48 49, 51
NASCAR, 68 69
New Line Cinema, 50, 101, 102, 132, 173.
See also Time Warner
New Zealand, 101, 102 4
Nigerian video-lm industry
(Nollywood), 32
Nolan, Christopher, 68
Oceans 11, 185
Oh in Ohio, The, 49
Omi, Michael, 94
Orion Classics, 162
Orion Home Entertainment, 161 62
Orion Pictures: distribution deal
with Warner Bros., 159 61; HBO,
partnership with, 161; history, 159 62;
House of Games, 154 55, 162, 165;
independent lm, impact on, 173
Ownership issues, 13135
Pacic Islanders, 102 4
Package-unit system of production, 16567
Paltrow, Gwyneth, 207
Pang, Laikwan, 29
Paramount Classics, 132
Paramount Pictures, 3839, 132, 196
Paramount Vantage, 132
Passion of the Ark, The (Florsheim and
Stolberg), 2
Passion of the Christ, The, 134
Pearl Harbor, 82, 125
Perren, Alisa, 133
Persall, Steve, 137
Peters, Jon, 5758, 59
Philip, Kativa, 25, 30
Photoshop, 209, 210
Picturehouse, 44. See also HBO; New Line
Cinema; Time Warner
Piracy, 1533; as access, 29 32; as
authorship, 25 28; copyright law
history, 17 20; costs, 186; dened,
16; as free enterprise, 22 24; as free
speech, 24 25; future of war on,
3233; history, 1617; as resistance,
28 29; statistics, 16; as theft, 20 22
Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, 88
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black
Pearl, 8287
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Mans Chest,
8788
Pirates of the Caribbean ride, 7778, 80,
82, 89 90
Pittman, Robert, 60
Pixar Entertainment, 78
Platoon, 161 62
Pleskow, Eric, 161
Porn, and piracy, 23 24
Porous Legalities and Avenues of
Participation (Liang), 30 31
Index
Postman Always Rings Twice, The, 163, 172
Previsualization, 115, 116
Prince, 5859, 61
Prints and advertising (P&A) costs,
182, 188
Private lm nancier/hedge fund
partners, 3
Procession of Simulacra (Baudrillard),
221
Producers, television, 219
Production costs, 1, 182
Public domain, 17, 18
Pula, Chris, 67
Purple Rain, 58
Race: in Crash, 104 5; lm industry and,
9395; in Lord of the Rings trilogy, 93,
9596, 97104, 1056; in Matrix, The, 95
Racial Formations in the United States
(Omi and Winant), 94
Raiders of the Lost Ark, 160
Recycling Modernity (Sundaram), 31
Redacted, 186, 191
Redstone, Sumner M., 67, 196
Regal Entertainment Group, 181
Relativity Media, 3
Release strategy, 140 41
Republic Commando, 120
Resistance, piracy as, 28 29
Risky Business, 211
Roadside Attractions, 49
Roberts, Julia, 184
Rock, The, 81
Romanelli, Dan, 63, 64, 68
Rossio, Terry, 8384, 88
Run Lola Run, 124 25
Rush Hour 3, 184
Samuel Goldwyn Films, 49
Saving Private Ryan, 186
Saw franchise, 8, 46 47
Schamus, James, 187
Schizopolis, 184, 185
Schneider, Bob, 66
Schneller, Johanna, 136
Schumacher, Joel, 64, 66, 67
Scooby-Doo, 11
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, 11
Scott, A. O., 99, 137
241
Scott, Ridley, 124

Screen adaptations, 79 80
Screenplays, 13
Seaton, James, 225, 228
Selznick, David O., 135
sex, lies, and videotape, 15758, 184
Sexual Perversity in Chicago, 162, 163
Shadows of Empire, 45
Shepard, Sam, 164
Shrek, 8384
Shyamalan, M. Night, 179, 180, 189, 190
Sideways: actors, 139 40; awards, 142;
marketing, 13637; release strategy,
140, 141; storyline, 137
Silence of the Lambs, The, 162
Silent Tongue, 164
Simpson, Don, 81
Simpson, Jessica, 206, 209
Simpsons, The, 18
Six Flags theme parks, 60 61, 69
Sixth Sense, The, 189
Smallville, 55
Smith, Kevin, 166, 167 68, 174
Soderbergh, Steven: Bubble, 181, 18284,
190; career, 184 86; partnership with
Cuban and Wagner, 179 80, 189,
19192
Solaris, 185
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act (1998), 18
Sontag, Susan, 203, 228
Sony, 23
Sony Pictures, 3839, 43, 44, 132
Sony Pictures Classics, 140, 143, 164 65
South by Southwest Film Festival, 48, 51
Sparrow, Jack (Pirates of the Caribbean
character), 84 88
Spartacus, 156, 157
Spector, Warren, 118
Spider-Man, 186
Spider-Man 3, 134, 141, 182
Spielberg, Steven, 111
Spout.com, 145, 146
Star production: economics and, 198 202;
fashion and, 204 7; magic/talent
and, 2078; manipulation and, 202 4;
nature of the medium and, 20810
Starrett, Peter, 60
Star System, The (McDonald), 196
242
Index
Star Trek, 100

Star Wars: Battlefront, 111
Star Wars: Bounty Hunter, 117, 118, 119, 122
Star Wars: Clone Wars, 119
Star Wars: Jedi Starghter, 119
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic,
119 20, 121, 122
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, 122
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace,
46, 95, 119
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones,
115, 117, 188
Star Wars Episode IIIRevenge of
the Sith, 45
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope,
119 20
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes
Back, 119
Star Wars franchise: ancillary industries,
188; digitization, 188; prequels, 132;
videogames, 111, 117, 118, 119 22;
Web sites, 45 46, 47
Stokes, Francis, 146
Stolberg, Josh, 2
Storylines, 137
Strangelove, Michael, 24 25
Strathairn, David, 140
Studios, major, 4 6, 3839, 13233
Sullivan, Steve, 115
Sundance Film Festival, 141
Sundaram, Ravi, 31
Swanberg, Joe, 48, 50, 51
Synergy, 5556. See also Batman
franchise; Time Warner
Taco Bell, 66
Talent, and star production, 2078
Talk Soup, 198 200
Taylor, Chad, 201 2
Taylor, Elizabeth, 220
Taylor, Richard, 101, 102
TeAwa, Joanne, 103
Television producers, 219
Theaters, movie attendance in, 50
Theft, piracy as, 20 22
Theme parks, 60 61, 69, 79. See also
Amusement rides
Thing About My Folks, The, 44
Thomson, David, 125, 211
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, The, 143

Thumbsucker, 143
Time Inc., 55, 57
Time Warner: America On Line merger,
70; copyright and, 61; creation by
merger, 57; franchises, 71, 72; losses,
59; media ownership, 132; retail
stores, 59 60; theme parks, 60 61,
69; Turner Broadcasting System
acquisition, 65. See also Batman
franchise; New Line Cinema; Warner
Bros.
Titanic, 134, 15657
Toffoletti, Kim, 219, 223
Tolkien, J. R. R., 97, 121. See also Lord of
the Rings
Touchstone Pictures, 81. See also Walt
Disney Company
Trafc, 184 85
Transmedia storytelling, 116 21
TriStar Pictures, 3 4
Turner, Will (Pirates of the Caribbean
character), 84 85, 88
Turner Broadcasting System, 65, 132
Turtletaub, Marc, 138
Twentieth Century Fox, 3839, 132
2929 Pictures. See HDNet Films
Tykwer, Tom, 124 25
Tzioumakis, Yannis, 13334
Underneath, The, 18586
Universal Pictures: Evan Almighty, 23;
Fast and Furious, The, 10; King Kong,
42 43, 44, 50 51; as major studio,
3839, 132. See also Focus Features
Untouchables, The, 163 64
Uruks, in Lord of the Rings, 96, 9899
Utu, 9697
Vaidhyanathan, Siva, 24
Valenti, Jack, 15, 20 21, 24
Verbinski, Gore, 82, 83, 84, 89 90
Verdict, The, 163, 172
Vertical integration, 4 5
Viacom, 67
Videogames, 111 26; early, 11112;
Hollywood and, 11316; media
convergence and media criticism,
122 26; production facilities, 11213,
Index
115, 117, 122; transmedia storytelling
and, 116 21. See also specic videogames
Video market, 157
Viral marketing, organic, 4750. See also
Web sites, movie
Wachowski, Andy, 114, 117
Wachowski, Larry, 114, 117
Wagner, Todd, 179 80, 18183, 186, 189,
19192
Walt Disney Company: amusement
rides, 7778, 80, 82, 89 90; Pirates
of the Caribbean franchise, 7790;
prots, 59; retail stores, 59 60;
screen adaptations, 79 80; takeover of
Miramax, 158; theme parks, 79
Walt Disney Pictures, 3839, 46, 7879,
82, 132
Warner Bros., 3839, 13233, 159 60
Warner Bros. Studio Stores, 59 60, 64, 66
Warner Bros. Worldwide Consumer
Products, 63
Warner Communications, Inc. (WCI), 57,
5859, 11112, 113
Warner Independent Pictures, 39,
13233. See also Warner Bros.
Warshaw, Howard Scott, 116
Wasko, Janet, 38, 42
243
WB Television Network, 55, 67 68

WCI (Warner Communications, Inc.), 57,
5859, 11112, 113
Web sites, movie, 3752; Batman
and Robin, 66 67; Batman Begins,
69; Batman Forever, 65; controlled
interactivity, 44 47; Dark Knight, The,
70; major studio versus independent
lms, 3839; organic viral marketing,
4750; promotional approaches, 40 41;
saturated merchandising, 42 44
Weiler, Lance, 146
Welcome to the Dollhouse, 140
When Work Disappears (Wilson), 104
Williams, Chris, 119
Wilson, William J., 104
Winant, Howard, 94
Wolf, Mark J. P., 122 23
World Trade Organization (WTO), 18,
22 23, 28
Wyatt, Justin, 135
Yar, Majid, 17, 21
Yatt, John, 93, 99
Young, Neil, 121
YouTube, 51, 145, 146, 148
Zulu, 97
The Business of
Entertainment
VOLUME 2
Popular Music

PN1584.B87 2009
790.2dc22
2008030435
ISBN: 9780275998387 (set)
9780275998400 (vol. 1)
9780275998424 (vol. 2)
9780275998448 (vol. 3)
www.greenwood.com

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Walt Whitman
Contents

Acknowledgments
xiii
Songwriting, Creativity, and the Music Industry

Phillip McIntyre
The Devaluation of Recorded Music: A New

Business Model for the Music Industry
Richard Strasser
ix
The Macro/International Music Business:

Australian Trajectories and Perspectives
in a Global Context
Guy Morrow
21
43
Music Copyright in the Twenty-First Century

Robert McParland
59
Rock Brands
Mike Emery
75
Mapping the Territory: Cultural Authenticity

in World Music
Amy M. Corey
93
viii
8
9
Contents
I Gave My Rights Away for a Song: How Billy

Bragg Persuaded MySpace to Change
Its Tune on Ownership
Stephanie Vie
15MB of Fame: Independent Musicians
Use of MySpace
Marjorie D. Kibby
Its Up To You . . . No Really, Its Up To You:
Radiohead, Big Music, and the Future
of the Record Industry
Andrew deWaard
10 The Future of Radio in the Digital Age
107
121
133
155
John Allen Hendricks
11 The Business of Radio in the Daily Soundscape:

Reshaping and Defining the Music Box
in Consumer Culture
Phylis Johnson
173
12 The Great Globalization Swindle? The

Relationship Between the Global Economy
and Music Reconsidered
Franz Kasper Kroenig
193
13 The Independent Record Store as a Site of Cultural

Resistance and Anti-McDonaldizationA Case Study
of The House of Records
David Gracon
205
223
Index
227
Preface
present moment the speed at which change is occurring is singularly unprecedented. As the entertainment industry seeks to evolve and adapt in light of
the ascendance of all things digital, 100 years worth of structures and systems
appear to be falling away like so much dross. The concomitantly nascent era
of new media, so the assumption goes, must also by denition mean the
death of old media. And in some ways this is true, at least as it concerns the
various physical forms of older media such as records and cassettes, VHS
tapes, analog television broadcasts, and newspapers actually made of paper.
These sorts of things are either already long dead or at best replicating the
experience of Homo habilis laying eyes on Homo erectus for the rst time;
the new era most certainly will not go well for them. In place of the old
totems come the new onesiTunes, HDTV, TiVo, Digital Cinema, and so
onseemingly disparate but unied by their digital make-ups. And this digital nature and the accompanying ease with which music, lms, and TV shows
can be accessed and made portable allows the new media to be free.
But free in what sense of the word? Certainly free as concerns the unfettering of the former corporeal state of media. While we need something tangible on which to view itmade unbelievably simple by the proliferation of
iPods and like devicesmedia can be converted into digital ones and zeroes
and delivered via the ether almost anywhere in the world at any time. New
media is portable and near innitely accessible, and only becoming more so as
technology improves, just as the devices upon which we store our information
Preface
grow increasingly innitesimal (e.g., the iPod Nano). But of greater concern,
at least to the giant international media conglomerates that own the rights to
so much of what the entertainment industry produces, is the perception that
media is actually freethat payment is neither required nor necessary, that
the natural state of entertainment is that it should be wholly accessible entirely without cost. This way of thinking is increasingly prevalent in younger
consumers, who bristle at paying 99 on iTunes for a song or $4 to their cable
provider for a movie. Why bother paying for things when you can download
them for nothing online with any number of free, very user-friendly, and increasingly hard to trace technologies? And this line of thinking rightfully
scares the bejeezus out of the media congloms whose nancial lifeblood emanates from their stranglehold on the distribution of their subsidiaries products. If, as Michael Wolff claims, [t]he age of media-distribution monopolies
is over,1 then what comes next?
struggling to hit upon new ones that will be equally protable. This is especially true as concerns just how the internet will earn income for content
The ubiquitously adopted concept of media convergencewhen a company
play on a Sony mp3 Walkman, or converted into ring tones for use on a Sony
companys bottom linesomething is working out as planned. So, its no
Preface
xi
so-called big six contemporary media conglomeratesFox, Disney, General Electric, Viacom, Time Warner, and Sonywhich control upwards of
90 percent of the U.S. entertainment industry. The creation of entertainment
media is the provenance of the artistically minded, whereas the widespread
dissemination of their work is the bailiwick of so many Ivy Leaguetrained
incarnations? And how will artists trying to maintain their integrity and
beliefs reconcile their visions with those of the corporate entities for which
they must almost certainly work should they want their creations ever to be
seen by a larger audience? Its the answers to these questions with which the
various authors contributing to The Business of Entertainment: Popular Music
grapple.
In the opening chapter, Phillip McIntyres Songwriting, Creativity, and
the Music Industry, McIntyre discusses the uninterrupted primacy of the
song as the dominant form of the music industry. Next is Richard Strassers
The Devaluation of Recorded Music: A New Business Model for the Music
Industry, in which he details the implications of musicians newfound ability to release their work outside the traditional system. This is followed by
Guy Morrows The Macro/International Music Business: Australian Trajectories and Perspectives in a Global Context, which elucidates possible
xii
Preface
methods that companies outside of the mainstream U.S. market can use to get
the musicians theyve signed heard in the wider world. Setting the context
for intellectual property issues associated with music is Robert McParlands
Music Copyright in the Twenty-First Century. Rock Brands, by Mike
Emery, looks at how bands who have made it continue to thrive by establishing themselves as brands, while Amy M. Coreys Mapping the Territory: Cultural Authenticity in World Music shows the role power, economy,
and ideology play in understanding the term world music. In I Gave My
Rights Away for a Song: How Billy Bragg Persuaded MySpace to Change Its
Tune on Ownership, Stephanie Vie dissects just what the rise of musicians
self-distribution of their work via Web sites owned by media conglomerates might mean for the ownership of their songs. Conversely, Marjorie D.
Kibbys 15MB of Fame: Independent Musicians Use of MySpace highlights
the ways in which musicians can exploit sites such as MySpace to promote
themselves and what this could hold for the future of independent music.
Central to the idea of new media is who owns it and how much it should cost,
which Andrew deWaard deftly discusses in Its Up to You . . . No Really, Its
Up to You: Radiohead, Big Music, and the Future of the Record Industry.
John Allen Hendricks The Future of Radio in the Digital Age talks about
how a perceived old media will likely live on in the new era, even as its traditional form changes. Likewise, Phylis Johnsons The Business of Radio in
the Daily Soundscape: Reshaping and Dening the Music Box in Consumer
Culture argues that radio is proliferating in the digital era and likely only
going to continue to do so. This is followed by Franz Kroenigs The Great
Globalization Swindle? The Relationship Between the Global Economy and
Music Reconsidered, in which he posits that popular music is art and that
as such it is resistant to attempts to render it a commodity. Last is David
Gracons The Independent Record Store as a Site of Cultural Resistance
and Anti-McDonaldizationA Case Study of The House of Records, which
charmingly discusses the role The House of Records plays in the community
of Eugene, Oregon, and what that implies about America at large.
Ultimately, it is our hope that these chapters will serve to introduce their
readers to the rich and myriad array of issues facing the contemporary music
industry and how they might play out on a worldwide cultural stage. And
perhaps they will also contribute to new ways of thinking about and researching the business of entertainment as it applies to popular music and what it
continues to mean in a rapidly changing industry and world.
Robert C. Sickels
NOTE
Acknowledgments
fan. Thanks are also due to Praegers Nick Philipson and Lindsay Claire, who
helped immensely in getting this project off the ground and seeing it through
to completion. Special thanks are also due to all the authors who contributed their pieces to these collections; I am very grateful and appreciative.
Id also like to thank professor Michael Branch of the University of Nevada,
Reno, for his tireless guidance, inspiration, and friendship over the years; he
showed me a sterling path that Ive tried my best to follow. Thanks to Whitman College and the support of my colleagues and friends here, especially
Robert Withycombe and Jana Byars. And thanks to my dad, who taught me
to always do your work and dont make excuses, and to my mom, who always
had time to take me to a movie or buy me a book. Lastly, thanks to my kids,
Dutch and Tallulah, who put up with me throughout what was a long and
arduous process.
chapter 1
Songwriting, Creativity,
and the Music Industry
Phillip McIntyre
Songwriting is at the very heart of the contemporary music industry. Songs

are written, performed, recorded, listened to, bought, downloaded, and litigated over. They can make and break artists careers. For example, the Gerry
Gofn and Carole King classic The Locomotion was the song that not only
launched Little Eva in the fties but also Kylie Minogue in the eighties. It
demonstrates the power of a strong commercial song to shoot a newcomer to
stardom, and that power extends to maintaining artists at the peak of their
game.1 That power is the essential element that greases the wheels of the
music industrys fortunes. As Jimmy Webb asserts, songs are the raw material that power the reactor of a large part of the entertainment business.2 In
fact, without these potent symbol systems, there would be no music industry
at all. From the early days of the industry when the focus was centered on the
publishing houses right through to the later establishment of the recording
industry as the dominant industry player, the rights of ownership attached to
songs have remained paramount.3 It is the buying and selling of these rights
that has ensured that songs remain central to the industrys processes. This
centrality continues to be crucial even as the music industry now appears to
be going through another of its periodic upheavals as the digital age works
its magic. As Debbie Kruger writes,
For many the digital age has transformed the writing process, and especially for those songwriters who create songs for other artists to perform,
that process involves the ability to create a fully produced studio demo.
Steve Kipner calls himself a record writer rather than a songwriter. Even
Popular Music
those who began in their earliest days simply singing out ideas to their
bandmates and bringing a song to life in rehearsal are now engrossed by
the possibilities of Pro Tools. Fortunately, whatever the method, the songs
continue to come.4
While there have been other musical forms used by the music industry, as
Tim Wall argues, it is the song that remains the dominant one. It was established as the dominant compositional structure as early as the late eighteenth
century. Most major styles of twentieth-century popular musicincluding
ballads, ragtime, jazz, big band, rock & roll, rock, soul, reggae, punk, metal,
indiehave either reproduced this structure or been based upon some modication of it.5 This continues on into the twenty-rst century with hip-hop,
gabba, jungle, and a proliferation of other genres and styles.
When Lou Barlow, former songwriter with Dinosaur Jr., now with Sebadoh and the Folk Implosion, was learning a song recorded by Shania Twain,
he came to the realization, as many other successful writers had done before
him, that there was a common element to the songs he was involved with.
The way [this] song is written really isnt that different from the songs
I write. There really is a formula to writing songs, and its still really satisfying even in its cheesiest forms, like insanely slick modern country. But
if I were to strip that song down and play it at an acoustic show, Im sure
someone would come up to me and say Hey man, what song is that? Thats
really good! You could put that song over on anybody . . . I spent a lot of time
in those days creating stuff on 4-track that I thought was subverting the
basic song form, not going for the standard verse-chorus-verse-chorusbridge form. But despite all that sort of ambitious thinking, in the end the
song wins out. And everyone always loves a great song, even the people with
the most experimental tastes . . . I didnt even know what a middle-eight was
until a couple months ago. Thats the middle eight? You mean the third
part of a song? I just always thought the song should go where the lyrics
go: If youre being righteous through the verse and the chorus and you want
to back off a little, thats what the third part is for. Or if you want to take it
totally over the top and start screaming your head off, thats where the third
part comes in.6
Barlow was also impressed with the inner logic of the Brill Building writers
(legendary New York City songwriters such as Carole King and Neil Sedaka
who worked in the Brill Building) and is happy that writers from widely
divergent genres work with essentially the same form. I just realised how
many songs you can play with G, C and D. Its really endless. From Tom
Petty to Hank Williams to the Stooges, its all there.7 This idea, that there
are primary forms in Western popular music, is reinforced by the writers
from the KLF, a collective of British House musicians. They argue that the
complete history of the blues is based on one chord structure, hundreds of

thousands of songs using the same three basic chords in the same pattern.8
John Braheny, in his book The Craft and Business of Song Writing, outlines the
various forms currently in use by popular songwriters. These not only include, amongst others, the ternary form derived from the European popular
music tradition and favored by prewar composers such as Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, and Cole Porter but also the verse/chorus forms and its variants
typical of many African-derived musics. Contrary to what critical theorist
Theodor Adorno argued, Braheny asserts that,
[T]here are no absolute rules or formulas for songwriting. For every rule,
youll nd a song that broke that rule and succeeded . . . instead of learning
rules you need to be aware of principles, the freedoms and restrictions of
the medium for which you want to write, and have at your command a wide
range of options with which to solve each creative problem.9
The domain of songwriting thus appears to be governed more by formalized convention rather than the precise rules that characterize other domains such as, for example, math. The use of convention rather than precise
rules as a central aspect of popular music writing highlights the fact that a
songwriter, in terms of the argument being presented here, must draw on
the specic domain of songwriting, the forms and conventions of the popular song, itself a subset of the domain of music, in order for that songwriter
to write songs. For the Western contemporary popular music songwriter
working predominantly in the Anglo-American popular music tradition, the
assumption is that the Western harmonic system, the language of music,
song structure and lyric construction, and all the associated conventions are
signicant parts of the symbol system they manipulate.10 Without access
to this knowledge, this domain of songwriting, it would be difcult for a
songwriter to contribute their ideas to the complex system that throws up
popular hit after popular hit.
Songwriters therefore must develop what Pierre Bourdeu calls a habitus,
in this case a songwriters habitus. Acquiring a habitus can be seen as the
development of:
a feel for the game, a practical sense (sens practique) that inclines agents
to act and react in specic situations in a manner that is not always calculated
and that is not simply a question of conscious obedience to rules. Rather it is
a set of dispositions which generates practices and perceptions.11
This description has some close similarities to the ideas suggested by Donald
Schon on the acquisition of a practitioners skill base. He suggests practitioners skills become internalized in our tacit knowing and argues that
we are often unaware of having learned to do these things; we simply nd
Popular Music
ourselves doing them.12 In this process, the ability to write, as John Braheny
argues, almost becomes automatic. Paul McCartneys perhaps apocryphal
story of the writing of Yesterday is a case in point.13
Yesterday came out of the blue, Ive no idea where from. I dreamed the
melody. I woke up and I had the melody in my head. It depends how far you
want to go with this; if youre very spiritual then God sent me a melody,
Im a mere vehicle. If you wanna be a bit more cynical, then I was loading
my computer for millions of years listening to all the stuff I listened to
through my dad and through my musical tastes, including people like Fred
Astaire, Gershwin, and nally my computer printed out one morning what
it thought was a good tune.14
So how do songwriters, the central operatives upon which the music industry
relies, go about acquiring this tacit knowledge? For Bourdieu the acquisition
of a songwriters habitus is the result of a long process of inculcation . . . which
becomes a second sense or a second nature.15 More prosaically, research indicates songwriters learn about the domain of songwriting through a number
of fairly common methods. These include both formal and informal education
processes such as, in no order of priority: having access to poetic skills seen
as akin to lyric writing skills in the formal education process; having access to
elementary music lessons as part of the compulsory schooling system; receiving semiformal instruction from musicians engaged in private tuition; learning songs as part of learning an instrument; learning songs for performance;
engaging in a degree of autodidacticism through access to peer information
and ad-hoc mentoring within a form of oral transmission of domain knowledge; absorbing their familial musical inuences; and absorbing the information stored in multiple numbers of songs through their access to popular
culture transmissions as fans of popular music themselves.16 As an example of
how one songwriter acquired his domain knowledge, George Gershwin:
began his professional career in Tin Pan Alley, a location in New York
City where aspiring composers and songwriters would bring their scores
to a publisher in hopes of selling the tunes for a modest amount of cash.
As a song plugger for the Jerome Remick Company, George was exposed
to thousands of songs, which gave him a better idea for what songs had a
successful quality.17
Once a songwriter has access to this stored information, that is, the accumulated eld of works (a concept developed by Pierre Bourdieu in his book Rules
of Art ) of songwriting, they move on to manipulating this symbol system to
add to and contribute to the wealth of the extensive popular song tradition.
As Paul Zollo asserts, this is precisely the way songwriters learn to write
songs, imitating and emulating that which inspires us until our own styles
gradually emerge.18
In the course of the varied styles developing out of the manipulation of this
conventional symbol system known as the song there have been some corresponding changes in the conditions and positions held by songwriters. For example, what songwriters such as Harold Arlen and Hoagy Carmichael did in
the earlier part of the twentieth century is different than what songwriters do
now. As Bob Barratt explains, in those days music publishers printed music
regularly, few singers wrote their own material and hits were somehow easier
to pick. The successful songwriters of today, however, frequently wear more
than one hat, doubling as singers, musicians, record producers or even managers.19
Apart from Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, the songwriting and producing team who were instrumental in many of Elvis Presleys early hits, who
claimed we didnt write songs, we wrote records,20 one of the prime examples of this type includes John Fogerty, formerly of Creedence Clearwater
Revival. Fogerty, who wrote, arranged, and produced all of their hits, also
managed the band, and after his bands accountants involved him in an offshore banking scheme, and after losing the ownership of his songs, he lost the
veritable fortune that hed worked long and hard for. He was then sued by his
old record company for writing songs that sounded like, of all things, himself.
Fogerty now advises songwriters to pick their friends very wisely.21
The things that may go wrong dont come from far over the horizon, from
some unseen force over there. Its usually the people right close to you that
are going to be able to do you harm. Thats what happened to me. I dont
mean that you should be cynical. I mean you have to put your face somewhere. But I guess the best advice is to choose your friends wisely. Otherwise you spend a lifetime paying for the wrong decisions. But I dont want
you to come away from our meeting here thinking Im a cynical person.
Ive learnt a lot. Its a lot harder to trick me now. One of the saddest things
that happened to me, lets say, was that I wrote all these songs and somebody else owns them because they . . . its whats called the publishing. They
own the copyrights. They choose how those songs are used. You may have
seen one or more bad movies that my songs are in. Thats another specic
thing you could tell young songwriters. Dont give away your publishing.
Keep the ownership for yourself. Still I would say dont go around poking
everybody in the eye either, because if youre condent and you know your
own worth people will come to you. You dont have to beg. And I think thats
very important for all artists really. Dont get talked into doing things that
you dont really want to do.22
Prince was another songwriting polymath who produced, arranged, composed, and performed on his own albums and released a string of international
hit singles in the eighties. The following decades saw a signicant number
of producers, especially those working in the variety of genres that typify
electronica, carrying on this tradition.
Popular Music
For an outsider, the industry could thus appear to have become more complex, though no less predatory, for songwriters than it seemed to be in the
halcyon days of publishing. But despite this apparent complexity, there are
certainly ways to understand its current structures. While the music industry can be seen to revolve around recording and live performance the publishing arm of this industry still remains central to songwriters incomes. So
how does this system actually work?
In the early days of the industry, the emergence of scoring meant the
emergence of a new music-making gure, the composer (who no longer had
to take the stage; composition could now be separated from performance),
and a new money-making gure, the publisher; composers needed someone
to get their work to market.23 With the advent of recording, this neat arrangement between songwriters and publishers persisted, but while publishers were concerned with the rights of the composer or songwriter, the
record companies concerned themselves with the newer rights that subsisted
in the material or mechanical object that carried xed versions of the song.
Publishers thus work to promote the song and collect royalties for the songwriter, while the record company works to sell a material object, that is, the
recording of the song. In creating that record, the record company has to
be granted a license to use the song in this way and must pay a royalty to the
publishers in order to do so. Noting that for legal purposes songwriters and
performers are generally treated as separate entities, matters become more
complex when the songwriter is also the performer on the recording. This
situation became the norm after the massive success of Lennon and McCartney in the sixties, a success that was aided by their publisher Dick James.24
Dick James, a songwriter himself, was a struggling publisher when Brian
Epstein, the Beatles manager, approached him after a recommendation by
George Martin about publishing Lennon and McCartneys songs. James set
up a company called Northern Songs to house the songs, and Dick James
Music then went into partnership with Lennon and McCartney. James
signed Lennon and McCartney to a publishing deal and set about negotiating a good royalty rate with EMI, the Beatles record company. But while
the Beatles did well, the deal proved to be advantageous to Dick James in the
long term. He virtually had a controlling interest in Northern Songs, and
when he decided to sell the company, there was little either Lennon or McCartney could do about it, and one of the greatest songwriting catalogues of
the twentieth century slipped from the original songwriters hands. James
went on to sign Elton John to his publishing company.
At the time Elton originally signed with him it was normal for the publisher to take the writers songs for the life of copyright. Eltons contract
to supply Dick James Music with songs would eventually come to an end.
But all the songs hed given the company during the period of his contract
would remain the companys property until seventy years after Elton John
had died. Elton didnt want to wait that long and in 1986 he went to court
to get them back. Elton based his case on the fact that Dick James had
operated the standard sixties scam of dividing the royalties in half twice,
sub-publishing songs to his own subsidiary companies in other countries
on a 50 50 basis. But Elton didnt sue for the money skimmed from him in
this fashion, he sued for the return of his songs which had been assigned to
Dick James for life of copyright.25
In order to gain some understanding of how situations like this might occur,
as Alan Siegel, Tim Whitsett, Lee Wilson, Donald Passman, and Shane
Simpson variously explain, it can be seen that as a songwriter you could own
100 percent of a written song. However, if you engage a publisher, a separate
business entity, to publish, promote, and administer the song, the royalties
earned from the song will be split in two. There is a writers share, usually
50 percent, and a publishers share, also usually 50 percent. If there is more
than one writer, the writers share is split between the writers according to
whatever agreement they have in place. The publishers share goes to the
publisher to administer and promote the song. The publisher will usually
have the rights in the song assigned to them, that is, the ownership of the
song, for a certain period or term. This means the publisher can control the
use of the song for this period and may be entitled to maintain ownership in
the song for the life of the copyright.
However, if a publisher does not do the best thing by the song and does
not actively promote it, a reversion clause will allow the songs rights to be
returned to the songwriter. With these conditions in place, the publisher
is then able to issue licenses for others to use the song. The publisher is, in
essence, obligated to try to get other people to do cover versions and place
the songs in movies, in TV shows, and any other places where income can be
derived. The publisher should thus actively sell the song for the songwriter.
This is their job. They do not, and should not, just collect and administer
royalty income.
Sometimes a record company will also want to act as a publisher. This
is ne if a copublishing deal is undertaken. This means that the publishers
share, and only the publishers share, can be split fty-fty with the writer. In
practice, this arrangement means that the writer earns 75 percent of the total
royalties on the song, and the record label, as copublisher, collects 25 percent
of the total royalties. For their share they must act as a normal publisher
would, administering and promoting the song. Conversely, a songwriter
might wish to self-publish. In this case, the writer also acts as publisher and
receives 100 percent of all income. However, they must administer and promote the song themselves as well as registering their own publishing company with the relevant collection agencies.
Popular Music
In either case, performance royalties are paid to the owner of the rights in
a song whenever the song is played in a public place. Organizations such as
BMI and ASCAP in the United States collect all of the income in the form of
fees from radio, TV, plays in restaurants, juke boxes, retail outlets, hold messages, mobile phone ring tones, bands playing the song in their live set, and
so on. The performing rights organization then, splits the income fty-fty
between publisher and songwriter, and pays each of them separately.26 Synchronization royalties are also paid when a song is used in movies or videos,
but most often a negotiated at fee is paid here. The Harry Fox Agency in
the United States, provides licensing services to thousands of publishers,
issuing mechanical licenses to record companies and collecting mechanical
royalties on the publishers behalf.27 A good publisher will thus actively promote the song so as to maximize the income from these various sources.
In summary, a publishing deal is like taking on a business partner. One
partner, the publisher, nances and administers the business, while the
other partner, the songwriter, manufactures the basic product for sale, that
is, the song. Often the publisher will also loan a songwriter money in order
for the writer to keep writing and keep the wolf from the door. This loan
is known as an advance, and this money is repaid by the songwriter using
the money they collect from royalties. An advance, like any other loan, must
eventually be paid back from prots. But like any other business loan, it
can help nance an operation. Another way to look at this relationship is to
see it as a form of patronage. As Edward Samuels argues, copyright, which
underpins this system of patronage, will continue to be important for as long
as we want to encourage the making of creative works.28 With songwriters
having to wear multiple hats, this patronage can certainly be advantageous
because, even with the best will in the world, even if you have the right
attitude its difcult to be both a songwriter and a publisher because of the
time required for each.29 It not only takes time, but it also costs money to
tour, it costs money to record, and it costs money to manufacture, promote,
and distribute songs. The eld of popular music, the social organization that
understands and works with the symbol systems of popular music, wants
and deserves to be paid for the activities they undertake and the services
they perform.
Howard Becker, for one, argues that there are myriad activities to be undertaken for an art work, in this case a song, to come into existence. From
inspiration to idea, then on to the execution of that idea, and nally to its
manufacture and distribution, the song is subject to a reliance upon a complex
network of many players or workers. Becker suggests that in order to analyse
an art world we look for its characteristic kinds of workers and the bundle of
tasks each one does.30 Bourdieu also claimed that this collection of workers,
along with the objective social relations they engage with, could be analyzed
by looking at various arenas of production, circulation, and appropriation
of goods, services, knowledge, or status, and the competitive positions held

by actors in their struggle to accumulate and monopolise various forms of
capital.31 From Bourdieus perspective, this capital is not just nancial but
can be symbolic or cultural capital that allows songwriters to not only sell or
lease rights but trade on their reputations within this contested space or eld.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi also argues that a eld is seen as being necessary as
it is the function of the eld to determine whether the innovation is worth
making a fuss about.32
With these propositions as guides, evidence can be found that a songs existence depends on the eld for contemporary Western popular music.33 This
eld can be seen to consist of not only the publishing industry but also the
other branches of the music industry to which it is intimately connected,
that is, the recording industry, the live performance arena, and the various
functions of management, promotion, and distribution. Who is nanced to
write songs and how and why certain songs receive promotion, publicity,
and remuneration are dependent on a set of critical factors songwriters must
learn in order to write songs. As Braheny argues, unsung thousands possess
the talent and craft to write great songs, but without understanding the business and the knowledge of how to protect your creations and get them heard
by those who can make them successful, those songs are like orphans.34 A
knowledge of the music industry, as it applies to songwriters, is thus essential. For example, Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn, whove sold over 52 million
records, strongly suggest from their own early experiences that knowing
what to look for is the essential factor in achieving artistic and commercial
success. These publishers [who looked at their initial efforts] were not able
to articulate technically what was lacking in our songbut long experience
gave them an intuitive feeling of public taste, an instinct that something was
wrong.35 It wasnt until they took on board the ideas of the eld, a process
of being socialized into its norms and enculturated into its practices, and developed a songwriters habitus themselves that Kasha and Hirschhorn began
to receive their share of success as songwriters within the industry.
In this sense, each person that constitutes the actors who are operative in
this eld, and this includes producers, engineers, managers, other songwriters, artists and performers, agents, promoters, lm music agents, lm directors
and producers looking for songs, road crews, tour managers, A&R execs, sales
reps, retailers, radio programs and music directors, music journalists, and so
on, can also be seen to operate as cultural intermediaries. The notion of cultural intermediary was introduced by Bourdieu to make a necessary distinction between this idea and that of the related notion of gatekeeping, a term
widely used to describe the process by which selections are made in media
work.36 Gatekeeping, as Keith Negus argues, is too simplistic a notion. He is
of the opinion that most creative ideas and products will not only be ltered
but also mediated by the eld.37 Rather than simply letting or not letting
10
Popular Music
songs pass intact through the system, the very act of making those decisions
has a direct effect on the way songs are produced and created.
As cultural intermediaries, recording industry personnel are constantly
contributing to the production of and then reorganising, circulating and
mediating the words, sounds and images of popular music to audiences
across a range of entertainment media and cultural texts (recordings, videos, advertisements, broadcasts, books, magazines, computer games and
various merchandise).38
In the case of Bruce Springsteen, this mediation could be taken a step

further. Jon Landau, who had an exclusive management arrangement with
Springsteen, also had a hand in the creative process that led to the writing
of Springsteens Dancing in the Dark single. Sensing that the Born in the USA
album was not complete, Landua wanted a particular sort of song written,
and after much argument, he sent Springsteen away to write a song based
on the themes and ideas Landau was suggesting. As Springsteens manager,
Landaus reasoning was that the album being recorded needed it, that it
would be artistically incomplete until such a song existed.39
While this is an acute example, cultural intermediaries are usually less
overt in their manipulation of the process. For example, it could be claimed
that without the decisions being made about what gets played on radio, in
particular, and the increasingly necessary relationship with television, the
ability of songwriters to continue to operate in this creative eld would be
signicantly curtailed. There is also some evidence to suggest that certain
radio music directors will have a direct effect on songwriting.40 Furthermore, the press, as an ancillary to the music industry, are also vital, and with
the proliferation of Web-based mediaWeb sites, e-mail, blogs, commercial
entities such as MySpace, and so onsongwriters are also nding alternative methods of engaging with the eld and, ultimately, the audiences for
contemporary Western popular music.
MySpace, in particular, has recently been touted as a successful alternative way for new songwriters and artists to expose their work to an audience
and reach a wide and numerically viable number of them without incurring
the costs of touring a signicant number of territories or engaging directly
with a record company. This Web site is, however, demonstrably only one
link in an increasingly complex promotional and distribution chain that uses
both traditional and nontraditional means. Two of the more prominent beneciaries of this process in operation recently can be seen in the case of Sandi
Thom and also the Arctic Monkeys.
Thom undertook a virtual tour from her basement at in the United Kingdom when she Webcast her performances on a hosting company, Streaming
Tanks, Web site. She promoted the gigs on MySpace. She was signed to
11
Windswept Pacic Music publishers and a small Scottish record company

called Viking Legacy and, at the time of the song being released, employed a
PR company to promote it. After the mainstream media in the United Kingdom, including The Times, BBC 2, Virgin, and Capital Radio, got involved
and pushed the story and thus sales even further, Thom was signed to Sony,
who re-released the song and single. It went on to top both the Australian
and U.K. charts.
The Arctic Monkeys had a similar although more rock-oriented experience. This young band from Shefeld in the United Kingdom had had many
of their song demos circulated by fans, which were freely available to them
on the bands Web site. This audience interest was capitalized upon by the
band, and they become a popular live act in the north of England. When the
British press and BBC radio began pushing the band, along with a Webcast
being placed on the Internet, the Arctic Monkeys had secured a large enough
audience to enable them to tour successfully across the United Kingdom.
The songs, also embedded on a limited number of EP CDs and vinyl singles,
were available for download from the iTunes music store and promotion
on their MySpace site ensured they sold well. Their rst album release became a highly anticipated event. This strategy had worked remarkably well
for the band. However, rather than this being a radical replacement model for
the operation of the industry, it can be seen as yet another example of an inventive and adaptable way to become a crucial part of that industry. Once the
band had attracted the attention of industry players, the cultural intermediaries who could further their success, they played the game well enough to
be able to choose who would nance their operations. The band had signed
to Domino records and then licensed their songs for certain other territories across the world to EMI Music publishing. They took on a tour of the
United States in the same way bands had done for years before them. They
even accepted three NME Music Awards in 2006, placing them alongside
the then-current mainstays of the industry, such as Oasis and The Strokes. The
difculty all of these rock bands faced was how to stay part of an industry
and maintain a romantic artistic ethos and distance themselves from that
industry at the same time. The rock world, in particular, has taken on board
the romantic view of creativity, which, despite it having little evidence to
prove its veracity, continues to be a central belief in a heavily contradictory
music world.
This problem has occasionally plagued Paul McCartney. One of the more
central gures for change in the songwriting world of the twentieth century, McCartney has survived inside the same industry, negotiating many
songs through this eld of cultural intermediaries despite these apparent
paradoxes being in play. He also has now eschewed the traditional form of
record companydominated sales approaches and engages with his audience
through his own extensive Web site, e-mail fan lists, Webcasts, DVDs, and
12
Popular Music
CDs. His shows are performed as one-off events and then made available as
mp3 downloads from companies such as iTunes with hard copies being available from Amazon.com.41 The latest was an iTunes exclusive release titled
Live At The ICA Festival, which was recorded at his 2007 show at the
iTunes Festival in London. Although he still has afliations with the EMI
subsidiary Parlophone, McCartneys latest nancial partner is Starbucks, a
company just starting to be known for its afliation with the music industry.
What is signicant about these recent examples is that despite the route
to success being most often circuitous, and now often virtual, the fundamental need to engage with the eld of popular music for these songwriters is
still important because, despite the recent emphasis on a new way of doing
business, promotion and distribution as primary business strategies remain
an essential part of the process of bringing a song to an audience. Others
have also realized this.
Operating out of the United States, Jodi Krangle, for example, has dedicated herself to producing an e-zine called The Muses News.42 This e-zine
is for and about songwriters and deals with music reviews, spotlights new
artists, and contains songwriting book reviews, promotions of songwriting
contests, and market information. It promotes new online songwriting and
music business courses and Web sites that inspire, has articles on cowriting
for example, and contains classieds and useful services as well as a list of
handy contact information delivered straight to the songwriters desktop.
Not only has this online dissemination of information been crucial for some
songwriters, but many now exist in a virtual online world that has replaced
the more traditional one. Mark Wells, one of the songwriters for independent
Newcastle, N.S.W., band Supersonic, nds the bands Web site invaluable:
Absolutely. Its a quick easy reference. You can make one quick phone
call to a member of the music industry anywhere and refer them to your
website. And they can nd out exactly what youre all about very quickly
and very easily. The postage bills have gone down! I mean its basically
the equivalent of sending out a package that youd take two days to send
down, all the hard copies of the bio, CD and everything. You can have it all
locked down on the web. Email tends to be the thing to do now. Everyone
wants to correspond by email. Its a way of conrming and solidifying performance arrangements and communicating with people all throughout
the music industry at all levels. I think it seems to be a universal kind of
communicator.43
In addition to these uses, this technology has also been useful for Supersonic
in terms of engaging with an audience:
As an independent band, without the backing of some kind of promotion
and distribution company, its very difcult to get your music out there
13
but when you combine the internet with regular live performance across
the country as well as radio airplay on some of the community and noncommercial radio stations thats when it becomes most effective for us because it enables everyone to be able to easily access our material.44
It can also be contended that the audience for popular music may also
be recognized as a signicant constituent and active set of cultural intermediaries of this eld as it has the ability to regulate the life of a recorded
song and partially govern the longevity of a songwriters enterprise. What
an audience buys and thinks can have a direct effect on the decisions songwriters make, the chords they choose, the structures theyll tend to use, and
the lyric content that attracts that audience. With the reconceptualization of
audiences from that of passive receivers of information to that of active participants in the process, in not only using songs for purposes that the writers
or manufacturers may not have intended but also in participating in the act
of making meaning, it can be seen that the audience itself can be considered
a vital part of the creative process.45
These contentions seem to run counter to the commonsense understandings of creativity, which are predominantly focused on single individuals.
But, despite its widespread adherence, the essentially romantic beliefs held
by actors within the music industry (and this belief system is adhered to by
audiences as well) is nonetheless a rather difcult position to invest with a
rational explanation.46 The creation of songs and who is entitled to exploit
them has been a binding force in the operation of the music industry for some
time, and yet, as Roy Shuker asserts, knowledge about this area of creativity,
how it happens, is quite sparse.47 There is precious little written in an academic sense about the way choices are made when songs are created and the
relationship between those choices and the music industry itself.48 Despite
this lack of work Keith Negus and Michael Pickering suggest that:
creativity is one of the most important yet unexplored issues in the study
of popular music. Its signicance is routinely noted, usually in passing, and
its value often taken for granted. Its conceptual status in music studies is
that of an unquestioned commonplace. Most of all, it is raised in reference
to what is taken to be in opposition to it, to what is held as restricting or
obstructing its realization and potential . . . What it involves in its own right
or what meanings it is made to carry are seldom subject to any critical
attention.49
The dearth of rationally focused research into the way songs are created
from those researching popular music may have more to do with the music
industrys underpinning and self-sustaining belief in a predominantly romantic artistic ethos than anything else, but the fact of the matter is that popular
music depends on the collaboration of creators and bureaucrats [and] the
14
Popular Music
tensions between them, a tension usually read ideologically as art v commerce,

is built into the system.50 The major problem, as Coombes argues, is that:
perhaps no area of human creativity relies more heavily upon appropriation
and allusion, borrowing and imitation, sampling and intertextual commentary than music, nor any area where the mythic gure of the creative genius composing in the absence of all external inuence is more absurd.51
The research world tends to agree. Most often creativity is thought of in

a common-sense way with the ideas underpinning it persisting despite problems with the basic assumptions.52 These widespread views could be labeled
either the inspirational view or the romantic view.53 Either way, there is such
a deeply held belief in these views that a scientic investigation of creativity
appears to be not only wrong-headed but almost sacrilegious.54 However,
Margaret Boden for one contends that:
these views are believed by many to be literally true. But they are rarely
critically examined. They are not theories, so much as myths: imaginative
constructions, whose function is to express the values, assuage the fears,
and endorse the practices of the community that celebrates them.55
Both positions, the inspirational and the romantic, have lead eventually to the
stereotypical view of the quasineurotic artist existing in their garret waiting
for the muse to arrive or inspiration to strike.56 These views have held sway
in the music industry for some time and underpin many of its concerns, including the present issues surrounding copyright.57 But these conceptions of
creative persons and their creative activity are difcult to sustain when one
examines in any empirical way how artistic work, or any innovative work for
that matter, actually does occur.58
Embedded in the research are signicant counter propositions to the inspirationist and romantic positions. This research has come from a variety of
disciplines. It includes work from sociology,59 including those concerned primarily with art and cultural production,60 the eld of literary criticism,61
postructuralism,62 and the media studies arm of communication and cultural
studies.63 Psychology, whether in its neuro, cognitive, psychoanalytic, behavioral, or social variants, has produced a signicant body of work in this
area.64 On their own, each of these schools of thought provides an apparently
feasible set of explanations for creativity, but each may be seen as narrowly
focused on specic aspects of the phenomenon. What becomes apparent in
looking at this research over time, however, is a fundamental move away
from viewing creativity as an individual level phenomenon. As Peter Wicke
argues, the shift from a hierarchical model of musicwith the composer
at the top and all the other participants merely following the instructions
15
he has set down in the scoreto a collective organised form is the crucial
conceptual change.65 The more recent advent of what has been labeled
the conuence approach to creativity, owing a partial debt to Morris Stein,
sees creativity arising out of a multiple set of factors, including personal, societal, and cultural ones being in play within a complex, recursive, iterative,
and active process.
Following Bourdieu, it can be argued that popular music songwriters,
while having the ability to make creative choices, are not absolutely free in
making those choices because they must engage with a pre-existing set of
structures. A songwriter draws on, via their habitus and cultural capital, the
specic sets of knowledge pertinent to the cultural practice of songwriting
that exists within the traditions of the eld of contemporary Western popular music, that is, its eld of works. They must also enter an arena of social
contestation, what Bourdieu calls a eld, competing with each other to have
their songs heard and become successful. As exemplied previously, it is the
interplay between the spheres of an individuals habitus, the eld they operate in, and the accumulated knowledge that exists in the eld of works that
actually makes songwriting practice possible.
This conclusion, to me, seems to be remarkably similar to that proposed
by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyis systems model of creativity.66 This model accepts that songwriters work within a system that shapes and governs their
creativity while they contribute to and alter that system. Csikszentmihalyi
doesnt ascribe sole responsibility for creativity to the productive individual,
but neither does he assert that creativity is beyond the locus of individual
producers and located solely within the determinations presented by the societies and cultures they inhabit. Instead he argues that:
for creativity to occur, a set of rules and practices must be transmitted
from the domain to the individual. The individual must then produce a
novel variation in the content of the domain. The variation then must be
selected by the eld for inclusion in the domain.67
To put it simply, each of the three main systemsperson, eld and domain
affects the others and is affected by them in turn . . . The starting point on this
map is purely arbitrary.68
According to this set of hypotheses, when a songwriter engages in a creative act they operate within the tensions of agency, the ability to make choice
and structure, determining factors set up by their biological imperatives,
their cultural inheritance, and the operation of the creative system, which
includes themselves, the domain, and the eld of popular music. In this act
the creative agent of the songwriter, as seen in the descriptions set out previously, then must necessarily draw on the specic domain of songwriting,
which is a subset of the domain of music and at the same time a subset of the
16
Popular Music
domain of language and speech. That is, the specic domain of songwriting
for a contemporary Western popular music songwriter includes such things
as the language of music, the Western harmonic system, song structure, and
lyric construction, with all their conventions. Musicians, producers, engineers, publishers, tour managers, audiences, and so on are the individuals
who make up the network of interlocking roles that constitute the eld of
songwriting. It is the social organization of the eld that decides whether
what the person has produced is admissible as part of the domain. It is the
social organization, or eld, that decides whether the song is acceptable as a
song in the rst place and, secondly, how creative that song is in relation to
all other songs.
From this perspective, creativity is socially and historically specic, for
what one period decides is creative another may see as simply bizarre. Each
new song that is accepted as being creative via its social validation by the
eld must then become part of the domain. It is in this way that a culture
changes and moves on over a period of time.
Furthermore, if Bourdieu is correct in asserting that agency and structure are interdependent, by suggesting that the interplay between these two
spheres makes practice possible, Negus may also be correct in assuming that
the industry needs to be understood as both a commercial business driven
by the pursuit of prot and a site of creative human activity from which some
very great popular music has come and continues to emerge.69
If it is the case that creativity is indeed systemic, some reappraisal from
within the industry by those who both deal with and promote songs may be
necessary, especially given the emphasis on songwriters as romantic artists in
the latter part of the twentieth century. While this change in focus may present
problems in terms of marketing, as the audience also believes in the romantic
nature of songwriting and creativity, a systemic approach to creativity may in
fact be more accurate and ultimately reveal many more pragmatic opportunities for success than the romantic and inspirationist understanding of songwriting currently allows. The corollary is that this change may also take away
the basis of the ideas, centered as they are in romanticist aesthetics, that underpin the questions of artistic authenticity, which are themselves so central to
many songwriters understandings of themselves and their creative process.
NOTES
1. Al Kasha and Joel Hirschborn, If They Ask You, You Can Write A Song (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1979), 23.
2. Jimmy Webb, Tunesmith: Inside the Art of Songwriting (New York: Hyperion,
1998), 308.
3. For a more detailed account of this history see Russel Sanjek, American Popular
Music and Its Business: The First Four Hundred Years (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1988).
17
4. Debbie Kruger, Songwriters Speak: Conversations about Creating Music (Sydney:

Limelight Press, 2005), 12.
5. Tim Wall, Studying Popular Music Culture (London: Arnold, 2003), 123.
6. Lou Barlow quoted in James Rotondi, Alex Chilton: Big Stars Reluctant Legend,
in Guitar Player, ed. Dominic Milano (New York: Miller Freeman Group, 1994), 8182.
7. Ibid., 82.
8. KLF, The Manual: How to Have a Number One the Easy Way ( London: KLF Publications, London, 1988), 29.
9. John Braheny, The Craft and Business of Song Writing ( London: Omnibus Press,
1990), vi.
10. For a detailed account of how this process occurs see Phillip McIntyre, The Domain of SongwritersTowards Dening the Term Song, Perfect Beat: The Pacic
Journal of Research into Contemporary Music and Popular Culture 5/3, (2001): 100 111.
11. Randall Johnson, Editors Introduction, in Pierre Bourdieu, Field of Cultural
Production, ed. Randall Johnson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 5.
12. Donald Schon, The Reective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New
York: Basic Books, 1983), 52.
13. A detailed account of the way this song was written can be read in Phillip McIntyre, Paul McCartney and the Creation of Yesterday: The Systems Model in
Operation, Popular Music 25/2 (2006): 20119.
14. Paul McCartney quoted in Matt Snow, God In Heaven What Was I On, MOJO.
London: EMAP Metro, November, 1995, 57.
15. Randall Johnson, op. cit. (1993), 5.
16. These details can found in Phillip McIntyre, Creativity and Cultural Production: A Study of Contemporary Western Popular Music Songwriting, Creativity Research Journal 20/1, (2008): 4052.
17. J. Clark Jolley, GershwinFan.com: Georges Biography, GershwinFan.com,
2000, http://www.gershwinfan.com/biogeorge.html.
18. Paul Zollo, Songwriters on Songwriting (New York: Da Capo Press, 1997), xi.
19. Bob Barratt, Songwriting, in Making Music: The Essential Guide to Writing, Performing and Recording, ed. George Martin (London: Pan, 1983), 59.
20. Quoted in Peter Wicke, Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), 13.
21. John Fogerty quoted in Johnnie Clott, Moon Still Risin: JohnFogerty/Creedence
Clearwater Revival, Concrete Press, Newcastle NSW, December 22, 1998, 20.
22. Ibid.
23. Simon Frith, The Popular Music Industry, in The Cambridge Companion to Pop and
Rock, ed. Simon Frith, Will Straw, and John Street (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2001), 2930.
24. Greil Marcus, The Beatles, in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock, ed.
Jim Miller (New York: Random House, 1980), 185.
25. Simon Napier-Bell, Black Vinyl: White Powder (London: Ebury Press, 2002),
327.
26. Michael Fink, Inside the Music Industry: Creativity, Process and Business (New York:
Schirmer Books, 1996), 28.
27. Randy Poe, Music Publishing: A Songwriters Guide (Cincinnati: Writers Digest
Books, 1997), 48.
18
Popular Music
28. Edward Samuels, The Illustrated Story of Copyright (New York: Thomas Dunne
Books, 2000), 248.
29. Fred Koller, How to Pitch and Promote Your Songs (New York: Allworth Press,
2001), 42.
30. Howard Becker, Art Worlds (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982), 9.
31. David Swartz, Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 117.
32. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), 41.
33. For a lengthy account of the music industry as eld see Phillip McIntyre, The
Contemporary Popular Music Industry as Field, in Musical In-Between-ness: Proceedings of 8th Conference of the Australia-NZ Branch of the International Association for the
Study of Popular Music, ed. Denis Crowdy, Shane Homan, and Tony Mitchell (Sydney:
University of Technology, 2001), 140 54.
34. John Baheny, op. cit. (1990), vi.
35. Al Kasha and Joel Hirschborn, If They Ask You, You Can Write A Song (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1979), 18.
36. Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction (London: Sage,
1994), 213.
37. Phillip McIntyre, The Contemporary Popular Music Industry as Field, in Musical In-Between-ness: Proceedings of 8th Conference of the Australia-NZ Branch of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music, ed. Denis Crowdy, Shane Homan,
and Tony Mitchell (Sydney: University of Technology, 2001), 150.
38. Keith Negus, Popular Music in Theory: An Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1996), 62.
39. Dave Marsh, Glory Days: A Biography of Bruce Springsteen (London: Sidgwick and
Jackson, 1987), 17879.
40. Phillip Mcintyre, Radio Program Directors, Music Directors and the Creation
of Popular Music, in Radio in the World: Radio Conference 2005, ed. Sianan Healy, Bruce
Berryman, and David Goodman (Melbourne: RMIT Publishing, 2006), 449 60.
41. See http://www.paulmccartney.com.
42. Jodi Krangle, ed., The Muses News: An E-zine For And About Songwriters, Issue 10,
September 6, 2007, http://www.musesmuse.com/musenews.html.
43. Mark Wells quoted in Phillip McIntyre, Creativity and Cultural Production: A
Study of Contemporary Western Popular Music Songwriting, unpublished PhD Thesis,
Sydney, Macquarie University, 2003, 220.
44. Ibid.
45. For an overview of the way audiences have been conceptualized within popular
music studies see Keith Negus, Popular Music in Theory: An Introduction (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1996), 735.
46. For a broader argument detailing the problems of seeing creativity with romantic eyes see Duncan Petrie, Creativity and Constraint in the British Film Industry
(London: MacMillan, 2004) and Keith Sawyer, Explaining Creativity: The Science of
Human Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
47. Roy Shuker, Understanding Popular Music (London: Routledge, 1994), 99.
48. Notable exceptions are Jason Toynbee, Making Popular Music: Musicians, Creativity and Institutions (London: Arnold, 2000) and Phillip McIntyre, Creativity and
19
Cultural Production: A Study of Contemporary Western Popular Music Songwriting, Creativity Research Journal (in press).
49. Keith Negus and Michael Pickering, Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value
(London: Sage, 2004), 179.
50. Simon Frith, The Popular Music Industry, in The Cambridge Companion to
Pop and Rock, ed. Simon Frith, Will Straw, and John Street (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001), 34.
51. Quoted in Joanna Demers, Steal this Music: How Intellectual Property Law Affects
Musical Creativity (Athens Georgia: The University of Georgia Press, 2006), ix.
52. For an account of this argument see Keith Negus and Michael Pickering, Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value (London: Sage, 2004).
53. Margaret Boden, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (London: Routledge,
2004), 14.
54. Robert Sternberg, ed., Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 5.
55. Margaret Boden, op. cit. (2004), 14.
56. Sigmund Freud, The Relation of the Poet to Daydreaming, in The Creativity
Question, ed. Albert Rothenberg and Carl Hausman (Durham, N.C.: Duke University
Press, 1976).
57. Phillip McIntyre, Copyright and Creativity: Changing Paradigms and the
Implications for Intellectual Property and the Music Industry, Media International
Australia incorporating Cultural Policy 123 (2007): 8294.
58. Phillip McIntyre, Creativity and Cultural Production: A Study of Contemporary Western Popular Music Songwriting, Creativity Research Journal 20/1, (2008):
40 52.
59. For example, see Vera Zolberg, Constructing a Sociology of the Arts (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990); Jack Stillinger, Multiple Authorship and the Myth
of Solitary Genius (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Janet Wolff, The Social
Production of Art (London: MacMillan, 1993); and Michael Howe, Genius Explained
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
60. Howard Becker, Art Worlds (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982);
Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977); Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990); Pierre
Bourdieu, Field of Cultural Production (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993);
and Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).
61. Rob Pope, Creativity: Theory, History, Practice (New York: Routledge, 2005).
62. See Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author, in Image, Music, Text (New York:
Noonday Press, 1977) and Michel Foucault, What is an Author in Textual Strategies:
Perspectives in Post-Structural Criticism, ed. J. V. Harare (New York: Cornell University
Press, 1979).
63. Duncan Petrie, op. cit. (1991) and Keith Negus and Michael Pickering, op. cit.
(2004).
64. This research has been variously reviewed by Vera Zolberg. See Vera Zolberg,
Constructing a Sociology of the Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990);
Carlisle Bergquist, A Comparative View of Creativity Theories: Psychoanalytic, Behaviouristic and Humanistic, Vantage Quest, http://www.vantagequest.org/trees/
20
Popular Music
comparative.htm; Robert Sternberg, Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999); Mark Runco and Stephen Pritzker, Encyclopedia of Creativity
(San Diego: Academic Press, 1999); and Keith Sawyer, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
65. Peter Wicke, Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge
66. For elaborations of the systems model see Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Society,
Culture and Person: A Systems View of Creativity, in The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, ed. by Robert Sternberg (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), 32539; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow and the
Psychology of Discovery and Invention (New York: Harper Collins, 1997); and Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity,
in Handbook of Creativity, ed. by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 31335.
67. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, op. cit. (1999), 315.
68. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, op. cit. (1988), 329.
69. Keith Negus, op. cit. (1996), 37.
chapter 2
The Devaluation of Recorded Music:

A New Business Model
for the Music Industry
Richard Strasser
The release of a new album is usually heralded with much fanfare and enjoyment for those involved in the creation, manufacturing, and sale of the compact disc (CD). However, when the iconic artist Prince released his album
Planet Earth, the music industry was not in a celebratory mood. Instead of releasing the album through traditional retail channels, Prince, on July 15,
2007, in a deal believed to have earned him $2 million, released the album
through The Mail on Sunday newspaper.1 By bypassing retailers and delivering a CD through the newspaper, Princes spokesperson stated that the artists only aim is to get music (directly) to those that want to hear it.2 This
audacious move by Prince infuriated retailers who say that such giveaways
reinforce that recorded music has no intrinsic value.3 In a keynote speech at
the New Music Conference in London, Entertainment Retailers Association
of UK Vice-Chairman Paul Quirk stated that, The Artist formerly known as
Prince should know that with behaviour like this he will soon be the Artist
Formerly Available in Record Stores.4 He went on to state that the British
Music industry should not believe the hype about downloads . . . music retailing is currently more than 90% physical and less than 10% digital, the way
people talk you would conclude the percentages were reversed.5 However,
according to Nielsen SoundScan data, CD sales recently fell 19 percent compared with the same period from the previous year.6 Data from 2006 sales
indicate that physical sales are down by 35.26 percent to 13,880,000, while
digital sales have more than doubled to 53,018,000, an increase of 100.49
22
Popular Music
percent from the previous year.7 A report by the research group Berg Insight
suggests that digital music sales will overtake physical sales in Western Europe by 2011.8 These gures seem to suggest that the traditional recording
industry is slowly giving way to the digitization of music content. However,
what is not clear is what business model will succeed the current system, as
multiple actors have entered the music industry and are trying to carve out
a niche in this lucrative eld. Furthermore, the very concept of music as a
business is being tested as Michael Bracy, policy director of the Future Music
Coalition, questions, How do you monetize the digital music industry?9
In fact, the same Nielsen SoundScan data indicates that while more people
are legitimately buying music online, 10 times as many songs are still downloaded for free.10 To answer these questions and examine the new directions
digital music is taking, its important to rst understand the traditional business model and then explore how the digitization of music is opening new
avenues in the music industry.
THE TRADITIONAL RECORDING
BUSINESS MODEL
The traditional business model for the recording industry has been in effect
for well over 50 years. Each actor within this value chain is part of a sequential system that adds value to process as product passes from creators to the
consumer. At the apex of this system are content creators who straddle both
the recording and publishing industries. This includes artists, composers, performers, and to a lesser extent artist and repertoire (A&R) departments of
record labels. Apart from acquiring new and promising artists to long-term
exclusive contracts, A&R entails the development of repertoire as well as the
overseeing of production and creation of an artists image. The goal of content creators is the recording and production of CDs. To achieve this, content
creators enter into exclusive contracts with record companies who translate artistic productions into consumer products. To encourage content creators, labels nance them through advance payments while retaining control
of the manufacturing and sale of the recording. To capitalize on economies of
scale, most companies have their own production plants. The big-four record
labelsEMI, Warner Music, Universal Music, and Sony BMGleverage
global CD pressing facilities to accomplish worldwide economies of scale.
Because consumers generally do not purchase unfamiliar music, airtime on
the radio and other means of exposure for a particular artist or band is essential. Labels have well-established relationships with traditional media channels such as press, radio, and TV stations. As with distribution, major record
labels (majors) have a global network of branch ofces that can handle sales,
distribution, and marketing in any desired market. Distribution companies
usually work toward large retailers, such as Best Buy and Wal-Mart, who
The Devaluation of Recorded Music
23
purchase a high volume of albums from wholesalers. This distribution channel favors artists with a well-established audience (i.e., stars) while disadvantaging marginal artists (niche performers) who nd it hard to be distributed
in the market.11
Various economic factors inuence the traditional physical-only distribution scheme. Demand factors such as available leisure time, the demand for
leisure, related increases in disposable household income, and demographic
proles have shaped the entertainment industry from the consumer perspective.12 Supply-side factors have ensured a stable system that guarantees profits for the recording industry for several decades. These factors have favored
large entertainment conglomerates by providing barriers to entry; allowing for control, development, and marketing of new content; and stabilizing
industry structures and segments, especially distribution systems. Driving
both of these economic factors is the creation of technology and new formats.
New music formats and playback technologies have been important in the development of new musical genres (e.g., the synthesizer and art rock) and have
led the music industry out of temporary setbacks (such as in the late 70s and
early 80s) and into new growth phases.13 However, to many in the recording
industry, recent technologies have been highly disruptive to existing music
markets and well-established distribution mechanisms.14 At the heart of this
disruption has been the creation of peer-to-peer (P2P) le sharing.
P2P REVOLUTION
The origins of P2P le sharing began well before the advent of Napster
and other P2P sites. In 1986, Sony introduced the Digital Audio Tape (DAT),
a revolutionary system that allowed for digital recording and perfect reproduction of the master recording. Due to copyright problems, electronic
rms delayed development of consumer products, and DAT remained a highpriced professional medium. In 1990, Sony and Phillips, the creators of the
CD player, produced the standard for the Recordable CD-ROM (CD-R). Although copying of recorded music or recording of radio broadcasts has been
possible since the availability of cassettes and associated players/recorders,
the digital format enabled the creation of perfect, identical copies on a large
scale, either for private use or for organized music piracy. The International
Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) reported that total sales of
pirated media was worth U.S. $4.6 billion in 2003 (i.e., pirate sales accounted
for 15% of the legitimate music market) and that in developing country markets such as Brazil, China, and Mexico, physical media piracy levels are over
50 percent.15 Although the physical manufacturing of pirated CDs and DVDs
has created signicant problems to the recording industry, both from an economic and intellectual property rights perspective, the introduction of online
piracy has presented even greater challenges to the recording industry.
24
Popular Music
In the past, systems for sharing les and information between computers
was extremely limited by computer processing speed and the long time
frame associated with downloading music les. The scenario changed dramatically in 1999 with the development of the le-sharing company Napster.
Napster operated on a centralized server that monitored which les were
available at any given time. Proprietors of Napster could determine which
les were being made available by their consumers. Although the company
posted a disclaimer on its Web site, stating that illegal use of the network
was not permitted, it did not enforce this ruling. By 2001, Napster had a daily
average of 1.57 million simultaneous users and 60 million daily users worldwide.16 Ultimately, a group of record labels whose works were being pirated
on the Napster network shut down the company. The case against Napster
was based primarily on the fact that the company had not only the ability to
monitor which les where shared but had the power to prevent copyrighted
works from being pirated. This void was soon lled by imitators such as
Audiogalaxy, Morpheus, Gnutella, KaZaA, and more recently, BitTorrent,
eDonkey, and Warez. These le-sharing networks developed a decentralized
system where the network proprietor did not maintain a centralized database but rather distributed an index of information among user computers.
Grokster consisted of a series of user networks, known as supernodes, that
held and maintained an index of works. As with Napster, many of these lesharing companies were successfully sued and terminated by entertainment
companies and their representatives. Yet, early attempts by the major record
labels to establish an online presence to counter the success of the le-sharing
networks failed due to the lack of user friendliness and a commercially viable
business model to compete with free downloading. Complicated user interfaces, comparatively high up-front costs imposed by monthly subscription
fees, and the limited size of song catalogs, especially across the label divide,
did not convince consumers to embrace label-owned companies such as MusicNet and PressPlay. Furthermore, underdeveloped digital rights management (DRM) schemes only fed the online music community with content to
be transmitted on le-sharing sites.17
Yet, it is these illegal le-sharing companies that have become the backbone for the distribution of legitimate music content. In principle, le sharing is an innovative technology that has increasingly useful application in the
music industry and several nontraditional music sectors, such as communication (voice over the Internet services such as Skype, on-demand streaming audio/video or other media push services such as Redswoosh), service
industries (Linuxs Lindows, which offers software via P2P networks),18 and
organizations that share information, such as academia and different government agencies.19
While the rst download offers were available from 2001 (MusicNet and
Pressplay were launched in December 2001), the breakthrough for online
25
music retailing occurred in 2003. In this year, music labels gave permission
to online companies to distribute substantial amounts of products online according to license terms in return for royalty payments.20 With the general
commercial acceptance of P2P systems and the growing ability for users to
have access to music over broadband, companies began developing a variety
of e-business models for the music industry. Currently, there are four different congurations for the delivery of music content over the Internet. Two
models are structured on the way music is accessed: either via streaming or
downloading. The other structures are based on business models that provide
the consumer with the ability to purchase or lease individual songs, the socalled subscription or a la carte models. It is the a la carte model used by
companies such as iTunes that is currently driving online sales and the comeback of the single format. With the a la carte method, music is copied to the
users hard drive against a payment, allowing the user to subsequently listen
to the content without being connected to the Internet. In this model the
consumer acquires the music permanently (full sale), but downloaded tracks
usually come with some restrictions on usage. DRM technology is designed
to control use of digital media by preventing access, copying, or conversion of
les to other devices. The iTunes store makes use of FairPlay DRM technology. FairPlay is built into Apples QuickTime, a multimedia framework for
which the current range of devices includes the iPod, iPhone, and the iTunes
Store.21 The success of the a la Carte model can be attributed to consumers
desire to own purchased music and the relative ease of application. This
purchasing method is linked to an older demographic who have been conditioned to the traditional physical music retail format and are now reconguring their music collections. However, when downloading, consumers chose
to overwhelmingly (85% of the time) download only one track from an album
rather than purchasing the full album.22 Frequently cited gures indicate
the continued growth of online purchasing. According to Natalie Kerris, a
spokeswoman for Apple, iTunes had sold more than 1.5 billion songs three
years after its inception, making it the fourth largest music retailer in the
United States.23 A report by SoundScan stated there were 140.9 million legal
downloads in the rst half of 2004, compared to only 19 million for the last
half of 2003.24 In 2006, a report by ResearchandMarketing indicated that
annual U.S. online digital music sales were estimated to be $1.1 billion.25 By
2008, iTunes accounted for 30 percent of all U.S. music sales, making it the
largest U.S. music retailer.26
Although a la Carte downloading is still the preferred method of purchasing digital music, streaming music is becoming a viable alternative. Streaming services allow visitors to hear music in real time without downloading the
le to the consumers local hard drive. Consumers do not take ownership of
the streamed songs but have the ability to scan and explore vast collections.
This has led to the development of streaming subscription models that give
26
Popular Music
subscribers access to catalogs of music content for a monthly fee. Companies

such as RealNetworks Rhapsody and Napster provide the consumer with
a large volume of music for a monthly fee. On November 2003, 3.2 million
Americans visited Napster.com, which was relaunched as a paid online music
service in late October 2003. In comparison, Apples iTunes, drew 2.7 million
visitors in November 2003.27 By March 2007, Napster expected revenues to
be more than $28 million with more than 830,000 subscribers making it the
number one download store.28 The subscription model is increasingly reliant
on advertisement revenue, rather than recording label funding. This requires
companies to be able to obtain a high number of subscribers to be nancially
viable.
While subscription models provide the online consumer with large catalogs, portable music systems allow for the portable access of subscriptions.
Using Microsofts Janus DRM, companies such as Napster offer consumers
the ability to enjoy large collections of music not only on their PCs but on
their portable devices as well. If the consumer does not pay his/her monthly
subscription, the music is cancelled. Usually the number of copies that can
be made is limited through DRM technologies. When this limit is reached
(sometimes three but often more copies) the song can no longer be downloaded to further devices or copied. The ability to transfer content between
portable devices is limited by format and DRM technology employed by the
online music service. (i.e., with Open MG/Magic Gate in the case of Sony
Connect).
A variation on the music subscription format is streaming radio. This system gives consumers access to a variety of genre-specic radio streams for a
specied monthly fee. Streaming radio is often bundled with other subscription packages offered by a music company. Finally, a relatively new form of
paid serves is subscription le sharing. Unlike previous P2P networks, these
systems only allow le sharing to take place between paying subscribers or
between purchased songs. Because the music is transmitted through DRM
systems, the sampled works can be controlled, and ownership is limited.29
In 2004, the online music market accounted for a small share of total
music sales revenues (global sales equaled approximately 12%).30 By 2007,
global digital music sales were estimated at approximately U.S. $2.9 billion,
a roughly 40 percent increase over 2006. This accounted for an estimated
15 percent of the global music market, up from 11 percent in 2006 and
zero in 2003. U.S. online sales now account for 30 percent of all revenues.31
The digital music industry is characterized by an insatiable demand for new
material supplied by a plethora of new players. In the medium term, overall demand for music may increase through digital distribution and other
new forms of music consumption. With the general increase in the number of people who are accessing music via the Internet, there are several
playersnotably from the nonmusic sectorwho are becoming involved
27
in online music distribution. Companies such as Microsoft, Cola-Cola,

Wal-Mart, and different Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are entering the
arena. This rapid surge in players has led many industry commentators
to predict increased competition, larger marketing budgets, and consolidation.32 A key requisite for the development of efcient online music delivery
is competitive and widespread access to broadband infrastructure. The delivery of online content also necessitates new technologies and an environment that facilitates the creation, acquisition, management, and delivery of
content. Secure payment systems are essential for the functioning of a viable business environment. Moreover, a diversity of interoperable standards
and hardware are likely to prove most benecial to competition and efcient
online content markets. These demands have opened the way for a plethora
of alternative business models and a vast array of companies interested in
accessing the lucrative music business.
ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS AND ACTORS
Many in the music industry have viewed the proliferation of broadband
connectivity to the average PC user as a disruptive technology. However, the
development of greater connectivity has opened the way for improved revenue streams and opportunities for music consumption. High-speed connections have allowed consumers to download music rapidly, thus bypassing
traditional methods for enjoying music (including unauthorized le sharing).
Many of these new entities include players that have long had sustainable
links to the music industry, such as consumer electronic manufacturers, software and hardware companies, and DRM rms. Service providers who manage, host, and secure content are going to have to become a new phenomenon
in the music industry, especially with the potential growth expected in new
broadband technology. Most of these alternative companies make use of a hybrid le-sharing system similar to the Napster model, which relies on users
connecting to other nodes within the immediate vicinity to request les.
These systems are very popular for various reasons, most notably the ease of
use, strong search capabilities, and the ability to download large amounts of
data in a convenient fashion.
Depending on the nature of the players, very different motives drive their
online music activity. This has lead to new co-operations within the music industry as players try to integrate upwards or downwards along the recording
industry value chain. Yet, the range of new retail interfaces available to the
consumer is considerable, including: online music stores of the major recording labels, third-party online music stores (e.g., Apple, Napster), ISPs and
content portals, mobile content suppliers, software and hardware companies
(Apple, Dell, etc.), online retailers (Wal-Mart, Amazon, etc), and DRM providers (Microsoft, Real Networks). Most notably companies that traditionally
28
Popular Music
have had no relationship to the entertainment industry have began to be actively involved in the music business. Cell phone and communications companies (Sprint, AT&T, etc.), consumer brands (Coca-Cola), physical retailers
(systems set up in places such as Starbucks that permit music downloading
by customers), and even credit card companies (American Express) are looking to the music industry as an ancillary income generator.
M-COMMERCE
Technologies often develop in tandem with new markets. This has certainly been the case with the music industry and mobile communications sector. The growth of the global system for mobile communication (GSM) has
been important for the development of mobile commerce (m-commerce).33
M-commerce systems involve the direct transfer of music to mobile devices
such as cell phones, PDAs, and other handheld devices. The m-commerce market is built on certain value propositions such as mobility, availability, and
ubiquity (interconnectivity and roaming). In most cases, music is accessible
to the user via a specic player (music jukebox) tied to a particular software
program or a type of hardware to play the music (PC, portable device, mobile handset). Added to the development of devices has been the bundling of
music content to various devices. For Sonys new Walkman phone, the company had preinstalled new unreleased tracks by Robbie Williams.34 Wireless
operators are also selling full-song downloads. Sprint recently began selling full tracks that subscribers can download to their phones, with Verizon
(V Cast) and AT&T expected to open similar services in mid 2008. Sprints
service has a dual-delivery feature that sends one version of the purchased
song to the mobile phone and another version to the PC.35
The need for converged products in digital audio players independently
from other electronic devices has meant the demise of the Walkman and portable radio. An essential reason for the creation of independent devices is the
need for portability (carry-on functionality while jogging, etc.) not provided
by devices such as the laptop. The mobile phone has been the most technically
feasible and acceptable single carry-on device to consumers. Other devices
that offer audio codec as a secondary feature are smart handheld devices and
handheld gaming consoles. Whether consumers will replace dedicated media
players with converged devices such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), or combined camera/media players is still to be seen. Currently, connection speeds, processing power, battery limitations, and screen
size make it very difcult for the portable phone to replace digital audio players or other content devices.36 Originally phones used as tools for downloading
content, apart from small les such as ringtones, were restricted to countries
such as Japan and Korea.37 Yet, with the development of the iPhone in 2007,
customers are able to download content via Bluetooth and telecommunication
29
networks. With improving audio compression technology, the iPhone is positioning itself as an important player in the music industry.
Within the rst 30 hours of the iPhones release, Apple sold over 30,000
units.38 Apple expected to sell its 1 millionth iPhone by the quarter ending
in September 2007. However, due to overwhelming demand, Apple achieved
this goal by the beginning of September of that year.39 In contrast, it took the
company seven quarters to sell its 1 millionth iPod. Apple says that its still on
track to meet the goal spelled out by CEO Steve Jobs to sell 10 million iPhones
by 2008.40 Development in m-commerce will expand rapidly with cheaper
and faster wireless connectivity via DSL Internet access and improvements in
3G networks. While the benets of technology convergence are experienced
in the home, in the workplace, and on the move, their rapid adoption raises
problems with the compliance of such products, both in terms of regulation
and cost, especially in comparison with single-purpose products. One of the
most important consequences of the blurring of technology borders is the
increasing globalization of services. This move calls for standardization and
interoperability between networks and services across the globe. Currently,
there are no international agencies to allow for the seamless transition of
such technology. Apple must negotiate with individual service providers in
each country to sell the iPhone, thereby limiting the range of such units and
their overall adoption in the market.
SOFTWARE COMPANIES
A recent entrant into the music industry has been software companies,
who have used digital music offerings to power different revenue streams.
Entering the music industry is an attractive proposition for software companies because selling low-margin digital downloads and subscription services
helps to encourage widespread software usage and increases the importance
of specic audio and video formats. Two of the largest software companies,
Microsoft and Real Networks, integrated to produce the MSN Music Store.
The launch of the MSN Music Store serves several business goals for Microsoft. First, the store helped to increase the importance of the Windows Media
Player 10 jukebox, which includes Windows Media DRM. Secondly, all tracks
within the store are encoded using the Microsoft proprietary WMA codec,
helping to further expand the formats usage. Thirdly, music helps leverage
and increase the Internet audience on their MSN Network service, Microsoft
Internet portal. Finally, the move was an important component of Microsofts plans to create the digital living room, expected by the company to be
a major growth area. The MSN Music Store is available both as a Web-based
experience and as part of the Windows Media Player 10. Furthermore, it
is an integral component of the Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005.
Attracting users to the jukebox is a critical factor in the digital delivery of
30
Popular Music
music, but it also allows Microsoft opportunities to control new media revenue streams (Video-on-Demand or Pay-Per-View Movies, live DRM to host
concerts, sports events). To increase the perceived value of the Windows
Media Player 10 jukebox, Microsoft has created a Digital Media Mall, with
a host of other digital music services, including Napster, Puretracks, WalMart, Virgin, and CinemaNow (for movies), aggregated into one application. As with Apples integration of music service and hardware via iTunes
and the iPod, Microsoft has developed synergies between Windows Media
Player 10 and Zune. The new Microsoft DRM system called Janus will allow
music-service subscribers to listen to rented music on portable devices. Regulatory agencies in both the United States and the European Union have
recently urged Microsoft to debundle the Windows Media Player 10 from its
overall operating system.41 On February 28, 2008, the European Commission ned Microsoft $ 899 million (U.S. $1.3 billion) for failure to honor the
2004 antitrust ruling against it.42 Furthermore, in the wake of a landmark
$761 million legal settlement of its lawsuit against Microsoft, RealNetworks
Rhapsody will be integrated into Microsofts MSN search, instant messaging,
and music store services.43 In effect, Rhapsody will become MSNs default
subscription music service, thereby killing Microsofts ambitions of developing its own service.
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Another nontraditional entertainment sector to enter the music industry
has been Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Web portals. In many cases
there currently exists a blurring of boundaries between content providers,
broadcasters, and telecommunication service providers. In the ever-changing
music environment, network operators are looking at business models that
generate revenue, especially with the loss of traditional outlets such as xedline telephone systems. Furthermore, ISPs have begun delivering bundled services in order to combat competition and sustain customer bases. This has
taken the form of video delivery, greater broadband capability, and better
document storage and backup abilities. It is expected that licensed material
will drive subscriber numbers, especially with premium broadband packages
that offer the end-customer an all you can eat content service. The ISPs are
also looking at the current range of online music purchasing processes, such
as pay-per-track services, digital radio (e.g., Radio@AOL), and music TV.
For many years, ISPs have been entering into a series of commercial relationships with content aggregators and content owners to offer authorized material. The ISPs and Web portals have one signicant advantage over many
other players in the online music business: a large Internet audience. According to an OECD report, computer and Internet-related sites such as Yahoo!
and MSN Networks have captured around 40 percent of all Internet visits
31
with entertainment products.44 The ability of ISPs to position themselves as

distributors of music depends on partnerships formed with content generators and their ability to share in the revenue streams generated. Currently,
Verizon Online DSL, in conjunction with MSN premium, gives customers
preferred access to Rhapsody, allowing them the opportunity to listen to
music and radio services.45 Recently, hostilities between content generators
and ISPs have heated up with the introduction of the Communications, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE) of 2006. As part of a major overhaul
of the Communications Act of 1996, the COPE Act includes network neutrality provisions and an amendment that prohibits service tiering. The bill,
which passed the House but is currently stalled in the Senate, would spell
out broadband Internet consumer rights but without nondiscrimination language urged by net neutrality advocates such as Google, Yahoo!, and eBay, who
want unfettered access to the net.46 The Justice Department has sent comments to the FCC warning that regulators should be careful not to impose
regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband
facilities.47 Network operators such as AT&T and Verizon, as well as cable
companies such as Comcast, warn that a restrictive bill will limit the development of high-bandwidth services and reduce income streams for future
developments by the network operators.48
To capture music content, ISPs are reliant on numerous music intermediaries that provide rights clearance, hosting and delivery of content, and
billing infrastructure. White label music services have lled this void by handling aspects related to a digital music store such as capturing, storing, and
retrieving music content. The ISPs are able to obtain clearance rights for
music content without the need to negotiate with content providers. Companies such as Loudeye/OD2 and MusicNet also provide DRM technology,
usage reporting, digital music royalty settlements, and other services. Both
Loudeye/OD2 and MusicNet serve a diverse range of clients including, Amazon, AT&T Wireless, Barnes & Noble, Gibson Audio, House of Blues, and
MyCokeMusic.com. Up until it closed operations on January 19, 2007, BitPass
offered solutions that included payment processing, customer service transactions, and promotions management for the delivery of content.
Although ISPs are slowly entering the music industry, many in the music
industry have not welcomed their presence, especially in regards to copyright
infringement. The music industry and its representatives have attempted to
hold ISPs liable not only for tolerating illegal P2P trafc but for actually facilitating it. Furthermore, the music industry contends that ISPs have no intrinsic interest in limiting infringer use, as greater broadband use increases
ISP subscriber numbers and generates greater advertising income. The music
industry has sued ISPs to reveal the names and addresses of suspected music
copyright infringers, but ISPs have refuted these allegations and pointed to
the technological neutrality of their broadband technology. Furthermore,
32
Popular Music
ISPs contend that monitoring and enforcing compliance of copyright imposes signicant costs. This was the argument of the ISP Charter Communications in response to RIAA subpoena to reveal the names and addresses
of its subscribers.49 The subpoena process adopted by the music industry
against ISPs has been examined by courts, especially in a series of legal actions involving the RIAA and Verizon Communications. The U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled that subpoenas could not be issued against an ISP that does
not store copyrighted material on its computer servers. If the RIAA wished
to obtain the identities of users suspected of illegal le sharing, the RIAA
would need to le civil law suits against such individuals.50 In a nal effort
to obtain this information from the ISPs, the RIAA appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, in October 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected to hear
an appeal by the RIAA, thereby ending its litigation of the ISP industry.51
Furthermore, the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998
established a scheme that is designed to limit ISPs liability for copyright
infringement, provided they meet certain requirements.
SEARCH ENGINES
Search engines, such as Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com, and Live Search, have
traditionally functioned as information retrieval companies designed to search
for data on the World Wide Web. As with other technology companies, search
engines have began to offer their customers a range of music products and
services. Yahoo! has several tools available to its clients, including the ability to
create mashups via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) at their Web
sites. Mashups are Web applications that combine data from several sources
into a new integrated system. YouTunes is a mashup that nds YouTube
videos for the top 10 songs at iTunes. The mashup will take the iTunes data
and run a search at YouTube for all video titles that match the song titles
listed sending it to a consumers computer as a clean list.52 Yahoo!s Pipes
works in a similar fashion to YouTunes but collects data from RSS feeds. The
site is currently in beta and due for full commercial release within the next
year. Apart from offering Web applications, search engines are beginning to
act as online retailers. The recent acquisition of MusicMatch by Yahoo!an
online retailer and software rmfor U.S. $160 million sheds light on the
dynamic state of the music industry on this market.53 Yahoo!s free music
portal is already completely ad supported and offers Internet radio, music
videos, and music news. In 2005, Yahoo! developed the Music Unlimited subscription fee music site as an attempt to undercut competitors such as Rhapsody and Napster and integrate the service with other Yahoo! products.54
The site boasted over 1 million songs encoded as WMA les protected by
a DRM scheme similar to Napster and Rhapsody (music will only play
on the PC they reside on).55 On February 4, 2008, Yahoo! announced that
33
Rhapsody would be the exclusive on-demand service for Yahoo!, replacing

Music Unlimited.56 This action would leave three online music subscription
companies: Rhapsody, Napster, and Microsofts Zune Marketplace, which,
in 2008, attempted a hostile takeover of Yahoo!. However, at the time of writing, Microsofts $44.6 billion offer for Yahoo! had still not been accepted.
A combination of the two companies Internet efforts would create a very
strong competitor against Google, which currently accounts for 54 percent
of all online searches in the United States compared to Yahoo!s 22 percent
and Microsofts 10 percent. Although Yahoo! and Microsoft have a long history of partnerships, the synthesis of the array of services, ranging from
entertainment to instant messaging, will be difcult to combine, even with
the projected revenues from online advertising.
HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS
The digital music industry has had a profound inuence on the PC and
electronics industry. Currently, the entertainment market is considered
a high-growth market, and the electronics industry is seeing a growing
global market for digital consumer appliances both for consumer electronics
manufacturers and PC vendors (including chip vendors). Recently, several
hardware manufacturers have shown an interest in developing ties to music
content providers. Hardware manufacturers such as Samsung, Dell, Sony,
and Apple are generating online music offerings (i.e., hardware-Integrated
Services) to sell more of their music players. Digital music and the rise of portable audio players is also redening the boundaries between the somewhat
traditionally separate PC, software, mobile handset, content, and consumer
electronics sector, which are now competing head-on for the sales of portable
audio devices. As the digital music value chain becomes more integrated,
interdependency between the individual players and device manufacturers is
occurring. (e.g., cooperation between device manufacturers, music services,
and software providers) The backbone of the digital music industry has been
the portable audio player. Great consumer acceptance, falling prices (in particular for ash memory), rising capacities, and more diverse offerings with
multiple storage capacities has increased the number of digital devices available.57 Analysts forecast that this category will continue to grow while the
audio consumer electronic market, especially the CD market, will decline.
The portable mp3 player category has in terms of unit sales more than
doubled in 2004 to over 6.9 million units, and dollar sales have nearly tripled
in revenue to U.S. $1.2 billion, compared to gures from 2003 and more than
$80 million in 2000.58 According to the Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA) factory-level mp3 player sales rose 31 percent with 2006 revenue calculated at U.S. $5.56 billion. The mp3 market has enjoyed a double percentage gain since 1998.59 Furthermore, a 2006 study by Ipsos research found
34
Popular Music
that one in ve Americans aged 12 and older owned an mp3 player. The
study indicated that over half of teens (54%) own an mp3 player, averaging
16 hours of use per week.60
CONSUMERS AS CREATORS
OF MUSIC CONTENT
In The Futurists, Alvin Tofer notes that the emergence of the service
society has coincided with extended consumer self-service.61 For Tofer, the
notion of a passive consumer will be exchanged in the future with consumers that are part of the value-chain as coproducers or prosumers (producerconsumers). For many analysts, customers today are concerned about control
over available service features and content displayed to them.62 The change
precipitated by digital technologies and an evolution of consumer consumption habits has had a persistent and profound effect on the online music
industry. Innovation and change lead to an unfreezing of established relationships, expectation and roles.63 The challenge for suppliers is to manage
the transformation process, that is, to (gradually) explore new forms of interaction and models of collaboration that involve customers in the process and to
shape the relationship with them.64 Therefore, future customer relations in
the online community will be built on a triangulation between value propositions and product characteristics, business transaction attributes, and attributes within a computer-mediated environment. Increasingly, companies are
looking to incorporate social and business systems that are enmeshed with
business output, while adding value and control for customers.65 For current consumers, especially younger demographics, this translates in online
entities that not only supply music content but value-added services, such as
chat groups, streamed events, and the ability to burn CDs or personalized
playlists of digital singles. This means greater choice and exibility, with
consumers able to enjoy music on their terms (i.e., no need to pay for full albums when only a few songs are desired). Seemingly, many various forms of
P2P services and online music stores are able to sustain a greater breadth of
music types, thus potentially better satisfying consumer demand and niche
markets. Moreover, the way consumers nd and buy music is slowly gravitating away from traditional online methods to new systems, maybe leading
to more music genres and a lesser focus on a few music stars.
SOCIAL NETWORKS AS CONTENT CREATORS
The impact of the online medium on network users (i.e., interactivity and
participation) and diversity of material made omnipresent by the availability of online technologies opens up possibilities for new content created by
network users. Apart from having ubiquitous access to music, users have
35
become important participants in the chain of content creation, marketing,

and distribution. In the context of le-sharing networks that allow the transfer of owned or authorized les, users (e.g., amateur artists) can create their
own music and share it with others. This kind of exchange is unique to le
sharing in comparison to other online music distribution or traditional music
business models. To date, the take-up of this has been limited, and opinions
vary as to the scale of its long-term impact.
Online social networks occur in many different venues, from those that
offer very little interaction, such as e-mail lists and Usenet newsgroups, to realtime online-chat systems and multiuser domains (MUDs). Users can share
information, make les available, contribute to projects, or transfer les.66
Consumer-to-consumer music recommendation tools allow consumers to
share musical tastes in a collaborative forum. These forums take many forms,
from the collaborative ltering technique adopted by Amazon for recommending products to service-tied systems, such as iMix on iTunes Music Store
or Rhapsodys Playlist Central tool, which allow consumers to purchase or
access the songs in the playlists directly.67 However, there is a growing number of music consumers, especially a younger generation, who arent accessing music from subscription or a la carte services. Blogging and podcasting
allows users to link or post content on the Internet for other people to download or post comments. Similarly, private group sharing sites, such as iMeem
and Grouper, enable users to exchange music les. According to a report
issued by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 55 percent of American
children aged 1217 claim to visit social networking sites such as MySpace.68
In each of these venues, individuals identify with the values, conventions,
and practices of the online group. Researchers show that social interactions
shape participants opinions, decisions, and relationships and take up considerably high amounts of their time.69 This online interaction has direct
consequences on individuals interaction with family, friends, and established
media outlets.70
Social network sites have been an important addition to the online environment. Most are based on social communities of people who share interests
and activities. Users interact through a series of tools, including messaging,
e-mail, blogs, le sharing, and discussion groups. On July 19, 2005, Fox News
Corporation bought MySpace for $580 million.71 As a fully functional social
network site, individuals are able to download music content and share it with
their social community. Bands such as Babyshambles and the Arctic Monkeys
built fan bases rapidly by posting their music on their Web sites and allowing people to swap mp3s, record performances, and share content through
MySpace and other social networks. Since MySpaces launch in 2003, an estimated 3 million artists have used the site to share information, post tour
dates, and exchange music with fans.72 With 12 million unique visitors per
month, the site has attracted prominent bands, such as the Black Eyed Peas,
36
Popular Music
R.E.M., and Nine Inch Nails.73 In September 2006, MySpace began selling
music tracks using an open source standard. The company said they were
bypassing DRM content so that MySpace content would be compatible with
the iPod.74 The sale of music content encouraged MySpace to develop other
music outlets. In an effort to accommodate artists, the company developed a
specic MySpace prole for musicians. Unlike traditional MySpace proles,
artists can upload up to four mp3 songs that users can listen to for free.
Some bands allow fans to download some sample tracks as mp3s or direct
them to third-party sites for purchase. A recent development has been the collaboration between Snocap, a Web-based music distributor, and MySpace to
create a digital downloading store called Mypurchase.75 The new service
will allow bands to sell music through their MySpace prole directly to fans.
Consumers will be able to buy, download, and play les on multiple devices,
such as iPods and Microsofts Zune. What makes this service different from
current MySpace offerings is that artists can set the price of the downloads.
What is not yet known about Mypurchase is the distribution fee MySpace
intends to charge artists. Chief executive Rusty Rueff told Reuters that the
small distribution fee was not yet xed.76 Finally, MySpace has leveraged
the success of social networking to develop ancillary products and services
within the music industry. On October 16, 2007, MySpace launched its rst
branded music tour. Beginning at the Show-Box in Seattle, the All-Ages
MySpace Music Tour stopped off in more than 30 venues through Thanksgiving weekend in Las Vegas.77
Another popular social network system is the blog. Blogs are online journals where individuals and groups provide commentary or news on a particular subject. Musicblogs or mp3blogs are blogs on which the creator or fans
make music available for downloading. Often, blogs are used to promote new
bands or releases of established artists and have found support from the major
record labels. However, in this interaction labels want to control how and to
whom the material is posted.78 Music companies are concerned that this new
online forum may provide listeners with an alternative source of illegally
obtained and streamed music content. However, some labels have begun to
realize the potential of blogs as an important promotional vehicle. In August
2004, Warner Music Group began to ask mp3 blogs to post music on their
sites.79 Many blogs decided against posting the Warner les because it would
be seen by their audience as a paid endorsement of a major label. In response
to the music industry concerns about music piracy on mp3 blogs and to tap a
vast audience and possible revenues, many blogs have redesigned themselves
to be legitimate digital music labels. The mp3 Music Blog Earvolution established Earvolution Records to sell music directly from its blog and other digital retail outlets. Earvolution collaborated with Tunecore, a leading at-fee
independent distributor, to deliver music to iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, and
other digital retail outlets.80 The exibility of this arrangement is perfect
37
for a growing label such as Earvolution and a natural extension of a nascent

music venture that has a dedicated clientele. The viral nature of blogs has inuenced other blogs to develop sustainable revenue streams. GBox provides
users a bit of software code, known as a widget, that are embedded on their
blogs. This code allows users to broadcast wishlists of songs to friends and
family members within their blog, in hopes of getting them as gifts. With the
support of two major labels (Universal and Sony/BMG) the company hopes
to turn bloggers from passive commentators to salespeople.81
CONCLUSION
Online music has proven to be a major force for the expansion of the music
industry for the near future. The development of a multitude of transmission
models, from a la carte downloading to streaming to social networks, continues as the market for music expands. Ensuring artistic creation in this environment is dependent on the maintenance of effective copyright protection,
payment systems, and the reduction of illegal online piracy. The online music
market has begun to diverge with small and innovative players competing
with well-established music companies. However, for all parties to succeed in
this market there are several key requisites for the creation of an efcient and
competitive online music industry. Key to the delivery of music content is access to a competitive and widespread broadband infrastructure; acquisition
management and secure payment systems that protect the consumer and
provide revenue to both the content creator and intermediaries; and, government agencies that address Internet piracy on a global basis.
From a business perspective, many companies have managed to occupy
large parts of the online value chain. In the case of Sony and Apple, close to
perfect vertical integration has been reached. Apple does not own a catalog
but encodes in proprietary AAC format, uses proprietary FairPlay DRM technology, and has its own music store (iTunes) and its own hardware devices
(iPod and iPhone). Sony owns its own content and has the ATRAC3 music
codec, the SonicStage jukebox software, the Sony Open Magic Gate DRM system, and its range of Sony Network Walkmen and other portable devices. For
other online music providers, the music e-commerce environment is often a
result of a large number of alliances, especially during a companys startup
stage. For example, Wal-Mart acts as a standard retailer while sourcing in
everything from music content, online music store technology, and codec
and DRM standards from other companies. Yet, friction between the content industry and technology providers is impeding the development of new
technologies. Disagreements between the music industry (labels, collecting
societies, and authors associations), technology providers (PC and consumer
electronics industry), and network operators may jeopardize the deployment
of successful broadband music services in the future. Traditionally, the music
38
Popular Music
industry has reacted to these problems by litigation. Yet, according to researchers, decreasing piracy does not necessarily imply increasing prots.82
Rather, maximum prot outcomes occur in the presence of piracy. Seeking regulatory means to stop piracy is likely to be a self-harming strategy.
Although the music and movie industries have fallen prey to the plague of
digital piracy, similar entertainment industries have been able to prosper in a
similar environment. The online gaming industry is thriving, not because it
has been able to stop the act of piracy, but because the interactive experience
of online gaming cannot be duplicated and pirated. Music by its very nature
is a hedonic product whose valuation is based on the experience it provides
the consumer.
Prince has been the role model for the development of new methods of
reaching his audience. Even in the days of dial-up he sought to make his music
available online, rst as a way of ordering albums and then through digital
distribution. The Internet truism is that information wants to be free; Princes
corollary is that music wants to be heard. Yet, on September 13, 2007, he announced that he was considering legal action against YouTube, eBay, and the
Swedish piracy search engine The Pirate Bay for posting material without
his consent.83 It seems that Princes aim is to control his music content for
those who want to hear it, not for his fans to make that decision. Ultimately,
Princes experiments with redening the music industry only go as far as
getting music to his audience. Although for many artists their relationship
with the major labels, especially Princes relationship with Sony BMG, both
in terms of content and distribution, has been clearly established, the tenuous relationship between creator and audience is still evolving. The ability of
consumers to control, manipulate, and transmit music in this digital age has
given a once passive receiver a role in the creative process. Prince may be able
to bypass music retailers, but the advent of social networking has given his
fans an equal say in how they consume his music in this digital age.
NOTES
1. John Pareles, The Once and Future Prince, New York Times, July 22, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/arts/music/22pare.html.
2. Ibid.
3. Deborah Amos, Compact Disc Giveaway Sparks Fury in Britain, Day to Day,
July 13, 2007, http://www.npr.org.
4. Entertainment Retailers Association, Prince Covermount Plan Beggars Belief, ERA Newsletter, June 28, 2007.
5. Ibid.
6. Nelda Ulaby, Music Business Still Groping for Digital Age Plan, All Things
Considered, July 12, 2007, http://www.npr.org.
7. Alan Jones, 2006: The Year the Download Came of Age, Music Week, January 13,
2007, 16.
39
8. Matthew Kapko, Mobiles Music to Their Ears, RCR Wireless News, May 14,
2007, 9.
9. Ulaby, Music Business Still Groping.
10. Ibid.
11. Michael X. Zhang, A Review of Economic Properties of Music Distribution,
Music Industry: Emerging Paradigms (Hyderabad, India: ICFAI Press, 2007).
12. Harold Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics A Guide for Financial Analysis,
6th ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 254.
13. Ibid.
14. U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2004.
15. IFPI Online Music Report 2004, International Federation of the Phonograms
Industry, http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/library/online-music-report-2004.pdf.;
The Recording Industry in Numbers 2004, International Federation of the Phonograms Industry, http://www.ifpi.org/sitecontent/publications/rin_order.html.
16. Eliot Van Buskirk, Which Online Store Works With Your MP3 Player? CNET,
June 29, 2004, http://www.reviews.cnet.com/4520 6490_75140299.htm.
17. Urs Gasser, ITunes: How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital MediaA Case Study, Berkman Center, Harvard University, June 2004,
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/uploads/81/iTunesWhitePaper0604.pdf.
18. Lindows Routes OS Over File-Sharing Networks, CNET, March 4, 2004,
http://www.news.com/Lindows-routes-OS-over-le-sharing-networks/2100 7344_
35169894.html.
19. Impact and Perspectives of Electronic Commerce (IPEC): The Music Industry in
the Netherlands, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/2/2072953.pdf.
20. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2004
2008, July 14, 2004.
21. Ina Fried, Virgin: Apples Not Playing Fair With IPod, CNET, August 5, 2004,
http://www.news.com.com/2100 10275298642.html.
22. NPD Group, Digital Music Consumers Choose Fewer Songs; Deeper Catalog,
December 8, 2003, http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_031208.htm.
23. Eric Benderoff, Can ITunes Help Music Sales Sprout Higher?: Analysts Report Shows Business at iTunes Taking a Dive, as Consumers are Opting to Download Single Tunes Instead of Entire Albums, Adding Pressure to Declining Sales in
the Music Industry, Chicago Tribune, December 13, 2006, n.p.
24. Timothy Burt, Digital Demand Drives Up Sales, Financial Times, January 6,
2005, 21.
25. The Online Digital Music Market Reached an Estimated $1.1 Billion in the
US, M2PressWIRE, May 30, 2007, http://www.m2.com.
26. Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter: First in Music Analysis, a Yahoo Music Blog.
All Summer Long, August 12, 2008, http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/thelefset
zletter/6194/all-summer-long.
27. Consumer Electronics Association, CEA Corporate Report, April 16, 2004, http://
www.ce.org/publications/corporate_report/default.asp and updated press release in
January 2005, http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10650.
28. Bottom Line, Music Week, April 14, 2007, 2.
29. Music Week, New File-Sharing Set-Up to Reward legit Users, June 14, 2004, 1.
40
Popular Music
30. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Global Entertainment.

31. IFPI Digital Music Report 2008, International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry, January 2008,
32. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Global Entertainment.
33. David Passmore, (Un)Acceptable Use, Business Communications Review 36, no. 8
(2006): 12.
34. T-Mobile Unveils a Robbie Williams Branded Handset, Marketing Week 29, no. 16
(2006): 1.
35. Edward C. Baig, Phone Home on Gee-Whiz Capabilities, USA Today, March 28,
2007, 3B.
36. OECD (2004a), Information Technology Outlook 2004, OECD Paris.
37. Ibid.
38. Jim Dalrymple, Philip Michaels, and Jason Snell, Apples Record Sales, MacWorld 24, no. 10 (2007): 1819.
39. New York Times, Today in Business, September 15, 2007, n.p.
40. Dalrymple et al., Apples Record Sales, 18.
41. Laurie Flynn, Progress Is Made in Solving Antitrust Issues, New York Times,
December 6, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/business/businessspecial2/
06regtech.html.
42. Stephen Castle, Microsoft Gets Record Fine and a Rebuke from Europe, New
York Times, February 28, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/
28soft.html.
43. Jonathan Krim, RealNetworks, Microsoft Settle Suit, Washington Post, January 12,
2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/
AR2005101100661.html.
44. OECD (2004a), Information Technology Outlook 2004, OECD Paris.
45. Frank Aherns, Music-Selling Rivals Take Aim at ITunes, Washington Post, August
22, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/
AR2007082100996.html.
46. Known as the Communications, Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 [S.2686]), it was introduced in the Senate on May 1, 2006, and has
been referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
47. U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Justice Comments on Network Neutrality in Federal Communications Commission Proceeding, USDOJ Press Release, September 6, 2007, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/September/07_at_682.html.
48. Burt Helm, Tech Giants Internet Battles; Web Titans Like Google and Yahoo!
Are Battling Some of the Smartest Lobbyists in the Business. And Theyve Just Lost
a Big One on Capitol Hill, Business Week Online, April 27, 2006, http://www.busi
nessweek.com/technology/content/apr2006/tc20060426_553893.htm.
49. Charter Communications, Inc.s Motion to Quash Subpoena Served by the Recording Industry Association of Ameff.org E.D.Mo., Case No. 4:03 MC00273CEJ,
October 3, 2003, paragraph 6.
50. Emily Umbright, 8th U.S. Circuit Court Rules Against Music Industrys Appeal to Access ISPs Customers Records, The Daily Record, January 7, 2005, 1.
51. Mark H. Anderson, Supreme Court Rejects Music Industrys Appeal, Dow
Jones Newswire, December 11, 2004.
41
52. Jon Jacobi and Mark Sullivan, Make Your Own Web Mashup, PC World 25,
no. 10 (2007): 89.
53. Alive and Kicking, The Economist, September 25, 2004.
54. Anthony Bruno, The Future of Music: Industry Transformation Is Just Getting Started, Billboard, December 3, 2005, 49.
55. Ibid.
56. Yahoo Dumps Music Service, Sends Customers to Rhapsody, Gawker:Gizmodo,
2008, http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/228905224/yahoo-dumps-musicservice-sends-customers-to-rhapsody.
57. IDCPress Release (2004), Booming Market for MP3 Players According to
IDCs Latest Forecast, http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details. aspx? News
Id=10625.
58. Consumer Electronics Association, U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales & Forecasts 2000 2005, June 2004, http://www.cea.org.
59. Joseph Palenchar, MP3 Player Sales Push Record 06 Audio Sales, TWICE:
This Week in Consumer Electronics 22, no. 6 (2007): 8.
60. Portable MP3 Player Ownership Reaches New High, Ipsos Research, March 10,
2008, http://www.ipsos-na.com/news.
61. Alvin Tofer, The Futurists (New York: Random House, 1972).
62. Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995).
63. Ibid., 53.
64. Martijn Poel, Paul Rutten, Pascal Verhoest, and Graham Vickery, Impact and
Perspectives of Electronic Commerce (IPEC): The Music Industry in the Netherlands, OECD Electronic Business Impact Project, 2007, prepared by http://www.
oecd.org/dataoecd/49/2/2072953.pdf.
65. Richard Normann and Rafael Ramirez, From Value Chain to V Constellation:
Designing Interactive Strategy, Harvard Business Review (1993): 6577.
66. OECD, Information Technology Outlook 2002, OECD Paris, 2002.
67. Michael McGuire, Media Research Report: U.S. Online Music Industry Sustains Solid Growth in 2004, Garner/G2, May 20, 2004, 111.
68. Michael Shields, Teens on Social Networks Favor MySpace, Media Week 17,
no. 2 (2007): 4.
69. Katelyn McKenna, Arnie S. Green, and Marci Gleason, Relationship Formation on the Internet: What is the Big Attraction?, Journal of Social Issues 58, no. 1
(2002): 19.
70. Robert Kraut et al., Social Impact of the Internet: What Does It Mean?, Communications of the ACM 41, no. 12 (1998): 2122.
71. Richard Siklos, News Corp Buys and Internet Company, New York Times Online, July 19, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com.
72. Matthew Wastradowski, Bands Find Groove on MySpace, The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), March 16, 2007, n.p.
73. Ibid.
74. Brian Garrity, Brian Butler, and Ed Christman, The MP3 Question, Billboard
118, no. 37 (2006): n.p.
75. Ethan Smith, Nick Wingeld, and Julia Angwin, MySpace to Partner with Snocap in a Possible Online-Music Push, Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2006, A3.
42
Popular Music
76. Robert Levine, MySpace Music Store Is a New Challenge for Big Labels, New
York Times, September 4, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/technology/
04myspace.html.
77. Leila Cobo et al., The Latest News from.Biz, Billboard, September 8, 2007, 36.
78. Joel Rose, Uneasy Ties Bind Music Companies, Music Blogs, Weekend Edition,
July 28, 2007, http://www.npr.org.
79. David Gallagher, Warners Tryst with Bloggers Hits Sour Note, New York
Times, August 16, 2004, Business and Finance Section.
80. Jeffrey Price, You Can Go Your Own Way, Remix, 14 August 2007, 60.
81. Elise Ackerman, GBox Aims to Blend Digital Music Sales with Social Networking, San Jose Mercury News, August 21, 2007, n.p.
82. Sudip Bhattacharjee et al., Consumer Search and Retailer Strategies in the
Presence of Online Music Sharing, Journal of Management Information Systems 23,
no. 1 (Summer 2006): 12959.
83. Robert Johnson, Prince Takes on YouTube, The Guardian, September 14, 2007,
http://business.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/spe/14/1.
chapter 3
The Macro/International Music

Business: Australian Trajectories
and Perspectives in a Global Context
Guy Morrow
In both its local and international forms, music industry success (measured
in terms of protability) is dependent on successful access to and exploitation of markets of sufcient scale to generate the income necessary to cover
production and various artist development and facilitation costs. So few artists and managers achieve viable long-term careers that it is often said of the
music industry that failure is the norm. Given that is the case in mainstream
Western markets (such as the United Kingdom and the United States), with
their massive markets, concentrated populations, and economies of scale, the
issues facing performers from smaller, geographically isolated contexts such
as Australia are considerable. If an artist manager and artist stay and operate in Australia alone, they will only ever be able to access two percent of the
global market for popular music.1 However, there are multiple ways in which
an Australian artist can break into foreign territories, and therefore, this chapter will put forth the Australian experience as a microcosm that will resonate
with most artists who hail from countries that are outside of the larger mainstream Western territories such as the United States and who wish to have
an international career. This chapter will specically focus on two Australian
companies: Eleven and Engine Room. These organizations exemplify the notion that artist managers and their companies are rising up the value chain
that exists in the music industry and that major labels are looking to buy artist management companies so that they can participate in the income from all
44
Popular Music
ve key revenue stream groups: records, song publishing, merchandise, live

performance, and sponsorship. The argument here is that there is now more
pressure on the artist and artist manager to build the artists career in the new
online industrial climate, and therefore, some management companies are
effectively shadowing record companies through the way in which they are
beginning to fulll many of the responsibilities that used to belong to independent or major record labels. These companies are analogous to production companies that exist within the lm industry. Furthermore, this trend
within the music industry needs to be located within a larger trend that is
occurring in the global economy. In this wider context, successful corporations are increasingly producing images of their brands rather than products,
and this has, therefore, shifted the emphasis from manufacturing to marketing. What these trends and changes mean for new artist management and
production companies such as Eleven and Engine Room will be explored.
Of the myriad ways in which Australian managers can see their artists
recordings released in foreign territories, the following three methods have
been identied for comparison here:
1. Signing directly to a foreign independent or major label.
2. Licensing or assigning the right to exploit the copyright in a pre-existing
record to a label in a foreign territory.
3. Sourcing a deal with a multinational out of Australia and having it released
in a foreign territory through an intercompany license agreement.
The Eleven and Engine Room case studies will be considered in relation to
the methods outlined here. These entities were established so that the practitioners involved could more efciently sign their artists directly to foreign
independent or major labels and/or license the right to exploit the copyright
in pre-existing recordings to foreign labels.
Symbiotic relationships have been formed between Australian music management and production companies and major record labels in foreign territories. These relationships have developed as a result of the problems facing
major labels in the new digital environment and the challenges Australian
artist managers face when trying to break into foreign markets from Australia. As many record companies downsize by employing fewer marketing
and promotion staff, and through outsourcing artist and repertoire (A&R) to
freelance producers, an interesting trend is emerging.2 Some management
companies are effectively shadowing record companies through the way in
which they are beginning to fulll many of the responsibilities that used to
belong to independent or major record labels. This is enabling these companies, and the artist managers who run them, to play a much greater role within
the music industry. These companies are analogous to production companies
that exist within the lm industry.3
The Macro/ International Music Business
45
In relation to the new Web-based version of the business that has emerged
and that has replaced previous business models, inuential Australian music
manager and song publisher Keith Welsh notes that:
Its so good that managers and bands can now actually manage so much
more of it themselves . . . there are so many different websites and so many
places you can do it . . . Its exactly the same problem though because the
artists and managers then think oh my God there are so many more outlets, there are no mainstream outlets now and this means that time becomes
a premium and knowing which websites are effective and which ones arent
becomes a premium as well . . . The research and education that managers
have to give themselves now is far greater than at any other time.4
The argument here is that there is now more pressure on the artist and artist manager to build the artists career in the new online industrial climate.
This suggests that artist managers and their companies are rising up the value
chain that exists in the music industry and that major labels are looking to buy
artist management companies so that they can participate in the income from
all ve key revenue stream groups: records, song publishing, merchandise, live
performance, and sponsorship.
In some situations, major record labels are streamlining their operations
by becoming funding operations that foster relationships with artist management companies, relationships that are similar to those between large lm
studios and lm production companies. This process means that outside artist management and production entities have the responsibility for developing and manufacturing the actual product; therefore, the business models they
are employing are extensions of the way in which independent record labels
have licensed recordings to major labels in the past. This model suggests that
major labels will become funding, marketing, and distribution operations
that will focus on producing brands rather than products.
This trend can be located in an historical context. David Throsby notes
that there have been important structural changes in the global music industry since the 1970s.5 He asserts that the independent distribution system that
had existed for many years began to break down in the 1980s, and this led to
an increasing number of the directors of independent labels agreeing to have
their products distributed by one of the major distributors. He notes that:
This trend has continued to the point now where many otherwise independent labels are distributed by one of the major transnationals. In fact it has
been suggested that the independent record companies act in a way that
serves the potential interests of the majors. They are generally involved in
developing music outside the mainstream; if their music is successful they
may begin to pose a threat to the majors market dominance. If so they may
be absorbed by the majors . . . the relationship between the two types of companies may be thought of as symbiotic rather than oppositional.6
46
Popular Music
The two artist management and production companies that are the focus
of this study, Eleven and Engine Room, have taken this already symbiotic relationship between indies and majors even further. These two companies
have been chosen for analysis here because they are emblematic of the central
claim that artist management and production companies are rising up the
value chain that exists in the music business through the way in which they
are operating more like production companies that exist in the lm industry.
These case studies are also useful for an understanding of how the broader
products to brands paradigm shift is affecting the music business.
The majors did not absorb these two companies after their beginning as
independent record labels in the aforementioned way; rather, the artist managers who began these companies worked closely with major labels from
the beginning. Although the way these two companies operate is similar to
the way in which independent record labels have operated for many years, these
companies are not miniature models of majors that are either symbiotic or oppositional to the larger labels. These companies are in direct partnership with
majors; they take only some of the responsibilities that used to belong to the
major labels.
At its most extreme, this production company model would give musicians the freedom to make records on a project-by-project basis by working
with the most appropriate practitioners in a production team, rather than
them being signed to one independent or major record label for all of their
projects. The product produced by the team would then be signed to whichever record label was willing to work with this company in order to market
and distribute a ready-made product. The musicians would then be free to
team up with whomever they pleased in order to produce their next project.
The Australian music production company Engine Room is the company that
has gone the furthest down this path, while the operation of music production company Eleven represents a slighter departure from the norm.
The process of signing record deals with multinational companies has
frustrated some Australian artist managers so much that they have found
other pathways and arrangements. This is because such deals often involve
artists signing for the world, and when an artist is signed for the world,
one multinational company controls their copyrights/intellectual property in
all countries/territories. It depends on the individual deal and the company
(recording or publishing or combination) as to whether this includes administering performance royalties or mechanical royalties (or both). As will be explained, there is a perception that such deals limit the possibilities for release
overseas.
Australian artist manager Todd Waggstaff and music producer/songwriter
and Engine Room cofounder Andrew Klippel have worked with a number of
different Australian artists who were signed for the world from Australia.7
Waggstaff notes that because these artists had to go through the label to
47
which they were signed, the artists products were neither prioritized nor
released in foreign territories. Waggstaff claims that if an artist is signed to a
branch of a multinational record company in Australia, the fact that their recordings have to enter foreign territories via the channels this company provides means that there is no bidding war and no discovery process for the
A&R staff in this territory. The foreign record companys employees are simply given a nished record with nished artwork and a nished video clip.
Waggstaff and Klippel started Engine Room in partnership with Australian media tycoon James Packer in order to satisfy their desire to work on
recording projects that would denitely be released and prioritized in foreign
territories. They became frustrated while working with Australian artists who
were signed to multinational companies from Australia; these artists would
be blocked by the conventional intercompany arrangement. According to
Waggstaff, it is not just a question of the discovery process; intercompany
license agreements work against Australian artists who are trying to access
foreign markets. He specically states that:
The reason why you dont get prioritised is that when the US company releases an artist signed to the Australian company they have to pay a xed
inter-company license rate, 30% is about the royalty they have to pay, so if
Warner Australia sign an artist and Warner America release it, they have
to pay 30% as the royalty whereas they pay 15% or 17% for local American
product.
Australian artist manager John Watson also desires to work around the
limitations that worldwide deals with major labels out of Australia cause.8
However, Watsons label Eleven is quite different to Engine Room because
everything his label does is done in partnership with major label EMI. Discussing the reason for setting up his new label, Watson notes:
What we found is that when we approached major labels with artists and
said that we wanted to sign for just this part of the world we were told that
it couldnt be done. When we walked in and said that were a label and we
want a label deal for just this part of the world they said yeah thats ne,
and so in that case we said ne, were a label.
Therefore, the impetus for the creation of these unorthodox arrangements

was the fact that such intercompany license agreements hamper Australian
managers attempts to break into foreign territories. Furthermore, the Australian experience here is a microcosm that exemplies a truism that is relevant
to artists working in most countries outside of the United States. Artists
who want to be heard internationally but who do not hail from or live in
this larger territory may nd this model a prudent one to follow because at
times such intercompany deals render their attempts completely ineffectual.
48
Popular Music
Although the managers featured in this case study still wished to work with
major labels, to meet their goals they needed to change the nature of their
agreements with the majors.
The particular approaches that these two managers have employed effectively enabled them and their artists to maintain artistic control through
the way in which they now, to differing degrees, carry the nancial and creative burden of actually producing the product. This product is then licensed
to various major record labels that primarily focus on marketing, distributing, and ultimately branding this ready-made product. This trend within the
music industry needs to be located within a larger trend that is occurring
within the global economy. In this wider context, successful corporations are
increasingly producing images of their brands rather than products or things,
and this has therefore shifted the emphasis from manufacturing to marketing.9 Naomi Klein claims that the formula of buying products and branding
them, rather than producing products and advertising them, has proven to
be so protable that companies are competing in a race toward weightlessness.10
This trend within the larger capitalistic economy, of which the music industry is a part, is enabling Australian artist managers such as Waggstaff and
Watson to navigate around the pitfalls of signing and developing Australian
artists intended for the international marketplace. On the other hand, this
trend is allowing various major record labels to become weightless due to
the fact that they are no longer burdened with the liabilities associated with
record production. In this case, the process of marketing or branding has become their focus.
This paradigm shift can be benecial for the artists it affects. Watsons
label Eleven offers the artists signed to it the advantages of having more creative control over their products and also of receiving more points.11 When
setting up Eleven, Watson was faced with a potential conict of interest.
When a manager also becomes the owner of the record label or production company to which their artists are signed there is the potential for this
manager to receive a label share of the artists royalties (and other income)
as well as a managers share. Rather than paying himself twice, Watson got
around this inherent conict of interest through passing any potential benets the new structure generated onto the actual artists:
From our point of view the up-side we feel that we offer to our clients is
as follows. Firstly, because theyre not paying a label share, theyre actually
receiving a label royalty which is usually higher than an artists royalty.
So theyre actually making more per record because the benet we get
from being a label is passed onto them and the benet that comes to us is
generated because our commissions are greater because were getting the
same size slice of a slightly bigger pie. The second benet is that we have
the control that we want over the marketing and promotion of the records
49
and certainly over the A&R of the records as well . . . And nally, probably
most importantly from our standpoint, its our profound belief that having
a person behind the desk in New York or LA or London with a direct stake
in your career is more likely to lead to your success internationally.
Watsons artists had a better deal, and he was in an advantageous position

because he was commissioning the standard 20 percent of the artists income
(under the new arrangement this also included the label share of the royalties). However, Eleven still had the advantage of being able to work through
a major labels marketing and distribution networks. Elevens artists are also
free to sign with whichever label they please in foreign territories. Watson
and his artists are therefore receiving the best of both worlds; Eleven has
access to the all-important marketing and distribution networks of a major
labelit is still closely associated with EMI Australiawhile the artists receive more money and retain a huge degree of creative control.
Although Watson set up Eleven as an independent music company, EMI
invested in the label. As manager of the successful Australian band Silverchair
(a band whose original recording contract with Sony music had expired),
Watson was able to bring the band in on the deal and utilize them as the carrot to the record company. He negotiated a deal with EMI stating that if they
wanted to sign the band they would have to distribute and market the bands
products, accept their terms with regard to creative control, and invest in the
label. In this way, unlike Engine Room, Watson has aligned Eleven with one
particular major label. This is how Watson was able to get around another
conict of interest that necessarily manifests itself when managers also run
their artists record company. Australian artist manager Kim Thomas explains
the tension and conict that arises when one person fulls both roles:12
I actually nd it difcult being the manager of the artist and running the
record label. The only way that I deal with that is I keep my managers
hat on and I stay over there as a manager and I treat my other partners in
the label as a record label. This is because for me it doesnt actually work
because from a record label point of view there are issues involved with
marketing expenditure. For example, the record company will not want to
spend the money whereas on behalf of the artist you want the money.
Watson gets around this problem because Eleven is run in partnership

with a major label, EMI. This major label is responsible for the marketing
expenditure, not Eleven. He states:
Its completely in our interest as Eleven to get EMI to spend as much as
possible on marketing our artists and were never backwards in coming
forward and asking them to spend more because its their money not ours
and it therefore doesnt effect our income one bit.
50
Popular Music
Watsons position as director of Eleven also had the potential to change

the relationship he had with his artists. The relationships between an artist
and their manager and an artist and their record company are fundamentally
different. Fred Goodman states that, a manager is employed and paid by
the artist, while a record company essentially hiresand as a rule owns the
work ofthe artist.13 By becoming the record company, Watson in a way
reversed his relationship with his artists; instead of working for them, they
work for him. However, although a supercial assessment of Eleven would
suggest that this is the case, Watson is a manager who claims that he has always understood the leverage that he has had at his ngertips through being
an artist manager. Watson asserts that although he is now the manager and
the record company, the artists are still in charge because they are the only
ones who have a trump card to play. He points out that:
I think that the artist could say that they dont want to make music anymore and then just go home. I think that the artist doesnt always act
like theyre in charge and its probably in the managers interest that thats
the case often, but I think that when the biggest call comes, the artist is the
one who ultimately has to make it. They can decide not to make a video;
they can decide not to go on tour.
Watson believes that Elevens business model gives the artists the power
to be in charge of their own creativity and ultimately their own career trajectory. The paradigm shift from products to brands has led to the generation
of a management and production company that enables the people who love
making music to get more involved with making music, rather than only the
people who love making money getting involved with making music. Gregg
Donavan states that:14
Sure, the production companies in the movie world want to make money
too but Id dare say they got there because they wanted to make movies,
where as this is not always the case with record company guys because
theyve come in from other industries that their parent company owned
and they restructure and relocate. They really do just want to make money;
theyre really not interested in the art 99% of the time. They always employ someone to act like they carethats what A&R guys are.
When artists are signed to a management and production company rather

than directly to a record company they belong to more of a supportive artistic community; this suggests that the negative gang-warfare attitude that
exists between many artists and bands may become diluted:
Youre opening it up to a lot of collaborations and youre creating a community, which is the idea of what it used to be. I mean thats where the
51
term stable came from. You never hear anyone using that terminology
anymore. I mean those words came from the Motown guys who really believed in the records they made. They were music people. Most of the MDs
back then were musicians with business skills. You nd a record executive
these days who can strum one note or play a beatId be very surprised.
But theyve all got accounting and law degrees.
Watsons strategy is in line with the argument that major labels will change
how they operate simply through becoming distribution facilities much like
the larger entities in the lm industry. In this particular case, rather than
create content in-house through using their own A&R department, EMI and
Watson have fostered a relationship together. EMI is willing to let Watson and Eleven discover acts and develop them while understanding that
their role will be to brand these products and get them to peoplewhether
through digital means or through the distribution of physical products. However, unlike Engine Room, Eleven has not fully endorsed a lm industry model
in which major lm stars do not do long-term deals with a particular lm
studio. It is clear that the musicians signed to Eleven are not entirely free to
make records on a project-by-project basis in this way as Eleven is still attached to EMI.
Engine Room is more like a production company in the lm industry
than a record label in the music industry. Engine Room manufactures records completely independently of a major label and then assigns most of the
rights to these products to various major labels in foreign territories. The fundamental difference between Engine Room and Eleven is that Engine Room
is not aligned with one particular major label and is more like an independent
record label. Engine Room signs their artists publishing and recording
rights for the world from Australia and then arranges partnership deals that
involve them assigning most of those rights to whichever label suits the artist or to whichever label gives them the best deal.
Like Eleven, Engine Room maintains creative control. However, creative
control is maintained through investing the capital needed to make the records and videos themselves. This strategy simultaneously puts Engine
Room in a high-risk situation while also generating their main competitive
advantage. Because they themselves carry the nancial burden of originating their artists careers, major labels in foreign territories are more willing to sign their artists. Once Engine Room produces the records and video
clips, they are taken directly to labels in the United Kingdom and the United
States, territories that lead the worldwide popular music market. Waggstaff
notes that:
We dont take out artists and develop them here and then sign them into
an inter-company license agreement in this country, we take them overseas and we end up being the middle ground. Its more expensive to sign
52
Popular Music
an artist from us than it is to sign them directly, but then weve taken the
nancial punt and have put up the rst maybe half a million dollars, so it
takes the risk out of their equation . . . It decreases the royalty youd have to
pay an Australian artist coming through an inter-company license agreement and it decreases the risk that they would have to take if they were
signing a local band.
Engine Room is a 50 -50 joint venture between music producer and songwriter Andrew Klippel and James Packer.15 Packers ownership of Channel 9
and other online and print media outlets in Australia is advantageous for the
artists signed to Engine Room. There is a perception that in terms of the
publicity these outlets can provide, Engine Rooms artists are implicitly (or
otherwise) prioritized due to Packers involvement. Todd Waggstaff is the
companys manager. Waggstaff and Klippel have spent more time over the last
decade working overseas than they have in Australia, and this has given them
a deeper understanding of what is applicable to specic foreign territories.
In a conventional record company, A&R staff and other employees do not
go straight to the public to sell new performers; the overall marketing process involves these employees selling artists to their own company rst, then
to the trade, and then to the record buyers.16 Engine Room has effectively
assumed the responsibility of selling artists to record companies. Waggstaff
claims that the time he and Klippel have spent working in foreign territories
has given them an insight into how to best cater for the subtle nuances of
each major territory. He says that they:
choose artists who are great and who will hopefully transcend current
fashion. Were not trying to guess what the current trend is, but we do
know what certain labels preferences are, we know what individual A&R
people have signed in the past and what they have been successful with.
We know where there are holes in the repertoire of certain labels that we
could plug something into. So it makes our pitch a little bit more precise
in that we understand the market, we understand why our artist is relevant
to that market and we understand why our artist is relevant to media in
that market.
Within 12 months of Waggstaff and Klippel returning from Los Angeles

and securing the funding with Packer in a 50 -50 joint venture, Engine Room,
after developing and manufacturing their records and videos, signed Holly
Valance to London Warner, The Vines to Capital/EMI in the United States
and the United Kingdom, and Carla Werner to Columbia/Sony in New York.
Engine Rooms strategic plan involves establishing a track record via the initial success of their artists. Once a few of their artists become nancially successful and they demonstrate their ability as a development and production
53
company, the slightly one-sided assignment of copyright deals they have to

agree to in order to work in partnership with major labels will eventually be
replaced with deals that are weighted in their favor. This theory is based on
the premise that the balance of power shifts with success. Fortunately, The
Vines and Holly Valance have become nancially successful artists, and their
success should lure other major labels into signing contracts that are increasingly weighted in Engine Rooms favor. Waggstaff notes:
Well maintain more rights as we move forward . . . so that our economic
model is that we start out giving away a whole lot to establish a track
record and then as it moves over time we give away less and less and in a
few years time, rather than do a license deal, it becomes a license of copyright, then it becomes a short term license of copyright, then it becomes
not a license of copyright, but a license to distribute certain records and so
it moves from a deal where all the services of a record label outside A&R
are performed by our partners, then it moves over time to one where we
become a full service label and we perform all functions other than the
warehousing and distribution to retail.
Therefore, Engine Room is building toward becoming a full-service label.

While it appears they have endorsed a lm industry model through becoming
a management and production company that shadows various record companies, they are in fact only using this strategy in order to lay the foundation
for Engine Room to become a conventional record company in its own
right.
Although Engine Rooms strategic plan suggests that over time the companys evolution will enable this entity to become a full-service label, the company faces a number of threats. This strategy may well lead to Engine Room
becoming caught in a paradigm shift that involves international record companies beginning to focus more on the marketing of brands rather than the
manufacture of product. At rst it appears that Engine Room has successfully
been able to work Australian acts in foreign territories, and it seems that the
model they employ has enabled them to come to the forefront of this sector
of the industry; however, on closer inspection it is increasingly clear that
Engine Room may have simply been burdened with the liabilities associated
with record production.
Klein claims that the sports company Nike has become the prototype for the
product-free brand. Nike outsources the production of its products to contractors who are located all over the world.17 Freed from the chains of production through employing such an outsourced structure, Nike has an abundance
of time and money to constantly create and recreate the Nike brand image.18
Klein argues that, in Nikes case, branding has replaced production entirely
and that the staggering success of this business model has led to a wider acceptance of the business philosophy of no-limits spending on branding. This
54
Popular Music
means that increasingly there is limited value in simply making things anymore, as value is added by careful research, innovation, and marketing.19 Engine Rooms audacity to take the rst nancial risk through manufacturing
their artists products themselves forms their present competitive advantage.
However, this means that the advantage the record company involved has is
that the capital they would normally spend producing records can instead
be allocated to the marketing department. This would give the company a
distinct advantage over their competitors because in popular music image is
everything.20 If this outsourced production structure and marketing focus
proves to be successful then the majority of major labels will have to follow
this trend in order to remain competitive.
The timing of this trend within other industries, and potentially within
the music industry, not only reects brandings status as the perceived economic cure-all, it also reects a corresponding devaluation of the production process and of producers in general. If Engine Rooms current business
model became the main model endorsed in the music industry because a series of management and production companies successfully employed it, the
competition between these companies would potentially lead to them offering major labels the best deals possible at their (Engine Rooms) expense. Not
only would these music management and production companies be burdened
with the liabilities associated with record production, the competition would
mean that they would have to provide these records at rock-bottom prices.
Through outsourcing manufacturing and focusing on brand management, the
record company would have a distinct advantage over the music production
company.
The products to brands paradigm shift can be detrimental to artists. There
is never a guarantee that any particular musical product will see a release
because any deal or relationship can fall over. However, if other companies
were to follow Engine Rooms lead and emerge as entities that are analogous
to production companies in the lm industry, the artists who signed to them
would have even less certainty that their work would be released. This is
because it is unlikely that other music production companies would have the
connections required to form a partnership with someone who is as powerful
as James Packer. According to Donavan, because Engine Room is making
the records and then looking for the marketing and distribution deals, their
business model presents their artists with a large degree of risk. As they are
not directly connected to one major label like Watsons company Eleven is,
there is the potential that they will not be able to get a marketing and distribution deal for some of the records they produce. Donavan states, I would
not want to sign a band to Engine Room whos going to make a record for us
that might not see a release. Id want to know that if I was going to sign my
rights over to a record company that I was denitely going to get a record
out in the marketplace.
55
According to Donavan, word would start spreading that this particular artist could not even get their rst record released, and the artist would then be
many steps back from where they started. The artist would not be approaching other industry practitioners with a positive story.
From an artists perspective, Engine Rooms business model represents a
risky situation. Engine Rooms business model is also potentially problematic
for their artists because the growth this model generates is not organic. Engine Rooms methodology may only generate short-term interest from the
record labels they form partnerships with; Holly Valances relatively short
career is an illustration of this. Engine Rooms business model is analogous
to a production company in the lm industry, a company that would be free to
be associated with any of the major lm studios. From the perspective of the
record label Engine Room forms a partnership with, the arrangement may
become problematic because this business model could breed disloyalty. A
brand (music or otherwise) is built over a long period of time. If a music
production company and their artists are free to work with major labels on a
project-by-project basis, any label that invests in these artists in order to further brand them through their marketing and distribution campaigns is not
necessarily going to be there when the overall long-term branding campaign
pays dividends. A production company model that is analogous to certain
production companies in the lm industry may not work in the music industry. This is because music-marketing campaigns often focus more on the
artist as a brand whereas, in the lm industry, a lms title is often the focus,
and this lends itself to companies that work on a project-by-project basis.21
Compared to Engine Room, Watsons company Eleven represents less of
a departure from the norm, and therefore, this venture does not present the
participants with as much risk. From an artists perspective, Elevens business model is advantageous. Because Eleven is in partnership with a specic
major label, the artists signed to this company receive a guarantee that their
work will be released, they have more creative control, and they receive more
points while still having access to this major labels marketing capital and
distribution systems. These artists are also still free to sign with whomever
they please in foreign territories. From Watsons perspective as an artist manager, this arrangement takes care of the inherent conicts of interest that
arise when one person fullls the roles of both band manager and record company executive.
Without artist management the music industry could not function; however, it could function without record companies due to the substantial number of alternative revenue streams. Inuential international artist managers
such as Michael McMartin and Jazz Summers believe that the future will depend more on creative managers and artists abilities than record companies
abilities.22 This suggests that artist management and production companies
are set to rise up the value chain that exists in the music industry and that
56
Popular Music
these companies are going to form closer relationships with (or be bought
by) major record labels. While Eleven and Engine Room were initially set up
to address the issue that Australian artists and artist managers operating
solely in Australia can only ever access 2 percent of the global market for
popular music, broadly speaking, the impact of new technologies on the international music business is leading to the emergence of unorthodox companies
such as these, companies that have nontraditional access to the ve key income stream groups that stem from contemporary music.23
The emergence of such companies has implications for the artist managers involved with them. This is because, traditionally, artist managers have
been service providers; they have not been in partnership with their artists.
When a manager and artist form a company that enables the manager to not
only commission the different revenue streams but to actually have equity in
the assets that are generating some of the income, a number of conicts of interest emerge. In the new industrial climate that is emerging, these conicts,
such as the manager being able to double dip by both commissioning the
artists income from record sales and receiving income because they own the
recordings because they are also the record label, need to be negotiated.
When artist managers move up the music business value chain there are
positive and negative implications for their cash ow. While they may have
equity in the company that owns the musical assets, because they are no longer a service provider who is simply investing both expertise and time in the
project, they may no longer be able to receive immediate income throughout
the development of the artists career. Most of the revenue new companies
generate is put back into the running of the company rather than being paid
out in commissions to a manager who is a service provider. While traditionally the role of the artist manager has involved them persuading other entities
into investing money to develop the artists career, the new artist management and production companies that are emerging may require managers to
invest their own money. As service providers, managers can still earn commissions from artists who do not have nancially successful careers, however, if
the artist does have longevity and is nancially successful, managers who are
service providers are in a vulnerable position in the long term. Furthermore,
when artist managers set up partnerships or companies with their artists, this
tends to bind the artist and manager together and it is harder to terminate
the agreement/relationship. It is not as clear as to how the assets that have
been generated by the company are to be split upon termination.
Due to the declining sales of recorded music in the CD format, the representative arrangements discussed in this chapter ultimately mean that record companies are fullling changing roles in the music business, while the
inuence of artist managers and their rms is increasing. This is because
artist managers deal with all ve income stream groups that stem from their
clients work: records, live performance, merchandise, song publishing, and
57
sponsorship. While a positive aspect of this trend is that it is leading to the establishment of smaller, more maneuverable companies that can help non-U.S.
artists be heard internationally by navigating various pitfalls associated with
more traditional business structures, these trends will also potentially have a
negative impact on the industry because conicts of interest will become more
common as artist managers rise up the value chain that exists in the music business. The following propositions can be gleaned from this chapter:
1. Artist managers will increasingly assume the role of the record company
while also controlling their clients live performance income, income from
merchandise, income from song publishing, and income from sponsorship
agreements.
2. While artist managers will increasingly nd themselves within a web of
potential conicts of interest, because record companies are moving to participate in income from all ve income stream groups because of the decline in record sales, they, too, may face numerous conicts of interest.
3. The role of artist management will increasingly move from service provision to a situation where the role necessitates owning and controlling the
equity in the artistic products/assets.
In the current industrial climate a code of conduct is needed in order to

help practitioners navigate their way through this industrial paradigm shift.
NOTES
1. All comments attributed to Keith Welsh, Todd Waggstaff, John Watson, Kim
Thomas, Gregg Donavan, Michael McMartin, and Jazz Summers in this chapter are,
unless otherwise indicated, taken from personal correspondence with the author conducted in November 2003, June 2005, and May 2007.
2. According to IFPI data, world sales of recorded music fell 7.6 percent in value
in 2003, and this fourth consecutive year of falling record sales is attributed to the
combined effects of digital and physical piracy and competition from other entertainment products (2004). It is in this industrial context that, in 2004, Sony Music
merged with BMG in order to generate $400 million in cost savings. BMG chief
executive Rolf Schmidt-Holtz said of the deal that: If (Sony and BMG) stood
alone, we would have to cut artist rosters and even closing activities in smaller
countries. . . . This merger is the best guarantee that we can maintain a broad roster
of artists in the current environment. IFPI. 2004. Global music sales fall by 7.6%
in 2003some positive signs in 2004. London: International Federation of Phonographic Industries Secretariat.
3. Biskind, P. 1999. Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex n Drugs n Rock n Roll
Generation Saved Hollywood. London: Bloomsbury, 90.
4. Welsh, in discussion with author, May 2007.
5. Throsby, D. 2002. The Music Industry in the New Millennium: Global and
Local Perspectives, unpublished paper prepared for the Division of Arts and Cultural Enterprise, UNESCO, Paris.
58
Popular Music
6. Ibid., 15.
7. Todd Waggstaff (formerly of Festival/Mushroom records, Roo Art records,
manager of successful Australian band You Am I in Australia and in the United States
and Managing Director of Engine Room), in discussion with the author, June 2005.
8. John Watson (Eleven and John Watson management), in discussion with author,
June 2005.
9. The marketing or branding phenomenon has seen a 700 percent increase in U.S.
corporate sponsorship spending between 1985 and 1998 (IEG Sponsorship Report,
December 22, 1997, and December 21, 1998 in Klein, N. 2000. No Logo. London:
Flamingo/Harper Collins, 37).
10. Klein, N. 2000. No Logo. London: Flamingo/Harper Collins.
11. Industry practitioners use the term points to refer to what percentage of the royalties each individual involved receives because 1 percent often represents, or has the
potential to represent, a viable amount of money.
12. Kim Thomas (Black Yak Records and Black Yak Management), in discussion
with the author, September 2006.
13. Goodman, F. 1998. The Mansion on the Hill. New York: Vintage Books/Random
House, 240.
14. Gregg Donavan (Step2 Management; Grinspoon and Airbourne), in discussion
with the author, November 2003.
15. James Packer is the son of the deceased Australian media tycoon Kerry Packer
and is now the head of the family businesses.
16. Goodman, 1998, 281.
17. Klein argues that Nike lent itself to this business model because the company
actually began as an American import/export scheme for made-in-Japan running
shoes.
18. Klein, 2000, 219.
19. Ibid., 217.
20. Ibid.
21. Biskind, 1999, 110.
22. Michael McMartin (Melody Management), in discussion with author, June 2005;
Jazz Summer (Jazz Summers Management), in discussion with author, June 2005.
23. Welsh, in discussion with author, August 2005.
chapter 4
Music Copyright in the

Twenty-First Century
Robert McParland
Copyright is literally the right to copy a work of art. It is an intangible

property right that provides exclusive rights to authors for the protection of
their writings. It grants exclusivity to authors to reproduce and publish their
work and prevents others from doing so. Copyright protects how ideas are
expressed. The unique expression of ideas is what is copyrighted. Currently,
music copyright, once a subject of specialized concern for entertainment attorneys, law professors, music publishers, and songwriters, has emerged as a
hot topic for music listeners and consumers. With digital downloading and
relatively easy access and distribution by electronic means, the use of copyrighted material has entered a new and often controversial phase. With the
new emphasis to protect intellectual property from piracy has come new restrictions that affect the public. The future of the music industry, in part,
hinges upon developing legal ways for consumers to buy product electronically while protecting intellectual property. It is increasingly necessary that
we come up with creative solutions to the challenges of digital media and
public policy. It has become imperative that constitutional concerns regarding copyright and not exclusively business and trade interests be weighed
and considered. Those concerned with copyright must balance the public interest with authors interests and companies economic interests. Legislators
must practice Constitutional discourse, as well as business discourse, in this
matter. Congress has to consider creators and users, as well as copyrights impact upon trade and upon Americas future.
With the emergence of digital technologies, copyright has entered a period of dispute. Digital technology has advanced rapidly, and copyright has
60
Popular Music
been playing catch-up. In a peer-to-peer music sharing environment much is at

stake. The discussion is usually framed by corporate interest because accessibility to music product through these digital technologies threatens their traditional revenue streams. However, to nd effective solutions, the discussion
must move beyond narrowly dened issues of piracy toward innovative reform
of copyright and effective uses of digital download technology. One may argue
the case that copyright revision will benet the public, creative artists, and
companies holding copyrights. Even so, it is likely that copyright discussions,
on the legislative level, will be dominated in the immediate future by corporate
music business interests.
Much has been written about the problems that are facing us. Peter Jaszi
outlined the issues of authorship, contemporary copyright, and collective
creativity in the Duke Law Journal more than a decade ago. More recently,
he has suggested that his testimony before Congress was not really heard
because, in his view, Congress listens thinking of trade rather than of Constitutional issues. Lawrence Lessig, an attorney who continues to lead a battle
for the revision of copyright law, is strongly opposed to copyright extensions and believes that they negatively affect the public commons. Rosemary
Coombe, in The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation
and the Law (1998), urges a cultural studies approach to legal discourse about
copyright, one that is social, political, and ethical. Mark Rose, in Authors and
Owners: The Invention of Copyright (1992), has looked carefully at eighteenthcentury copyright law cases and concluded his book by arguing that copyright is an archaic and cumbersome system of cultural regulation.1 Martha
Woodmansee, in The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and legal Conditions of the Emergence of the Author (1984), connected copyright law
economics and the romantic notion of genius and originality. Paul K. SaintAmour, in The Copyrights (2003), points to the impact of copyright upon
cultural memory. He makes no mention of how the European extension of
copyright terms to life plus 70 years via the Berne Convention inuenced the
Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act in the United States. The Sonny Bono
Term Extension was, in part, a reaction to the participation of the United
States in the Berne Convention. Pat Choate, in Hot Property: The Stealing of
Ideas in an Age of Globalization (2005), makes a strong case for the need to
adapt copyright to the digital age in a way that will safeguard commercial
practices and support the public commons.
The digital revolution has prompted legislation to guard intellectual property rights. Some have argued that digital exchange facilitates the ow of
knowledge and allows for the empowerment of people. They argue that this
contributes to the sharing of information and culture. However, digital exchange of music affects the prots and traditional rights systems of the music
and media industries.
61
At issue is a clear economic reality: Music copyrights are big business.

Publishing companies, record companies, and artists assert their copyrights
because they have created, purchased, or marketed copyrighted songs. In the
1990s, several domestic and foreign initiatives were taken that attempted to
broaden intellectual property protection. These included the 1998 Digital
Millennium Act (Public Law 105304, 112 Statute 2860) and the Sonny Bono
Copyright Extension Act (Public Law 105298 Statute 3287). The legislative intent of the Digital Millennium Act was to correlate world intellectual property law. It would provide for greater protection for digital and
electronic works that are under copyright. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, likewise, was intended to make U.S. copyright more consistent
with the Berne Convention in Europe. These acts were preceded by the
Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992, which permitted the taping
of a television program for home viewing later (Public Law 102307, 106
Statute 264).
However, copyright law was intended not only to promise protection and
incentive for the creators and owners of musical works. It was also drafted
with an eye to the public good that would come from such creation. Copyright was originally viewed as providing incentive to creators to contribute
their works to the public. Recognizing that ideas and creativity are what advance society in its thinking and feeling, intellectual property law sought
a temporary right for artists and inventors to their creations. In its initial
intent, copyright law emphasized the temporary nature of this exclusive
right. It was believed that after a writer, musician, or artist held this copyright to a song for a time, it would then enter the public domain. Access to
use of the work would then provide a broader benet to the society.2
Those who criticize copyright extensions as contrary to the public good
sometimes point to the origins of U.S. copyright. The U.S. Constitution, in
Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the charge to promote the progress
of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in the articles creation through James
Madison. Jefferson wrote to Madison in September 1789 that the copyright
term should be focused on: This principle, that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead. Jefferson, himself a writer and an inventor, wrote
to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813: He who receives an idea from me
receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.3
The drafters of the U.S. Constitution stated that their intended purpose
for copyright was to promote progress of Science and Useful Arts. They
gave little guidance on how this was to be done. However, it is clear that the
U.S. approach to copyright focuses upon public benet more than European
62
Popular Music
copyright law does. As Christina N. Gifford has pointed out, Frances approach to copyright is more author-oriented.4 However, copyright extensions signed into U.S. law have placed increasing emphasis upon copyright
holders, whether writers or companies.
Opponents of the present system of copyrights have been bothered by
these copyright extensions. For some, this has created darkness for our cultural heritage by limiting our ability to pass the light of creativity along. It
has been argued that the public commons has been shortchanged by copyright extensions in recent years. Today, debate persists concerning the appropriate term of copyright. When the U.S. House of Representatives wrote
the Copyright Act of 1976, they noted: The debate over how long a copyright should last is as old as the oldest copyright statute and will doubtless
continue as long as there is a copyright law (HRR, EP No. 94 1476 [1976]).
With copyright extensions, songs do not fall into the public domain. Thus,
they are not readily available to other artists and writers to use without authorization, which usually includes a fee. This, some argue, inhibits creativity. Consequently, we now have to confront the issue of how copyright and
digital media will impact the creative artist, the consumer, researchers, and
educators at the present time and in the future.5
The Copyright Act of 1909 provided for a term of 56 years. There would
be an original copyright term of 28 years and a renewal of 28 more years.
The 1976 act increased this. The term of copyright protection would be the
authors life plus 70 years. In the case of song collaboration, the term of protection would be 70 years from the death of the last surviving author. In
1998, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, adding
protection of 20 years to all copyrighted works. The 1909 Copyright Act
had conferred common law protection, and the 1976 Copyright Act brought
statutory protection. Under the Copyright Extension Act, copyright holders
retain their copyright for life plus 70 years. Copyrights are often held by the
widow/widower, children, or executors of the author.
Support for copyright extensions has come from large corporations, such as
the Disney Corporation, which sought to protect and perpetuate their rights
to their cartoon characters, such as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Companies that hold lucrative copyrights from works produced in the 1920s did
not want to see these songs, scripts, characters, or images fall into the public
domain. So they argued for copyright extensions.
Music publishing companies most often hold song copyrights. Usually,
the music publisher contracts with a songwriter for the song he or she has
written. The songwriter will receive a writers share in such agreements. The
music publisher is responsible for exploiting the song. That is, the publisher
seeks to get as many cuts, or recordings, of the song as possible. When an
artist holds ownership to a song this is called a controlled composition.
Sometimes a producer will control the music publishing rights for recorded
63
songs. Performance fees result from the song being played. Mechanical
rights emerge when recordings are sold. Copyright holders hope for continued prots from these copyrights.
Proponents of copyright extensions have cited four major reasons for
lengthening the term of copyrights:
1. The United States needs to maintain global competitiveness in the intellectual property market.
2. U.S. copyright law should be harmonized with the copyright law of the
European Community, under the Berne Convention and other agreements.
3. Authors now live longer than in the past and need this protection.
4. In their view, this is a stimulus to new works.
While copyright holders contend that control over uses of a work is necessary, opponents of copyright claim that copyright extensions hinder the
common intellectual heritage and cultural progress. At issue is a clear economic reality: Music copyrights are big business. Publishers and artists assert their copyright because they have created and marketed songs. On the
one side, the theft of intellectual property has been cited as a contributing
cause to Americas technological decline.6 On the other, copyright opponents such as attorney Lawrence Lessig argue that the lack of availability of
cultural materials under present copyright law extensions may be diminishing our creative progress as a culture.7
Opponents to the Copyright Extension Act argue that U.S. exports of
copyrighted material far exceed that of any other country. They claim that it
is not possible to fully harmonize U.S. and European law and point out that
Europe tends to follow natural law theory while the United States does not.
They ask why any copyright should support two generations of an authors
descendants. Finally, they argue, like law professor Dennis S. Karjala, that
a longer term does not automatically drive creative authors to work harder
or longer to produce new works. Rather, this impedes progress. Songwriters
and librettists have to get permissions and licenses before they can adapt
scripts into musicals. Some works will never be recorded by new artists because of the cost of licenses that are required for them to sing certain songs.
Opponents argue further that the Copyright Term Extension Act is contrary
to the public interest in maintaining a rich public domain.8
Those who think that copyright term protection should be less than the
life of the author plus 70 years have not persuaded Congress. Others, like the
late Sonny Bono and country songwriter Pat Alger, have insisted that copyright is a form of ownership and should be held in perpetuity. Mark Twain
once wrote: You might just as well, after you had discovered a coal-mine
and worked it for twenty-eight years, have the Government step in and take
64
Popular Music
it away.9 Jack Valenti, Motion Pictures Association of America president at

the time of the Sonny Bono Extension Act, supported long-term copyright
provisions and suggested the phrase forever less one day.10
The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act went into effect in 1998, not
long after the songwriterperformer turned Palm Springs Congressman
died in an unfortunate skiing accident. This act of Congress became Public
Law 105298 and extended the term of copyright for 20 years. It effectively
stopped all 1920s copyrights from 1923 and afterward from falling into the
public domain until at least 2019. Thus, it kept the Gershwin Trust from having to give up some of George and Ira Gershwins copyrights, and it saved
rights to Mickey Mouse for the Disney Corporation. As a result, as Michael
Choate points out, Happy Birthday to You, copyrighted in 1935, will likely
continue to garner an estimated $2 million or more in royalties until 2030.
It will do so even if the BMI representative or the ASCAP man fails to raid
your backyard party and ask for a payment. AOL-Time Warner can count on
getting at least half of that amount.
Some present debates continue to revolve around the 1998 Sonny Bono
Copyright Extension Act, which added 20 years to the term of copyrights
retroactively. This lengthened the term from 50 to 70 years after an authors death.
COPYRIGHT AND DIGITAL MUSIC
Copyright has had to adjust to the digital revolution in recording that
began in the late 1980s. At that time, computers entered recording studios, and
the studios began to put away their reel to reels and tape-splicers. They began
to set up digital editing programs. Musicians also turned toward sampling.
Sampling is the process of quoting earlier music by dubbing portions of previously recorded music into newer recordings. Sampling uses the song from
that previous recording. With the appearance of digital technology sampling
became prevalent. However, sampling may infringe upon the copyright license
of the music publisher and upon the mechanical license of the record company.
Suddenly, digital technologies began to pose some dilemmas, especially in the
area of mechanical rights: the rights that are connected with dissemination
of sound recordings. With the appearance of the Internet and digital media,
companies and individuals with copyright interests sought means for intellectual property rights to be further dened.
Individuals who are concerned with issues of fair use and the public domain
also point to the genesis of the Digital Millennium Act. On July 7, 1994, a
working group for the Clinton administration led by Bruce A. Lehman issued
their green paper: a green-covered document that stipulated that movie
makers and other content providers could charge for uses of their products.
It limited the fair-use standards that allowed writers, librarians, scholars, and
65
artists to copy a small portion of a work for education, illustration, or documentation purposes. It further recommended that Internet providers be held
responsible for what was transmitted over their wires to their customers.
The proposal prohibited the making of backup copies of purchased CDs and
DVDs. The opposition mounted by Internet providers prompted revisions.
Meanwhile, it appears that the movie companies had overlooked the now
multimillion dollar business potential of DVD rentals.
In September 1995, the nal version of the Lehman groups document
appeared under a white cover: the White Paper. The reaction to it was immediate. Internet providers rejected the idea of being held liable. Law professors argued that the proposal worked against the public good. The Home
Recording Rights Coalition went to work. Library associations cringed at
the prospect of having to obtain permissions before making digital copies
of works in libraries. In 1996, the proposed legislation stalled. In Congress,
Representative Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), an experienced intellectual property attorney representing a rural western district in Virginia, fervently
opposed the legislation, to no avail. The World Intellectual Property Treaty
enacted legislation that made it so that the Internet providers would not be
held liable for what was transmitted over the Internet. The librarians were
not so fortunate. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act became law on October 31, 1998.11
It remained a technical violation to make a cassette or CD copy of a CD
recording that one already owned. Further, it was illegal to download any
song from the Internet, although this was often being done. Such electronic
distribution, called le sharing, was illegal. The reason for this prohibition
was that each of the songs was owned by a copyright holder; writers had
invested time, thought, musical training, and qualities of talent and creativity into the creation of these songs. Publishers and record companies had invested money to exploit, record, and distribute these songs. However, now
recordings were being duplicated by consumers without mechanical licenses
from the record companies who owned the masters for these recordings.
No performance royalties were being collected and distributed from downloads to the publishers and writers who were the copyright holders of these
songs.
On December 7, 1999, the Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA) sued Napster, which claimed some 38 million users worldwide. Napster was charged with damages of $100,000 for each song it had copied and
made available. After all, the RIAA argued, no royalties were going to the
artists and writers of these songs. In July 2000, a Federal judge issued an
injunction to shut Napster down. The idea was put forth to transform Napster into a subscription-based company that would pay artists and companies
royalties. The idea did not easily catch on, and Napster folded, selling its assets and its name at auction. In April 2003, Steven Jobs of Apple Computer
66
Popular Music
put forth iTunes, a business model that would allow song downloading for 99
cents per song, or $9.99 for an album. This model has since been replicated
many times over by other companies.
The lawsuits against users of music on the Internet increased in 2003, as
music companies sought to protect their prots. Their objective clearly was
to educate music listeners that copyrights existed to these songs. A royalty
system, handled by the music licensing agencies ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC,
was attached to the playing of them. The goal was to make song swapping
risky business carrying serious penalties and to encourage consumers to go
through legal vendors on the Internet when downloading songs. Sadly, the
lawsuits of September 2003 included some people who had likely been ignorant of matters such as performance rights societies, song publishing contracts, and U.S. copyright law. For example, a Duluth, Minnesota, Federal
jury ned Jammie Thomas, a mother of four, $222,000 for 24 songs she took
from the Kazaa le-sharing program. Some 20,000 people have been sued by
the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Most have settled
for about $3,000 per song. The RIAA asserts that the lawsuits are intended
to defend the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the
copyright act.12
Universal Music Group sued MySpace, the social networking site, in November 2006. YouTube was also named for infringement of Universal Music copyrights. Universal took a stake in it before it was sold to Google for $1.65 billion.
In 2006, Warner Music Group entered a court battle with Anywhere CD. Warner Music Group dropped its suit against the Imecon music-sharing site in exchange for a revenue-sharing agreement.
Music corporations turn to copyright law to protect their investments.
Copyright extension works favorably for music publishers who have commercially successful songs of lasting value. It is the goal of a music publisher
to exploit copyrights: that is, put them into use in the market. A century
ago, this meant distribution of sheet music and piano rolls. Today, it primarily
means getting a cut on a recording. The copyright owner generally agrees
to a standard license to record. This tends to allow for openness as to how the
song will be treated in a recording session. However, this is a mechanical license, not a copyright. The copyright itself remains with the music publisher
or with the original songwriter.
Songwriters and music publishers hold copyrights. Frequently, a music
publisher will copyright a song following a contract with its writer or writers.
Copyrights may also be purchased by music publishers. Songs that have been
popular may be among these acquisitions. When one publishers catalog is sold
to another publisher, often the copyrights, rather than the companys stock,
are transferred. The buyer usually pays for copyrights at about ve to eight
times the annual performance rate assigned to those songs, as determined
by ASCAP and BMI payments. There are statutory copyrights and common
67
law copyrights. Writings that are not xed in print form or in phonograph
recordings are protected by common law copyright. As digital sources, cable
television, satellite radio, and other media have emerged, new means of generating revenue from copyrights have appeared. These trends are likely to
continue in the future. Amid the vicissitudes of the music business, copyrights remain a valuable investment.
COPYRIGHT AS PROTECTION
FROM INFRINGEMENT
Copyright acts as a form of protection for songwriters and publishers.
It guarantees that they have exclusive rights to the use and distribution of
these songs. Infringement occurs when someone who is not the copyright
holder makes public use of the song without permission. Allegations of copyright infringement have produced several famous legal cases.
In November 2007, country singer Toby Keith won an infringement suit
that had been led against Keith by songwriter Michael McCloud, claiming
that I Love This Bar was like his own song. Keith argued that the individual who led the suit was trying to make money off of him.
Beyoncs song Baby Boy won a lawsuit by songwriter Jannifer Armour
of Minnesota, who said that she had submitted music to Matthew Knowles,
president of Music World Entertainment, a company connected with Columbia Records. She alleged that Baby Boy was her song Got a Little Bit of
Love for You and pointed out that the phrase Every time I close my eyes
appears in both songs. However, on September 21, 2006 a Houston judge,
Nancy Atlas, found the songs to be in different keys, tempos, and melodies
and substantially dissimilar.
In one of the most well-known cases, George Harrisons song My Sweet
Lord (1970) was found to have subconsciously drawn upon Ronald Macks
Hes So Fine, performed by the Chiffons. The court said: His subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious did not remember.13
This was a handy piece of psychoanalysis. Of course, one might ask if the case
would have been brought if Harrison were not a former Beatle and his song
had not been #1 on the charts for four weeks in 1970.
In 1994, Michael Bolton and Andy Goldmarks Love Is A Wonderful
Thing was found by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California to
have shared elements with an Isley Brothers song from their Lets Go album.
Lyric, pitch, musical phrasing, rhythm, and hook were all found to be similar.
Thus, $5.4 million was awarded. Bolton and Goldmark sought to overturn
the ruling in 1999. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Ronald and
Marvin Isley have been receiving 66 percent of the song proceeds from royalties and 29 percent of all proceeds from the Bolton album Time, Love, and
Tenderness on which the song appeared.14
68
Popular Music
In 1994, attorneys for country vocalist Emmylou Harris argued against

infringement of her recorded work in Harris v. Emus Records (1984). The
1976 Copyright Act had provided a limitation on the exclusive right to record musical compositions. Mechanical licenses, the law asserted, are in effect
when an artist who holds a copyright distributes a recording to the public.
In the Harris case, a California court found that the owner of an unlicensed
master, who had already issued this, could no longer sell it. Rather, he could
only listen to the master in his own living room and could make no other
use of it.15
Andrew Lloyd Webber spent $2.3 million in legal fees after 1990 to defend against religious folksong writer Ray Repps claim that the theme of
Webbers Phantom of the Opera was drawn from his song 1978 Till You.
The U.S. Federal District Court in Manhattan found in favor of Webber.16
These issues of copyright infringement are fairly common in the music
business. While in George Harrisons case infringement was considered unconscious, some acts of infringement are clearly willful. When a work is used
without obtaining necessary permissions this use is illegal. Further, there
are times when someone claims that a work is his or her own original work,
and it can be proven to be a copy of another writers work. Usually anyone
who is charged with such infringement will deny having had access to this
copyrighted song. However, if the song has been made available through performance, recordings, Internet distribution, or radio broadcast it is possible
to demonstrate access. Some publishers are hesitant to listen to unsolicited
new material because of a concern that a songwriter might claim that a published song sounds similar to their own and that the publisher had access to
the material.
ROYALTIES: MONEY FROM COPYRIGHTS
Copyrighted and published music is connected with a performance rights
agency. In the United States, there are three of these: ASCAP, BMI, and
SESAC. ASCAP collects about $510 million annually for its members, which
are publishers and songwriters. About a quarter of this amount derives from
foreign sources. BMI collects from $450500 million annually. SESAC, the
smaller performing rights agency, collects about $5 million.
Song copyrights that are used in recordings that receive media airplay
are eligible for royalties. The performance rights organizations that administer this are a primary source of income for music publishers and songwriters. These organizations track a wide range of music providers from radio
stations and television stations to the Internet, hotels, casinos, and concert
venues.
ASCAP emerged early in the twentieth century as a membership organization that was encouraged by composers such as Victor Herbert. Today,
69
Victor Herberts piano sits one oor below a winding staircase that leads
to the attorneys rooms atop the ASCAP building across from Lincoln
Center for the Performing Arts in New York. The organization has about
60,000 members, including more than 30,000 music publishers. ASCAP issues a blanket license for its catalog to all radio and television stations.
The stations gross receipts are calculated, and a rate of under 2 percent
of the stations adjusted gross receipts is charged. ASCAP also distributes
royalties to songwriters and publishers for online uses of copyrighted and
licensed songs. ASCAP has RateCalc to help Internet users to gure out
their ASCAP licensing fees when online. A basic license and a rate schedule
are issued after the inquirer responds to a series of questions.
BMI (Broadcast Music, Incorporated) was established in 1940, prompted
by the widespread increase in radio. Today, BMI represents more than 3 million copyrighted and published works. Some 140,000 songwriters and 60,000
music publishers have afliated with this performance rights organization.
BMI is a nonprot organization that works primarily with blanket licenses
and has a formula for charges to broadcasters. The BMI Web site has a Hyper
Repertoire database for searches for its songs, songwriters, and publishers.
It uses On Ramp technology services, a Web site that allows direct downloading of songs for fees.
SESAC is a good deal smaller. It began as a private licensing company in
1930. The SESAC catalog comprises about 200,000 to 250,000 songs and has
about 1,000 afliated publishers and 1,000 writers connected with the organization. To determine music use charges, SESAC gauges the market population
of a radio station and its advertising rates. SESAC also tracks cable television, the Internet, college concerts, hotels, and other places where music is
played.17
The largest users of music copyrights are the record corporations that also
have afliated movie companies: Warner/Chappell, SONY/ATV, and Universal Music Group.
The interweaving of songs with lm and television has become pronounced partly because of the prots that can be generated from performance fees, synchronization fees, and mechanical fees.
FAIR USE AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Songs written and published before 1922 have entered the public domain.
Most songs written after this date remain under copyright, unless their copyright has not been renewed. The public domain consists of compositions that
are considered part of the worlds cultural heritage.
Educational uses of copyrighted works are governed by a doctrine of fair
use that some experts say has become attenuated in recent years. Fair use
concerns the publics right to make a reasonable use of a part of a copyrighted
70
Popular Music
composition. Fair use only gained force in 1976. Prior to this it was generally recognized that one could include brief passages from published works
within criticism, or for educational purposes. A four-point test was established in the 1976 U.S. Copyright Law in which nonprot educational uses
were favored. The law stated that one could use such material for criticism
and commentary, or for educational purposes, scholarship, and research.
A four-point rule held that fair use concerned: (1) the purpose of the use,
(2) the nature of the copyrighted material, (3) the portion or amount used in
relation to the whole of the work, and (4) the effect on the market for that
copyrighted work.
Fair use affects musicians, music educators, and those who write about
music. There are times when musicians may wish to quote a previous composition within a new song, so he or she may play a riff or hook from it. However, as music business attorney William Krasilovsky notes, the four bar or
less rule is a myth. One cannot take four distinctive bars from Jumpin Jack
Flash or Smoke on the Water to pay tribute to the Stones or Deep Purple.
One must pay for this.18 Musicians who like to play cover tunes are also affected. The larger venues they play in have to be licensed by BMI or ASCAP,
and these musicians cannot record their covers without a license through the
Harry Fox Agency, usually costing money. For songwriters, there is no four
bar rule for fair use in including another song within ones own composition. Rather, what matters is the intended use of the song and this reference.
The use of short extracts of melody or harmonic and rhythmic patterns are
often viewed by courts as not fair use.
Educators are likewise affected by fair-use laws. There are guidelines that
allow for making a single copy of copyrighted music for music education.
Music instructors are permitted to make use of partial excerpts. They can
distribute a copy to each student. However, these copies must not exceed
10 percent of the work. So, too, are music arrangers affected by fair use. Arrangements of music from the public domain may be copyrighted. If made
with a copyright owners consent, arrangements that meet a standard of originality may also be copyrighted. However, usually the musical arrangements
made on recordings cannot be copyrighted. Rather, only the underlying song
is. Record producers are sometimes involved as arrangers and exert creative
inuence in recording sessions. Unless a music arranger is connected with
the originating writer or publisher or with an afliated record company he
or she will probably not obtain a share in the copyright for a song. These arrangers, instead, receive a payment or salary for their work on a project.
Music education is also affected. A musician who copies records for the
purpose of learning to play the songs on the record has to be able to show
this purpose. This may be possible if the musician is enrolled as a full-time
music student. However, many of the best pop and jazz artists are self-taught.
Likewise, there are few schools for the study of hip-hop and rap. Musicians
71
who copy recordings for study may be hard-pressed by our legal system of
copyright to provide evidence of intent if called upon to do so in a court
of law.
Similarly, musical theater writers are affected by copyright. Rights must
be secured before any play or lm can be adapted to the stage for a musical.
This may discourage some writers and composers from attempting such an
adaptation. One cannot insert any copyrighted song into a lm or a stage
musical without paying mechanical, performance, and synchronization rights.
Also, writers who write about music cannot easily quote song lyrics. These
uses require permissions. Writing for and obtaining such permissions is a
time-consuming process. Often such uses require payment.
Our cultural heritage is affected when songs that are still copyrighted fall
out of public use. These songs become harder to nd. The general public, some
argue, tends to lose a bit of its sense of the culture of the 1930s, for example,
when most of the songs of that time are out of print and securely hidden away
in special collections.
HOW TO COPYRIGHT A SONG
With the Copyright Act of 1976, all common law works were brought
under Federal statutory provisions that became effective on January 1, 1978.
The law says that whenever a work has been xed in a tangible form it may
be copyrighted. That means if it is on paper, on record, on a disk, or in some
other format, it can then be deposited with the Library of Congress and the
U.S. Copyright Ofce. The work does not have to be published.
The 1976 Copyright Act provided that there be no requirement for copyright registration. However, such registration is useful to songwriters and
music publishers. One may copyright individual songs or collections of several songs, albums, audiovisual material, recordings, remixes of derivative
works authorized by copyright holders, and album liner notes. Liner notes
that are lengthy may be copyrighted using Form TX (for text). Usually
songs are copyrighted using Form PA (performing arts), and recordings are
copyrighted using Form SR (sound recording).
Copyright claims are registered with the Copyright Ofce by including a
deposit of the work, usually two copies. This may be a recording of a compact
disc or a cassette tape, or a printed manuscript copy. This work does not have
to be published. However, the deposit should represent the best edition of
the work. Some 50,000 performing arts works are registered annually. Any
recording that is offered for sale and distribution is considered a publication.
However, a live performance of a song is not a publication. The work has to
be in a tangible, physical form for copyright to be in force. According to the
1976 Copyright Act, musical compositions must be xed in recorded form,
or in manuscript form.
72
Popular Music
To demonstrate creation and ownership of an unpublished song, songwriters sometimes mail a copy of their song to themselves by registered mail,
or in an envelope that they expect will be postmarked by the post ofce. A formal copyright through the Copyright Ofce generally provides better protection for the songwriter than this self-mailing method. Copyright registration
provides formal recognition and a copyright notice.
The U.S. Copyright Ofce makes available several forms for free. These
forms can be obtained on the Copyright Ofce Web site: (htp://www.loc.gove/
copyright/forms). Form PA is for registering performing arts works. This
may include musical works, plays, movies, choreography, and audiovisual
materials. The SR form is used for sound recordings. If someone has created
a musical, he or she needs to ll out only this form. The TX form is for a nondramatic literary work, like a novel, or a book of lyrics. The VA form is used
for visual arts, including record covers, graphics, ne art, photographs, prints,
posters, and advertisements.
A copyright notice () was required for all public copies of a song following
the 1976 Copyright Act. In 1988, the United States joined with the international Berne Convention by enacting the Berne Convention Implementation
Act. This made the required notice of copyright () largely unnecessary.
However, music business attorneys continue to advise that copyrighted songs
carry the copyright symbol on them. The songs of American composers and
lyricists are now protected in all of the countries that have signed the Berne
Convention. Interestingly, titles cannot be copyrighted. However, the lyric
may embody the title in an important part of the song. The title may also
be the title of the album on which the song appears. Any title of this nature
must be sufciently unique for any rights to be asserted.
CONCLUSION
The future of copyright, many say, will be best promoted through a dialogue between music companies, music artists, and those in sectors of the
public who are concerned with fair use and the public domain. In balancing
the rights of copyright holders with the needs of artists, educators, and other
music users, it appears necessary to reform our present copyright system.
In a digital media environment, it is necessary to effectively preserve intellectual property protections and the commercial viability of copyrights. However, it is also important that we broaden the discussion beyond issues of
piracy to include reection upon our common inheritance. We need to remain true to the original purposes of copyright, so that: (1) Creative work
will be remunerated and preserved; (2) Creative work can be made increasingly available for creative uses and cultural purposes; and (3) We can build
further creative work upon it. In this way, the products of human genius and
workmanship can continue to contribute to our cultural memory and to the
public good for many generations to come.
73
NOTES
1. Mark Rose, Authors, Owners and the Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard UP, 1993), p. 142.
2. The purpose for which copyright was designed is to advance the public good.
Copyright was originally seen as providing an incentive to creators to contribute
their work to the public. Recognizing that ideas and creativity are what advance society in its thinking and feeling, intellectual property law sought a temporary right for
artists and inventors to their creations. The law classies works and works to temporarily exclude uses of the copyright. However, the initial intent of U.S. Copyright
law emphasized the temporary nature of this exclusive right. It was believed that
this would provide an incentive to the writer or artist to create and that the general
state of knowledge would be thereby advanced.
3. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813, cited by Pat
Choate in Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in the Age of Globalization (New York:
Knopf, 2005).
4. Christina N. Gifford, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, University
of Memphis Law Review (Winter 2000). See Web site maintained by Amicus, a group
of lawyers opposed, and by Dennis Karjala, Challenge to Constitutionality CTEA at
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/constitution
ality.html.
5. For the reasoning of two clear opponents of copyright law as it is currently constructed see Dennis Karjala, The Term of Copyright, in Growing Pains: Adapting
Copyright for Libraries, Education and Society, ed. Laura Gasaway (Littleton, Colorado:
Fred B. Rothman, 1997) and Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Vintage, 2003).
6. Pat Choate, Hot Property, p. 286.
7. Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas (New York: Vintage, 2003), pp. 25253.
8. Dennis Karjala, The Term of Copyright, p. 232.
9. Mark Twain, Arguments Before the Committees on Patents on S. 6330 and H.R.
19853, 59th Congress 116 (1906).
10. Jack Valentis comment is cited in Pat Choate, Hot Property.
11. Choates discussion in Hot Property of the papers of the Lehman book is particularly informative.
12. Recording Industry Association of America statements about their position can
be found on their Web site, http://www.RIAA.com.
13. The case against Beyonc was dismissed by U.S. Judge Nancy Atlas in Houston
District Court on September 21, 2006. The case against Toby Keith by Michael McCloud (aka Michael Snyder) was also dismissed. See Billboard (November 29, 2007).
George Harrisons case was Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrison Music, Ltd. 420 F.
Supp. 177 (1976).
14. Michael Boltons case was Three Boys Music v. Bolton 9755150. The Isley
Brothers and Pullman Group claimed that Bolton had infringed upon their copyright
with his song Love Is A Wonderful Thing.
15. M. William Krasilovsky and Sidney Shemel, This Business of Music: The Denitive
Guide to the Music Industry, 9th ed. (New York: Billboard Books, 2003), p. 220.
16. Jesse McKinley, Jury Vindicates Andrew Lloyd Webber, The New York Times,
December 16, 1998. Accessed online August 12, 2008 at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
74
Popular Music
fullpage.html?res=9D0CEEDA123DF935A25751C1A96E958260&scp=1&sq=jury
%20vindicates%20andrew%20llyod%20webber&st=cse.
17. Information on the performing rights societies can be obtained from their Web
sites, http://www.ASCAP.com, http://www.BMI.com, and http://www.SESAC.com.
18. Krasilovsky and Shemel, This Business of Music, pp. 1089.
chapter 5
Rock Brands
Mike Emery
The Rolling Stones Bigger Bang tour was the top-grossing tour of 2006
despite the fact that this group has not had a hit single in more than 15 years.
That year, another venerable rock act, AC/DC, was ranked number two on
Australias list of highest grossing entertainers of 2006second to childrens
act The Wiggles and above Oscar-winner Nicole Kidmaneven though the
group has not released an album or embarked on a full tour since 2000. Even
semiactive and defunct rock acts such as KISS, Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin
are continuing to reach audiences through T-shirts and other merchandise
sold at mainstream retail outlets. These veteran rock artists are enjoying
continued visibility and commercial success and reaching mass audiences regardless of whether they are actively producing recorded music or performing on stage. Ironically, they may even be enjoying more visibility than many
younger, contemporary popular artists.
More than anything, these classic rock acts are thriving because they have
built successful brands. A brand is dened as any product or service that fosters audience and consumer beliefs by maintaining a consistent identity and
offering repeated experiences that are emotionally rewarding.1
Veteran rock artists such as the Stones, KISS, and others have sustained
durable brands that are going strong long after their creative and commercial peaks. In this ever-competitive music industry where trends come and go,
new artistsparticularly groupscan take note of how classic rock brands
have survived and continue to attract new audiences.
Now more than ever, good branding is vital for new artists and groups.
Once upon a time, the earliest records by the Rolling Stones and KISS were
not commercially successful. The dynamics of yesteryears music industry
76
Popular Music
allowed both groups to evolve into top-selling performers and ultimately

multimillion dollar brands. Today, however, the music arena is more competitive, and labels (not to mention audiences) are less patient when it comes to
second chances.
In an age of online digital music purchases and satellite radio, new artists are challenged with making an instant connection with audiences. Even
more difcult is maintaining that connection. By understanding effective
branding, artists can forge stronger identities that can resonate with publics
for years to come.
BRAND ANATOMY
Daniel M. Jackson contends that a good brand needs more than simply a
name. A catchy name paired with a superior product creates the blueprint for
a successful brand. He denes a brand as, Any idea, stemming from a belief
that through its consistent identity, experience and the positive emotional
investment of stakeholder creates sustainable benets.2 While names are
strong brand identiers, logos can also serve as tools for helping connect a
brand with its publics, writes Marc Gobe. Gobe cites the IBM logo, a personication of a corporate, business-driven organization, and Apple, Inc.s logo,
which is more human and reective of the baby boomer generations values.3
For a logo to be ultimately effective, it must communicate valid customer
experiences. Customer beliefs must be attributed to the actual brand before a
logo can convey meaning.4
As Jackson observes, Daryl Travis acknowledges that belief in a brand
is conducive to its identity. Brand identity, he writes, exists purely within
an audiences mind and carries specic expectations and promises. Such expectations build audience loyalty, which helps the audience save time during
purchase decisions. A familiar name, combined with the expectation of a positive experience, allows an audience or consumer to make an instant purchase
decision without comparative research.5 Brands generate belief, Jackson suggests, by asking stakeholders to make a positive emotional investment.6 He
cites McDonalds as an example of a brand that is built on its audiences
beliefs and expectations. The founders of the fast-food franchise promised
quality food at low prices and have delivered on this promise. Enhancing
this pledge to McDonalds customers was the fact that all of its locations
provided the same services in a similarif not identicalphysical environment. Belief in brands can be dened as an investment of consumers emotions, Jackson states. By recognizing belief as an investment, stakeholders are
able to identify with the importance of brand belief.7 Matthew W. Ragas and
Bolivar Bueno maintain that belief is only one aspect of cultivating a brand.
A brand must not only generate belief, but it must inspire individuals to tell
others about why it is great.8
Rock Brands
77
A brand cultivates identities by developing reputations and generating

narratives, acknowledges Douglas B. Holt.9 These stories speak to an audiences desires. Customers value symbolic brands, and they value the stories
that are conducive to developing unique brand identities, asserts Holt. Likewise, customers support the brands that personify admirable ideals and help
them express their personalities or beliefs. Brands that do this successfully
emerge as iconic brands. An iconic brand consists of identity myths or simple ctions that address cultural anxieties from worlds other than those in
which an audience resides. Such myths involve imaginative aspirations that
speak to audiences desired identities.10
Any concept or idea that is believable has brand potential, states Jackson.11 Others can embrace a belief held by one person, no matter how innovative or deviant it is. Consistency is the key in sustaining brand belief.
Jackson argues that positive beliefs are more often embraced by wide audiences and have had longer survival rates than negative ones. An example is
Death cigarettes, which were sold in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. The
product acknowledged the health risks associated with smoking. Death ultimately met its demise due to the fact that it perpetuated a negative belief.12
Timelessness also contributes to brand longevity, and when audiences begin
to associate certain qualities or characteristics to a brand, it has developed
brand essence.13 Some brand architects apply unique traits as a means of
developing brand identity and as a tool to create fans or loyal followers of
a brand, stress Ragas and Bueno.14
In addition to being consistent, a brand must be memorable if it is to maintain a long life. While memorable advertising assists in generating brand belief, the brand itself must remain embedded in the publics memories. Disney
has succeeded, through its lms and characters, in creating positive memories for children, who then retain these experiences through adulthood.15
When people believe that a particular brand is superior, that belief actually
becomes a fact in their minds. A brand can achieve this perception of superiority by effectively proclaiming its authenticity. Claiming legitimacy (such
as Cola-Colas the real thing slogan) often makes a brand credible in the
eyes of its audiences. If audiences believe that a brand is credible, they also
believe in anything that is said about it.16
BRANDAUDIENCE INTERACTIONS
To sustain veteran rock brands, attention must be placed on reaching
ever-changing (and ever-aging) audiences. Once, brands such as The Rolling Stones or KISS focused branding efforts toward teenage markets. Now,
brands like these must appeal to fans of all ages. The successful rock brand
must cater to the evolving lifestyles of its original audience and acknowledge
the fact that its members are no longer youngsters but rather parents or
78
Popular Music
grandparents. It also recognizes that this longtime audience now demands a

much different concert experience than it did 20 or 30 years ago. With that,
artists consistently find new ways of reaching their core fan base while winning over new, younger audiences.
Veteran rock brands such as The Rolling Stones have maintained credibility with audiences through their catalog of popular songs. Although The
Stones have not charted a hit song in decades (the last was Mixed Emotions in 1989), their music is heard daily on rock radio stations. Regardless
of their current musical output or chart standings, The Rolling Stones were
the highest grossing touring act of 2006. Not surprisingly, the groups October 22, 2006, performance in Austin, Texas, only featured two new songs
in the setlist.
While die-hard devotees often appreciate new material from a popular
brand, general audiences are more interested in its past hits, says popular culture researcher Joe Kotarba. A well-established rock brand does not depend
on new material to keep it viable in the marketplace. Classic material meets
audience expectations, he adds. The older songs appeal to younger audiences
because they have heard this material on the radio, in film soundtracks, or
on television. For audiences who grew up with these songs, however, yesteryears classics can symbolize both the artists longevity in the world as well
as their own. Kotarba cites his recent experiences seeing Paul McCartney
perform in Houston, Texas, to illustrate his point:
Someone like Paul McCartney can reach way back into his catalog and play
the old Beatles songs. This music can speak to the people who listened to
this music in the 1960s. Basically, it tells them weve been through a lot,
and its still great. Hearing a 30 or 40 year old song doesnt make people
feel so old. Instead, it actually rejuvenates them.17
Of course, there comes a time when artists tire of performing the same
material night after night, year after year. They then decide to offer a newer
product, which often results in mixed emotions from its audiences. In recent
years, Bruce Springsteen embarked on two tours that featured all new material and few of the songs that propelled him into the publics consciousness.
His 2005 Devils and Dust tour was a largely acoustic affair that featured
music from the album of the same title. Meanwhile, the 2006 Seeger Sessions tour featured the prolific performer embracing his folk and Americana
roots. In both cases, ticket sales were sluggish for a performer who could easily
sell out arenas playing his classic hits.
David Bowie decided to publicly retire his catalog of classics on his Sound
and Vision tour in 1993. Two years later, the singer would embark on the
Outside tour featuring a new sound and only including a handful of past
hits. Attendance suffered, and the U.S. leg of the tour never was completed.
Rock Brands
79
During Bowies 2004 tour, the artist quietly un-retired his hits from live
performance to the approval of his fan base.
Once a brand is established, it can be difcult if not impossible to escape
from performing the hits of yesteryear. Some artists may not want to play
the same old songs night after night, but they realize its what the fans have
paid to hear. Just ask Motorhead vocalist and bassist Lemmy Kilmister. In his
autobiography, White Line Fever, he acknowledges audiences wanting to hear
classic material including his bands signature tune, Ace of Spades, a track
that grates on his patience.
The kids want to hear the old stuff. I mean, if I go to see Little Richard,
I want to hear Long Tall Sally, and if I dont Im going to be thoroughly
pissed off. Even though Im sick to death of it, Motorhead should do Ace
of Spades, and you cant ght that. To refuse to play itor those other
tunesis very bad news.18
Performing popular material during concerts is one way artists connect

with audiences to maintain brand belief, but the actual concert experience also
strengthens brandaudience bonds, Kotarba says. Concerts are often more
than a performance. They foster an environment where fans often dress and
behave in ways they would not ordinarily do at home or in the ofce. They
can offer time away from responsibilities, an escape from ones day-to-day
routine. Likewise, concerts provide audiences with a celebratory atmosphere,
one where music enthusiasts come together for the purpose of sheer revelry
and the enjoyment of particular artists.
Of course, the level of revelry and enjoyment varies from brand to brand.
An audience at a Paul McCartney concert will behave far different than one
attending a Rolling Stones show. While a McCartney concert might be perfect for a relaxing date with ones spouse, a Stones concert is the kind of
experience that is shared with a group of friends for the party, says Kotarba.
It is all dependent on the brand. When you think of McCartney, you think
of this guy who is one of the greatest living pop music composers. He is
a revered gure, so the concert experience will be fun but not wild. The
Stones, however, have built a brand around being bad boys. Never mind that
these guys are grandparents now, audiences still look at them as the rebels,
so the concert experience will be decidedly more energetic.19 Just as most
people know what to expect when opening a can of Coca-Cola, many will
know what to expect from a Paul McCartney or Stones show.
The Stones, in particular, have taken great strides in preserving the
spectacular and wild nature of their concerts. For much of their career, the
groups concerts have been large productions often featuring reworks and
special effects. This has been the case since The Rolling Stones 1975 tour,
which featured a lotus-shaped stage and had outrageous effects such as a
80
Popular Music
giant inatable penis. During its October 22, 2006, performance in Zilker
Park in Austin, Texas, the penis was gone, and in its place was a giant pair
of inatable lipsThe Stones logoand instead of the lotus, a mammoth
stage with towers and large video monitors provided the 42,000 fans in attendance a view of the bands every movement. The concert was as much a
spectacle as it was a musical performance. Neither McCartney nor the Stones
initially set out to deliver the kinds of concerts they currently do. Music
was at the heart of their creative agendas at the start of their careers. After
decades of cultivating brand images, they have effectively crafted live shows
that consistently appeal to audiences each time they tour.
Other artists, however, have always focused their brands around the live
concert experience. Take KISS for example. The groups bombastic, loud rock
was essential in developing its brand but even more so was creating a rock
show unlike fans had ever seen. During the 1970s, the groups concerts became a staple of its brand thanks to intricate costumes, theatrical make-up, and
special effects. The audience itself became almost as entertaining as the stage
show as fans attended performances in make-up and costume making each affair similar to a masquerade party. This environment was a dening element
of the KISS brand and made each concert appearance a must-see experience.
During the groups 2004 Rock the Nation tour, the elements that dene KISS
concerts were still in place (although some of the band members were different), and fans young and old showed up in KISS make-up and regalia.
To make the concert experience even more memorable, however, KISS
offered fans an opportunity to purchase VIP packages. On the 2005 KISS
concert DVD Rock the Nation Live, a segment focuses on fans that purchased
these VIP packages during the groups 2004 tour. Fans are shown meeting the members of KISS during these backstage meet-and-greet sessions. On the DVD, these fans discuss their gratitude to KISS for the years
of entertainment it has provided. During these scenes, singer/guitarist Paul
Stanley acknowledges that these interactions are particularly important for
understanding the brands current audience.
Those fans pay hard-earned money to come see us, and its up to us to make
sure that we live up to those expectations. Its important to know where
theyre from, their history, what they like about the band, what theyre feeling about the show. This is a way to stay in tune with the people who keep
you in the position youre in.20
In an article titled Branding on the Internet, Helena Rubenstein writes

that a brand-audience relationship depends on a dialogue.21 Once, brands
spoke to audiences with no feedback. As with KISS, live dialogue can be facilitated for a price, but lesser-known brands will communicate with their
constituencies at no charge.
Rock Brands
81
This was the case when L.A. Guns took time to meet fans following its
August 21, 2005, performance at the Sunken Gardens Amphitheatre in San
Antonio, Texas. Another former radio staple Faster Pussycat did the same
following its August 16, 2006, appearance in the Meridian nightclub in
Houston, Texas. Rock vocalist Eddie Money makes himself available to fans
for autographs and photos following performances as he did at ArrowFest
an annual outdoor festival in Woodlands, Texas, featuring veteran rock
brandson October 14, 2006.
Rubenstein indicates, however, the Internet is becoming more important
than ever for brandaudience interactions. Once, brands spoke to audiences
with no feedback. Now, the Internet allows audiences to respond to brands.
Many rock brands Web sites contain message boards or forums that allow
fans a chance to pose questions directly to the artist or to engage in dialogues
with other fans. In the case of L.A. Guns, its members often respond to fans
questions themselves, or they post messages regarding tours, products, or
other topics. The ofcial KISS Web site (www.KISSonline.com) has a section
titled Ask KISS, where members of the band answer fans questions. Others,
such as The Rolling Stones ofcial Web site (www.rollingstones.com), have
online forums devoted to tour performances in which fans can post reviews
of recent performances.
The Internet also serves as a marketing device that brands can use to proactively connect with audiences. Song downloads available on brands sites
help motivate purchasing decisions of audiences by allowing them to preview
sections of songs from upcoming recorded material. In addition to offering
product previews, the Internet helps brands communicate new product offerings to audiences. The Rolling Stones, for example, reach audiences through
extensive electronic mailing lists. Fans that register with The Stones Web
site receive regular e-mail notices regarding upcoming performance dates,
ticket sales, and available merchandise. Online communication has been integral to twenty-rst-century branding.22 Brands now have the opportunity to
build and maintain relationships with their most crucial stakeholders through
dialogue and instant communication 24 hours a day.
LOGOS AS BRANDING TOOLS
Effective logos can bolster a brands visibility, as well as its longevity.
Just as rock brands use artistfan interactions to reach audiences, they also
reach desired audiences through the consistent use of logos. As indicated in
the following case studies of Motorhead, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, and
KISS, consistent logos dene brand essence, build brand loyalty, create new
markets, and are employed as key identiers.
In the article Grow Your Logo into a Brand, Jerome D. Smith writes
that a logo can become the sum of a brands vision, values, characteristics,
82
Popular Music
and attributes.23 One particular rock logo that has captured these elements
of its brand is Motorheads Snaggletooth. In its original rendition or in its
variations, its vicious visage indicates to neophytes that the rock trios sound
is traditionally hard, raw, and abrasive. For longtime fans, its a reminder of
the groups penchant for lyrical subject matter focused on war, sex, and outlaw activities. The image also matches the band members nonglamorous, no
frills image, particularly that of lead vocalist and bassist Lemmy Kilmister.
With his trademark moustache, rough voice, and rugged exterior (large
warts protrude from his left cheek), Kilmister is an unlikely rock idol.
Since forming the band in 1975, Kilmister has fostered a tough image to
match Motorheads coarse, hard rock sound. Kilmister was formerly associated
with the psychedelic hippie music of the late 1960s and early 1970s, having
played with the free-spirited group Hawkwind. Soon after forming Motorhead, Kilmister painted his multicolored ampliers a at black and adorned
them with silver skulls. Musically, the Motorhead sound was a harsh counterpoint to the peace and love generation. Kilmister summed up this sonic attitude by telling the press, If we moved in next door, your lawn would die.24
Fans agreed. A readers poll in Britains Sounds magazine named the band as
the best worst band in the world.25
Joe Petagno designed Snaggletooth, which made its rst appearance on
the bands self-titled album in 1977. He also continues to illustrate album
covers for Motorhead. The Snaggletooth image is an integral part of the
Motorhead brand, he says:
You cant imagine Motorhead without the logo. The logo is Motorhead, and it will probably outlast the music by decades. Everything before Snaggletooth was wishywashy nonsense left over from the 1960s.
When Snaggletooth popped up on the scene, the world was astonished at
the in-your-face brutal truth that the logo as well as the music and lyrics
depicted. Gone forever was the illusion that all you need is love. Snaggletooth signaled the end of peace, love and happiness and the beginning of
war, hate, and greed. It was genuinely a scary picture of the eras state of
affairs and was years ahead of its time.26
The ferocious-looking symbol (a metallic, horned, fanged animal skull

with chains dangling from its face accompanied by the Motorhead name in
gothic typeface) has been featured prominently and in different forms on 18
of the bands 24 albums (the typeface, however, appears on all 24 albums).
The Snaggletooth image also adorns a stage backdrop used during performances and on drummer Mikkey Dees drum kit. It is also the primary image
on the bands Web site, www.imotorhead.com, and is featured on the bands
merchandise. Snaggletooth items include shirts, jackets, caps, and other accessories. In fact, 19 of the 22 T-shirts sold on www.imotorhead.com feature
Snaggletooth.
Rock Brands
83
The bands Web site also features a section titled Motorhead for Life
that features several photographs of many fans who have had Snaggletooth
tattooed on their bodies. Some are modest works adorning their arms or legs
(sometimes both), but many are intricate illustrations covering fans backs,
chests, and stomachs. Such measures undoubtedly reect a lasting loyalty to
the Motorhead brand, particularly its logo.
Such loyalty to a brands logo is not uncommon, says sociologist and rock
music researcher Sonia Vasan. She has examined the subcultural aspects of
rock music, particularly the hard rock or heavy metal genres. Through ethnographic studies, she found that the art and logos connected to these genres
resonate more with this fan base. Logos, she says, contribute to identity formation for both audiences and artists. For audiences, in particular, logos allow
them to vicariously experience the imagery and music of artists. Likewise,
logos contribute to the subculture associated with heavy metal by offering
audiences labels they can use to distance themselves from the mainstream
culture.27
Not all audiences accept a brands logo as a means for identity formation.
In many instances, however, audiences are drawn to rock brands logos because
they are viewed as fashionable. The Rolling Stones classic Lips/Tongue logo
has become familiar to audiences of all ages through its increased presence
on T-shirts and other merchandise that are available at mainstream outlets
such as Kohls, JCPenney, and Target. In addition to this output, merchandise is available through the bands ofcial Web site, www.rollingstones.
com. Jerome D. Smith and Lauren McMullen write that logos can create
new business and capture new market shares.28 For The Rolling Stones, its
Lips/Tongue logo has generated new business in the form of fashion wear,
and it is reaching new markets through the availability of such clothing at
mainstream shopping outlets. For many years, the only place to obtain Rolling Stones merchandise was by purchasing it at concerts or ordering it from
specialty outlets. Now, anyone can wear a Rolling Stones tour shirt without
attending a performance. During The Rolling Stones October 2006 appearance in Austin, Texas, a majority of the 42,000 fans in attendance were clad in
T-shirts and baseball caps boasting different variations of the Lips/Tongue
logo. Fans wearing attire with this logo ranged from adolescents to senior
citizens.
James Garden, rock author and logo designer, says that contemporary audiences are often drawn to rock brands as a result of their logos and that music
is by no means the sole motivator in these audiences purchase decisions:
Everybody recognizes The Rolling Stones logo, regardless of whether
they are a fan of the band or not. T-shirts with the logo advertise the band
while serving as a fashion accessory. Many artists that are currently not
on the charts or on tour will still sell merchandise, because they have a
84
Popular Music
logo that looks good on a shirt and it becomes cool. A classic example is
AC/DC. They are never in the charts, and havent released a new album
for several years, but they still sell T-shirts. A friend of mine bought one
because he loved the design. He listens to rap and hip-hop and had no idea
they were a band.29
There is no exact science when designing a logo that is destined to become a brands calling card. Gerard Huerta designed the AC/DC logo for
the cover of its 1978 album Let There Be Rock. Using a gothic typeface similar to that found in Gutenbergs Bible, Huerta created a font to match the
albums semi-Biblical title. Since its introduction, Huertas AC/DC logo has
been used on 17 album covers in addition to merchandise and marketing
materials. The artist had no idea that it would be used over and over again.
He attributes its success to the popularity of the brand and its consistent
presence:
It is difcult to know why one logo over another has such lasting impact.
In this case, there are two reasons: its long-term usage and the popularity
of the band. I really am perplexed about this, as it was really just some
lettering designed for one album cover. It must have struck a chord with
AC/DC as it was picked up for future albums.30
Huertas experience with logos extends far beyond the realm of designing
those used on album covers. A veteran designer, he has designed mastheads
for magazines such as People, Time, Architectural Digest, AdWeek, and several
others. Hes designed covers for publications such as Newsweek, posters for
lms such as Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, and logos for sporting events
such as Super Bowl XXXV. Sharp design and consistent visibility are conducive to a logos effectiveness, he says:
It is a combination of design and usage that gives a logo the value for
identity. One without the other doesnt work. Hopefully, uniqueness in the
design will help people remember it. I think that long-term usage of any
logo can assist in the identity and brand of a group.31
Design and consistent usage has paid off for another logo that has become synonymous with a rock brand. The KISS logo, designed by the bands
original guitarist, Ace Frehley, resembles a comic book masthead. In place
of the letter S, he created a zigzagging character that resembled lightning
bolts. The super heroic logo was a perfect match for the KISS image, which
consisted of musicians wearing theatrical make-up and outlandish costumes.
The logo has been present on every single KISS album since its self-titled
release in 1973. Additionally, it has factored into the groups live performances, which became an anchor of the KISS brand. KISS concerts have
Rock Brands
85
always been lled with special effects including smoke, reworks, and explosions. An enlarged, illuminated logo has always served as a ashy backdrop
to fuel the already frenzied atmosphere of their shows. Additionally, the logo
has also adorned the drum kits of the bands different drummers: Peter Criss,
Eric Carr, and Eric Singer. Garden cites the KISS logo as one that is crucial
to dening its brands identity:
A recurring logo is extremely important for a bands identity. A logo needs
to be recognizable enough for a person to see it and immediately picture
the band. One of the best examples is KISS logo. It alone on a T-shirt immediately catches the eye, looks good, and gets KISS into peoples minds.
When they toured in the 1970s, they played in front of a huge version of
the logo, and that immediately became as important to the brand as its
make-up.32
During the 1980s, the KISS brand endured personnel and image changes
(most notably, the removal of the make-up, which would be brought back in
1996). Maintaining its traditional sound and dynamic concert performances
would keep the KISS brand alive and thriving. The logo also would continue
to factor into KISS branding efforts and remain on all merchandise and as
part of the stage effects during performances.
Despite all of the personnel and image changes in the 1980s, the consistent use of the logo helped reinforce the fact that two of the KISS brands
strongest assets still were in place: music and live concerts. According to
Smith and McMullen, logos grow from representing a brand to dening expectations. The consistent use of marketing vehicles such as logos is key in
bolstering the expectations of a brands goods and services.33 The recurring
use of this logo indicated that the KISS brand remained a reliable source of
hard rock and concerts lled with elaborate stages and effects.
SUSTAINING A BRAND WITH NEW
ARTISTIC PERSONNEL
As with corporate entities, employees come and go. This also happens
in the world of rock groups. So, what happens when a popular guitarist or
bassist departs an established brand? For some brands, replacing members
is only a minor obstacle in maintaining a brand. Take KISS for example. The
group has had ve different lead guitarists and three different drummers in
its 35-year history; yet, its brand continues to thrive.
With its members in face make-up and costumes, KISS originally built its
brand on four distinct fantasy-based personalities: the rock star, the demon, the
spaceman, and the catman. The original spaceman, Ace Frehley, and the original catman, Peter Criss, left the band separately in the early 1980s and again in
2002 following a reunion of original KISS members. Currently, replacements
86
Popular Music
Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer now respectively portray the spaceman and
catman alongside KISS founders Paul Stanley (rock star) and Gene Simmons
(demon).
Some fans have resisted the notion of having replacements in KISS. On
the Web site, KISSin UK (www.KISSinuk.com), a message board contains
fan dialogue regarding Thayers role in the band. One fan admitted that he did
not accept Thayer as a member of KISS, indicating that his presence made the
current incarnation seem like a tribute act. Another fans response argued
that having KISS with replacement musicians is better than not having the
brand around at all. KISS is KISS, and, Ill not be complaining when they
tour, says the fan.34
KISS is only one of many veteran rock brands that faced changes in its
artistic personnel. Journey and Styx, among others, are sustaining brand belief with new faces on stage. Both brands remain popular touring attractions.
Journeys recent tour, in fact, was ranked in the top 20 of 2006 tours by the
concert trade publication Pollstar. The Journey brand continues although its
members names and faces have changed, including the temporary addition
of new vocalist Jeff Scott Soto, who was recruited shortly after the 2006 tour
began. Former Journey drummer Steve Smith says that when a rock brand
is well-established, the music is what matters most. As long as the Journey
brand delivers the music that made it successful, audiences will be satised:
The new group carries on the sound that was created during the years of
the original Journeys creative peak. At this point, it is keeping the music
alive by touring and is continuing to develop new fans. This is good for
the catalogue and the longevity of the music. The fans dont seem to be
interested in new material. They want to hear the hits.35
Kotarba agrees. He says that brands consisting of ensembles rather than

individuals, such as Van Morrison or Paul McCartney, are often remembered
for their music rather than for their artistic personnel. People know the
songs but they dont know the players, he says. Fans want more of a jukebox experience. They want the hits.36 KISSs fourth guitarist Bruce Kulick
acknowledges that his status as a nonoriginal member of the group was overshadowed by the music he performed on stage. Kulick joined KISS following
the dismissal of two previous guitarists within two years. Im not sure fans
even knew who I was, he says. They may not even know whos in the band
now.37
Still, while a rock brand must deliver its classic material during performances to appease audiences, key dominant artistic personnel must be present, says Jeb Wright, rock historian and editor of online magazine Classic
Rock Revisited. Without a few of a brands principal artists on stage, credibility will be lost:
Rock Brands
87
Now, one must ask if Tommy Shaw left Styx or Gene Simmons left KISS or
Neal Schon left Journey would they be able to sell live shows at the capacity they are currently selling them at? The answer is no. While Journeys
original vocalist Steve Perry is absent and Styx does not have its original
vocalist Dennis DeYoung a large majority of the fans will stick around as
half a team is better than none, but if all key members are gone then you
will not see anyone ocking to the show.38
Personnel transitions are commonplace among veteran rock brands, but

for younger brands, such changes can present more extreme challenges. In
1981, the Motorhead brand had just begun to enjoy commercial success
when its guitarist Eddie Clarke departed. Although the brand was focused
on its founder, bassist, and vocalist Lemmy Kilmister, Clarkes replacement,
Brian Robertson, became a disruption in Motorhead, and audiences expectations were not met.
In his autobiography White Line Fever, Kilmister discusses the challenges
of maintaining the Motorhead brand with Robertson as the groups guitarist. Kilmister recollects Motorheads album Another Perfect Day, the rst
recording with Robertson. The album was a departure from the signature
Motorhead sound and offered a more rened, somewhat commercialized
sound. Kilmister himself speaks highly of Robertsons abilities and Another
Perfect Day but admits that both seemed to be detrimental to the brand, as
fans disliked the record, criticizing its commercial leanings.39
In addition to presenting fans with a Motorhead album that diverted from
the groups traditional formula, the brand wasnt delivering its previous hits
(including its signature hit Ace of Spades) while on tour. This, writes Kilmister, was a result of Robertsons inuence. Compounding the problems of
new musical direction and not playing the bands older material was Robertsons stage presence, which deviated from Motorheads black leather and
denim image. In his book, Kilmister discusses Robertsons increasingly distracting stage attire:
Brians fashion sense continued to shock and horrify fans throughout our
tour of Europe at the end of the year. Lets face it, ballet shoes and Motorhead do not mix! He stood out like a sore thumb, and I guess thats what he
wanted. On our last tour with him, he was wearing what looked like sweat
pants, only they were made out of gabardine, and he had them tied up at
the bottom with two strips of old, white towel. He was just being awkward
for the sake of it.40
Robertson would eventually be red from Motorhead. Although other eccentric musicians would enter and exit the ranks of Motorhead, there would
be no further deviation from the brands musical formula, image, or stage
presence. The current line-up includes Kilmister, guitarist Phil Campbell,
88
Popular Music
and drummer Mikkey Dee. It is the longest lasting version of the 35-year old
Motorhead brand to date. Still, Motorhead ultimately revolves around Kilmister. Janiss Garza, rock critic and Kilmisters co-author on White Line Fever,
explains why, without Kilmister, there is no Motorhead. She also points out
that multiple changes in personnel have factored into the brand:
Lemmy is the one who has sparked the loyalty. A lot of people from the
very old days still do miss Eddie Clarke, but the bottom line is that Lemmy
is the one who does most of the press and spouts off all the opinions. Because the line-up changes have involved getting new members who are
quirky characters in the Motorhead mold, its stayed consistent with what
Motorhead is about. But Lemmy is the main songwriter in the band. Its
clearly one voice that has carried on from album to album. Yes, the other
guys have contributed musically, and I know Phil Campbell is a strong
writer in his own right, but it all boils down to the Motorhead vibe, which
boils down to Lemmy.41
CONSISTENCY IS KEY
Meeting audience expectations is key in maintaining a successful and visible rock brand. This has indeed been the case for the classic rock brands
discussed in this chapter and will very well be the case for newer, younger
artists as well. Audiences do not want to be surprised by a brand. The Rolling
Stones could very well conduct a tour in which they played stripped-down
blues standards and none of their hits. Still, one must ask if ticket sales would
be as strong as they are during a standard, hit-lled Stones tour?
The examples posed by Springsteen and Bowie indicate that established
brands must invest time and energy in performing the music that made them
household names if they are to sell concert tickets. The true artist will no
doubt be horried by this fact. Being held hostage to ones past glory is frustrating for artists as evidenced by Kilmisters disdain for his bands signature
hit Ace of Spades. Still, a brand must put its audience well above artistic
integrity if it is to survive.
Because brands such as the Stones, Motorhead, Bowie, and Springsteen
have become institutions (at varying levels of commercial success) in the rock
world, many audiences do not see their catalogs growing beyond the hits of
yesteryear. In fact, most general audiences are likely to purchase a greatest
hits package rather than a new product. Again, this is no doubt frustrating for
artists who seek to create new works and not rest on the laurels of past glories. Still, the goal is to make the fans happy. The hits dene the brand. New
material appeases the loyalists while the general audience might head to the
concession stand when its performed live.
Rock brands must maintain a certain visual appeal as well as maintain its
audio integrity. Not every successful rock brand has a logo, but many do.
Rock Brands
89
From the most popular examples (Stones, KISS) to lesser-known but consistently used designs (Motorhead), logos are key identiers for rock brands. Additionally, they form associations between the brand and its persona. KISSs
logo complements its garish, cartoon-like stage presence, and its jagged S
design helps dene its brand of heavy metal. Likewise, the Stones Lips/
Tongue design reects the brands raunchy, sexy appeal.
The power of logos extends beyond its denition of the artists and their
music. Timeless rock logos can become fashionable whether they are on apparel or other merchandise. Stones and AC/DC T-shirts are worn by audiences of all ages. Often times, the person wearing the logo has no idea that
its even connected with a brand.
Through strategic placement of their logos, many brands, particularly
KISS, have extended the use of these identiers into live performances. The
logoas used on stage, in special effects, or on drum kitscontributes not
only to an audiences expectations, but to its experience when seeing the
brand perform live.
Sometimes, a logos design is strategic, as the case with Motorhead. The
artist created an image to complement the caustic sound and image that the
band favored. In other instances, such as the AC/DC logo, the design may
be rendered as a one-time marketing piece then adopted for future use. Artists designing these logos are both professional designerssuch as Gerard
Huerta, designer of AC/DCs logoor simply an artistic band member such
as KISS guitarist Ace Frehley. In both cases, there was no marketing science
employed in the design of these successful logos. Repetition bred familiarity
among the fans, which led to widespread recognition by general audiences.
Ironically, logos are more permanent aspects of brands than some artists
are. In many rock groups, members come and go, which can impact a brand.
When a popular member leaves, his/her replacement might not be received
as warmly by audiences. As shown in the Motorhead case study from the early
1980s, a new personality in a relatively young brand can impact audiences
beliefs and expectations. Additionally, the new face in the group also might
have an impact on the groups creative output as Robertson did on Motorheads. As Kilmister explained, the groups previously stripped-down sound
became polished, which alienated devotees. Likewise, his stage presence
did not jive with the Motorhead image. After one album and one tour, he
was sacked.
As recently seen in contemporary veteran brands such as KISS and Journey, however, audiences can accept replacement personnel for the sake of
keeping the brand intact. Of course, it helps when the brands primary creative team or charismatic members still remain. KISS can still be KISS as
long as vocalists Stanley and Simmons are present. Accordingly, the Stones
continue to tour (for now), and KISS continues to release new merchandise
(predominately archival DVD footage, clothing). What can new artists learn
90
Popular Music
from these veterans that continue to thrive when so many others have retired
from the music industry? In a word, consistency. These brands and many
others have remained fairly unswerving in terms of music, performances,
logo usage, and in retaining key personnel. The saying change is good does
not always apply to successful brands. Simply, revisit the NEW Coke asco
of the 1980s as a perfect example.
Consistency is certainly key for contemporary rock brands because they
must now contend with audiences who have little patience for disappointment and more options for instant entertainment. Now more than ever, its
crucial that new rock brands meet audiences expectations. Thanks to digital
technology, buying music is a little like purchasing fast food. In fact, its almost priced like fast food at 99 cents a song. Regardless of the cost, music is
often purchased for use on mobile devices (iPods, phones, mp3 players) and
used on-the-go.
Think about what happens when you cruise through your preferred hamburger chains drive-thru line, place an order, then discover when youre home
that an unfavorable recipe change has been made on your favorite sandwich.
Your expectations of this chain are dampened. The same scenario holds true
for the fan of a contemporary rock brand, who buys several new tracks, then
discovers during an hour-long commute that the group sounds nothing like
it did on its previous record. Of course, he could have previewed them, but
because hes a fan, why should he? He knows what his favorite artist sounds
like. Or, at least he thought he did.
Just as there are other fast-food chains to choose from, there are plenty
of rock brands (both new and classic) to explore as well. Locking in with
audiences needs will keep them coming back for more. As evidenced by The
Rolling Stones 2006 ticket sales, people stick with a proven commodity. New
rock brands, however, are challenged with proving themselves again and
again before truly connecting with a long-term audience.
NOTES
1. Jackson, Daniel M. 2003. Sonic Branding. New York: Palgrave, 86.
2. Jackson, 51.
3. Gobe, Marc. 2001. Emotional Branding. New York: Allworth, 131.
4. Holt, Douglas. 2004. How Brands Become Icons. Boston: Harvard Business
Press, 211.
5. Jackson, 80.
6. Jackson, 63.
7. Jackson, 68.
8. Ragas, Matthew W., and Bolivar Bueno. 2002. The Power of Cult Branding. California: Prima Venture, xxix.
9. Holt, 211.
10. Holt, 211.
Rock Brands
91
11. Jackson, 80.

12. Jackson, 80.
13. Holt, 211.
14. Ragas and Bueno, 2.
15. Jackson, 90.
16. Kotarba, Joseph, interview with author, Houston, Texas, September 2006.
17. Kotarba, interview.
18. Kilmister, Lemmy, and Janiss Garza. 2004. White Line Fever. New York: Citadel, 168.
20. KISS: Rock the Nation Live, dir. Jonathan Beswick, 136 min., Image Entertainment, 2005, DVD.
21. Rubenstein, Helena. 2002. Branding on the Internet. All About Branding (March).
http://www.allaboutbranding.com/index.lasso?article=175 (accessed January 2007).
22. Ibid.
23. Smith, Jerome D., and Lauren McMullen. 2002. Grow Your Logo Into A Brand,
From BrandEvolve Web site. January 1, 2002, n.p. http://www.brandevolve.com/news/
wp_growyourlogo.php (accessed August 10, 2008).
24. Kilmister and Garza, 98.
26. Petagno, Joe, interview with author, e-mail, August 2006.
27. Vasan, Sonia, interview with author, e-mail, August 2006.
28. Smith and McMullen, n.p.
29. Garden, James, interview with author, e-mail, Houston, Texas, January 2007.
30. Huerta, Gerard, interview with author, e-mail, Houston, Texas, September 2007.
31. Huerta, interview.
32. Garden, interview.
33. Smith and McMullen, n.p.
34. KISSinUk.com, http://www.KISSinuk.com/bb/? (accessed December 22, 2006).
35. Smith, Steve, interview with author, e-mail, Houston, Texas, September 2007.
37. Kulick, Bruce, interview with author, e-mail, Houston, Texas, October 2006.
38. Wright, Jeb, interview with author, e-mail, Houston, Texas, February 2007.
41. Garza, Janiss, interview with author, e-mail, Houston, Texas, January 2007.
chapter 6
Mapping the Territory: Cultural

Authenticity in World Music
Amy M. Corey
Music has the ability to both transport and inspire. In world music specically, listeners can explore the lands and cultures of the globe through
sound. We can climb the Andes Mountains, sail the South Pacic Sea, or trek
through the Arabian Desert. As world music invokes remote locations, it
also calls forth ideas of exotic instruments and foreign cultures. World music
can provide listeners with a sense of cultures and lifestyles far removed from
their own experiences. This picture of world music is but one snapshot and,
most notably, is taken from a Western point of view. Instead of invoking a
form of imperialist nostalgia, exploring world music from an American perspective must immediately acknowledge not only context but also privilege.
Because I take both context and privilege as both given and accountable, my
journey through world music is a challenging one. Rather than simply mapping the cultural territory of distant lands, the journey through world music
is one that must traverse power, economy, and ideology.
Itself, world music is a problematic category. It accommodates various forms
of music from different geographical regions. The category specically refers
to forms of ethnic and folk music with strong ties to local, regional, or even
national sounds. As a form of folk culture, it can be dened as the musical and
artistic expression of a given group of people and is thought to convey something about a unique way of life within a local community. Furthermore, folk
music is regarded as music of the common people that has been passed on by
memorization or repetition rather than by writing, and has deep roots in its
own culture.1 Because the whole of folk culture was originally rooted in oral
traditions, rather than in mediated or technological contexts, it is perceived
94
Popular Music
as an authentic cultural expression. Authenticity refers to the qualities of

genuineness and legitimacy in original forms of culture. In this way, folk
music is regarded as pure culture as it remains essential and untouched.
Most notably, it remains untainted by the interventions of the mass production technologies of the culture industry. The culture industry, as conceptualized by Theodor Adorno, refers to the ways in which the processes of
mass production and mass consumption forever alter the artistic value and
inherent integrity of cultural forms.2 Through production technologies,
music itself becomes formulaic and standardized. Consequently, culture
has become openly, and deantly, an industry obeying the same rules of
production as any other producer of commodities.3 In this way, the production of a musical product, such as a song or album, is indistinct from
the manufacture of an automobile or a bar of soap because culture now
impresses the same stamp on everything that is mass-produced.4 In this
view, standardized production also results in standardized consumption,
bringing with it the dangers of regressive listening in which listeners are
distracted from fullling their true needs such as autonomy and creativity
through their consumption of popular music. The danger lies not only in
commodifying musical forms, but also in its numbing effects on listeners.
In other words, through standardization and mass production, the culture
industry threatens to debase and trivialize music itself as well as those who
listen to it.
However, because world music is tied to local and ethnic cultures, it seems
to retain a certain degree of distance from the mainstream popular music of
the culture industry. In fact, it is often dened in opposition to popular music.
Specically, world music is regarded as an authentic, self-driven collective
expression . . . [ positioned] against music as commodity or industry product.5 Through a perceived distance, world music retains a sense of purity,
and its genuine cultural expressions are positioned outside of the mainstream.
This distinction, however, is highly problematic within the current phase
of capitalist production, distribution, and consumption of world music. For
instance,
On the one hand, music is a primary form of artistic expression; since the
dawn of civilisation, music has been one of the most signicant means by
which cultures have dened themselves. On the other hand, in the contemporary world, music is a relentlessly commercial industry generating billions of dollars in revenues for composers, performers, publishers, record
companies, and many other players. This paradox is sometimes represented
as a contradictioncreativity versus commercialism, the muse versus the
market, culture versus economicswhereby the two forces must inevitably pull in opposite directions.6
Mapping the Territory
95
In a music sector that generates $130 billion annually, artists, consumers,

media conglomerates, and independent labels alike are caught up in these
contradictions.7 As an industry itself, world music is thoroughly enmeshed
within the very systems of reproduction and commerce that original denitions of folk music disavow. In a context of global culture and global economy, these denitions are immediately called into question. For instance,
what happens to authentic forms of world music as they are removed from
local, ethnic contexts and transformed for global markets? In identifying
the form and content of these musical commodities in a context of cultural
and economic globalization, how is authenticity created or exploited? What
connections can be made between authenticity and ethnicity? Finally, how do
these distinctions organize world music through the production of market
positions?
GLOBALIZATION: MONEY, MUSIC,
AND MIGRATION
The popular consumption of world music in the United States highlights
both the process and the politics of globalization. First, popular consumption is marked by world musics increase in both availability and reception.
Once available only in the geographical site of its production, forms of world
music are now available in numerous locations. For instance, various styles
of the worlds music can be found on online sites such as Worldmusic.net and
itunes.com. Making cyberspace a signicant point of access, digital downloads increased 54 percent in 2007.8 Furthermore, world music is available
for listeners pleasureand for purchaseeverywhere from the Virgin
Megastore and Wal-Mart to Starbucks Coffee Shops. Actually, Starbucks
Entertainment Company has produced a multivolume series titled Hear
Music that showcases world music artists such as Cesaria Evora, who sings
traditional morna from Cape Verde; Bebel Gilberto, who sings bossa nova and
other Brazilian styles; The Gotan Project, who compose techno tango; and
The Spanish Harlem Orchestra, who perform salsa and Latin beats. Also indicating the popularity of world music, The Recording Academy awards
15 Grammys in world and folk music categories such as Best Traditional World
and Best Contemporary World.9 Not only mainstream venues but also small,
independent recording labels such as Putumayo World Music are signicant
factors in this trend. In fact, since Putumayos founding in 1993, the label
has sold over 20 million CDs and, in 2006, generated over $24 million in
sales.10
Second, globalization names the practice of crossing, and even condensing, geographical as well as economic borders. Two of globalizations dening factors include: (1) a perceived shrinking of the world and (2) the
consolidation of capitalist market forces across the globe. First, globalization
96
Popular Music
refers to the process by which planetary distance is being overcome. As the

theory has it: a new borderless world is appearing, freed from the tyranny
of distance.11 Globalization invokes advances in technology through which
it is now possible to not simply travel but also to communicate across great
distances in relatively short periods of time. This aspect of globalization has
positive or progressive potentials because it provides a means to explore
the worlds geographical regions, peoples, and heritages. World music is the
vehicle for the journey through which listeners can experience a variety of
world cultures. In this way, globalization and popular consumption are linked
as the world keeps getting smaller . . . you can go to Borders now and nd
the latest Algerian rai CD or a great African artist nobody knew before.12 In
short, globalization makes smaller, or shrinks, the world by making culture
accessible. In this way, world music is also embedded in the technology
through which it becomes available. Within this viewpoint, experiencing cultures as global can foster diversity and intensify a sense of human interconnectedness. Here, world music holds great potential for the development of
diversity, intercultural dialogues, and understanding.
Motivating this musical journey is a more uid denition of not only music
but also of culture itself. Under globalization, cultural formations . . . are
becoming increasingly mobile.13 In fact, culture is not a thing or a even
a system: its a set of transactions, processes, mutations, practices, technologies, institutions out of which things and events [e.g., world music] . . . are
produced, to be experienced, lived out and given meaning and value to in
different ways within the unsystematic network of differences and mutations from which they emerged to start with.14 Dening culture under globalization complicates the aforementioned denition of folk culture that was
clearly embedded in particular traditions and locations. Instead, regarding
cultures as sets of transactions and mutations, rather than as simple artifacts
of ways of life, immediately uproots them from their local or folk origins. An
apparent contradiction, the world music movement not only foregrounds
but also embraces the mobility of cultural formations. Only through globalization has world music become accessible. Once embedded in local
folk traditions, world music is now uprooted through processes of musical
migration.
However, the process of musical migration exceeds culture because world
music is also big business. Take, for example, the New Yorkbased Warner
Music Group who reported earning $869 million in only the fourth quarter
of 2007.15 In this vision, music is at once culture and commodity. As a crucial
function of globalization, when culture crosses borders, so does capital. For
instance, Warner Music International, a division of Warner Music Group,
promotes local repertoire around the world, which it distributes and markets across a network of afliates in more than fty countries.16 It is clear
that Warner Music International not only distributes and markets, but it also
97
prots from the production of local repertoire. Rather than growing in heterogeneous or even democratic ways, multinational recording corporations
tend to condense economic power. Identifying a tension between local and
global present in world music, global economies tend to absorb local economies. Not simply Warner Music Group but each major recording company
houses a division for world music because the big multinational corporations that dominate the music industry themselves organize their music divisions into units each concentrating on a different genre and audience.17 For
instance, Sony BMG is not only organized through divisions such as Sony
BMG Latin, but it also serves as an umbrella for a collection of smaller
music labels worldwide. For instance, Sony BMG houses several labels that
produce local music including Swedisc in Scandinavia, AKTH in Greece, and
Warnada in Malaysia.
This form of organization is typical in multinational media conglomerates
that account for over 85 percent of music sales.18 Specically, Warner Music
Group accounts for a 20.3 percent market share; Sony BMG accounts for a
25.0 percent market share; Universal Music Group accounts for a 31.9 percent market share; and EMI accounts for a 9.4 percent market share.19 These
four corporations are responsible for the majority of production, distribution, and of course, prot from music sales around the world. In this way,
large multinational corporations are integral to processes of musical migration. Such corporations mobilize great amounts of capital to produce and
distribute world music. However, directional ows of music and money are
not equal. In fact, capital from media conglomeration (and the corresponding amounts of economic power) tends to ow from north to south and from
west to east.20 In contrast, world music culture tends to ow from south to
north and from east to west. Such inequitable ows result in the increasing
control of local and national economies by big capitalism and is a primary
function of economic globalization.21
In sum, processes of globalization are formed at the convergence of geographical, cultural, and economic developments. In this way, forms of music
can travel across geographical borders; they merge and separate; they cross
and disrupt [economic] political and social divisions, and also, sometimes,
they strengthen them.22 While globalization may create greater diversity
and accessibility in cultural ows, it also creates more power and centralized
control in economic terms.
COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES
AND THE PROCESS OF SELECTION
The problems concerning cultural and economic ows are compounded
by the very category of world music itself. Most signicantly, the category
has been commercially, rather than musically, determined. Because world
98
Popular Music
music is inherently diverseit is made up of dissimilar sounds from distinct

regionsit is difcult to dene as a discreet musical genre. For instance,
how can we compare the quick clave of a Cuban guaguanco with the deep doumbek of an Egyptian beledi? How are these more traditional forms related to
hybrids or global electronica? All are categorized as world music but do not
share the same rhythms, melodies, or even the same instruments. World music
is made of diverse and essentially incomparable forms of music that are placed
in the same marketing, rather than generic, category. In other words, world
music is not a musical genre but constitutes, at best, a marketing category
for a collection of diverse genres from much of the developing world.23 Focusing on the developing world also highlights the process of grouping music
within the category as a process of discrimination. This is a strategic practice that conrms musics classication as complex and, above all, highly
selective.
In specic terms, selective categorization occurs across two dimensions
that identify world music as: (1) foremost a commercial category and (2) an
overwhelmingly non-Western cultural form. First, world music can be conceived as a selective commercial category of music, rather than a genre that
has inherent links to particular world regions.24 While world music includes
such disparate sounds as koto drums from Japan and panpipe from Peru,
these cultural forms retain a common link only through their foreign market value. The world music category itself was created in 1987 when vendors
added a new section to music stores.25 This section was created to provide
a central location, and thus a central point of access, for a variety of musical forms. This category effectively grouped together all forms of foreign
and folk music that couldnt neatly t into any of the other existing genres.
Creating world music as a category also established its market position as
separate from, even an alternative to, previously established (i.e., popular)
musical categories. In other words, the category/grouping also created a
location/position. Unlike other musical categories brought together based
on musical similarities, forms of world music were brought together for the
purpose of marketing. This also effectively unied disparate forms of music
in a way that connoted a sameness across a variety of distinct musics.
Secondly, world music is an overwhelmingly non-Western musical form.
Although some world music originates in the West, such as Celtic melodies or
Gregorian chants, the vast majority of world music comes from more exotic
African, Asian, Latin, Middle Eastern, and Pacic locations. For instance, of
the distinct world music subgenres featured by National Geographic, less than
10 percent are of Western origins.26 In addition, of The Rough Guide to World
Musics eight featured picks, none are of Western origins, though three feature
hybrid music.27 Because these are musical categories and featured picks, not
simply top-selling artists, it is clear that the process of selecting and classifying music is consequential.
99
Although Western folk music is clearly a part of the genre, the marketing focus of world music remains concentrated on the more exotic aspects of
ethnic music. Rather than constituting a market category based on musical
similarities, the emphasis of the category is based on a standard of ethnicity. Most signicantly, the standard of ethnicity functions as a brand identity. In this way, world music is essentially branded along ethnic lines. The
focus on ethnicity is also signicant because it marks a distinction between
Western and Other cultures. As a marketing category for a collection of
diverse genres from much of the developing world,28 ethnic brand identity is
thereby associated with third world cultural identity. Another way of looking at this as problematic is to identify that world music actually refers to
third world music.
Remember that all music is theoretically world music (i.e., originating on
one world or globe), but only certain music is categorized (i.e., branded) that
way. In other words, world music is a perennial feature of all societies across
the globe, but only some are labeled as such.29 The process of selection and
categorization is not accidental. World music is selected and categorized as
a way of branding ethnicity and capitalizing on the third world locations
and identities. In this way, world music should be regarded not simply as a
market category but also an ideological category. The ideological association is problematic for the world music category because: (1) it backgrounds
the presence of Western folk music, and (2) it marks and commodies third
world cultures.
IDEOLOGICAL CATEGORIES
AND ESSENTIALIZING ETHNICITY
As an ideological category, third/world music is based upon a basic binary
distinction between The West and The Rest.30 Here, there is a clear division between the West/rst world and the Rest/third world. In marking this
division, terms such as civilized/primitive, culture/nature, and even commercial/
authentic are employed in order to distinguish the rst world from the third
world. At base, binaries dene through difference. A binary consists of two
mutually exclusive terms that are dened in opposition. Viewed hierarchically, one term is valued, and the other term is devalued. As well, the denitions link with one another to essentially form a chain of meaning. In this
way, primitive, natural, and authentic become linked terms in dening the third
world. Additional binaries that are invoked through world music include
pure/debased, exotic/ordinary, spicy/bland, and even inside/outside. As a basic
meaning-making function, denition through difference may seem necessary to making sense of the world around us, but binaries remain, at best,
ideological. Specically, a binary system of representation reects a sense of
xity [that] is usually implied whenever music is discussed for pre-capitalist
100
Popular Music
societies, both in relation to the cultural and geographical origins of the

music, but also through the link to nostalgiarelated to yearnings for past
glories, lost youth and claims for styles of music that evade the corrupting
inuences of contemporary society and economy.31 These meanings are not
natural but created and held in place by ideology. Moreover, binary denitions also work to essentialize identities and x locations because within the
binary system of representation continuity is valued over change, stability is
preferred to cycles of fashion, and . . . links [from] music to particular places
establishes those links as traditions and genuine aspects of local cultures.32
Effectively essentializing third world identities, a link is created between ethnic tradition and cultural authenticity.
Capitalizing on the ideological functions of binary denitions, the First
World also establishes unequal structures for cultural circulation through
economic power in the global marketplace. Specically, the distinctions between The West and The Rest are exploited in order to stabilize a particular
market segment by stabilizing a denition of ethnic music as authentic music.
Recall that the global marketplace does not consist of egalitarian exchanges
across cultures or economies of equality. Under globalization, ows of capital
are unequal and function to secure the dominance of the Western marketplace. Displacing the utopian vision of globalization, world music is traded in
a space of commerce and competition. This space is not a democratic global
marketplace but instead truly refers to Western capitalist marketplace. In
other words, when ethnic music enters a global market, we are really talking
about third world music entering a rst world capitalist market.
At this point, a contradiction surrounding world music in a global context
is unearthed. As a form of global culture, it is uid, but as dened through
binaries, it is xed. Recall that global culture is extremely mobile and contingent. It exists as sets of transactions and processes rather than locations or
artifacts. As a form of global culture, world music is uprooted and becomes
de-essentialized. In this way, the creation of music, identity, and even location are contingent processes. However, the binary system of representation
seems to work against these notions of cultural mobility. This mode works
to x, rather than uproot, cultural formations. Under a concept of globalization, ethnicities and identities cant be essential, yet, they are regarded
as such under a binary style of thought. In this way, branding world music
along ethnic lines works to embed meaning in exotic locations and ethnic
identities. Take, for example, Cesaria Evora, the barefoot diva from Cape
Verde. Called the barefoot diva because she typically removes her shoes before
singing, she performs morna, the traditional folk music of her birthplace. Her
sound is smooth, soulful, and melodic, and as culturally embedded, can be seen
as an expression of the people in this geographical location. Here, Evora provides listeners with access to an authentic, ethnic experience as rooted in the
music of Cape Verde. However, even as morna is a sound implanted in a
101
particular geographical region, it is also listened to all over the world. Recall
that Evora is featured in Starbucks Entertainments Hear Music series. As
well, she has produced 18 albums, many of which are distributed by BMG
Classics, a division of Sony BMG. Situated within the opposing forces of
up/rooting, morna is transported from the cafs of Cape Verde to the Virgin
Megastores of London or San Francisco. In this way, world music simultaneously relies on both the mobility of global culture and the xity of ideologically based binaries. This inconsistency should not be read as a simple
contradiction but as the way in which the very concepts of xity and uidity
are ideologically produced.
Divorcing world music from the concept of essential ethnicity also complicates the notion of cultural authenticity. Recall that world music is commonly regarded as a pure or authentic form of culture due to its origins in
the oral traditions of folk culture. As a global cultural formation, however,
world music can no longer be seen as truly pure or authentic. Nevertheless,
world music retains what Walter Benjamin calls an aura of authenticity.33
By tying art to its origins in ritual practice, Benjamin claims that a work of
artor for that matter, any cultural formretains the aura of the practice
from which it is derived. For instance, we know that the earliest art works
originated in the service of ritualrst magical, then the religious kind. It
is signicant that the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely
separated from its ritual function.34 As world music originated in local folk
cultures, a strong bond is formed surrounding its tie to authenticity in which
ritual is the location of its original value. Moreover, small scale societies in
every world region, emphasiz[e] the role of music in both everyday life and
ritual life.35 In this way, the link between authenticity and world music is
strengthened because of its proximity to folk culture. A cultural form can
never be completely separated from its original ritual function, and world
music is perceived as even closer to these rituals. Binary denitions coupled with the proximity to folk culture work to stabilize and essentialize the
primitive functions of local cultures. While true authenticity is, of course, an
impossibility within global culture, world music continues to be perceived as authentic music. Ironically, world musics tenuous claim to authenticity is also
central to its commercial success.
MAKING MUSIC AND MARKETING
AUTHENTICITY
World music retains a sense of authenticity through an aura that is enhanced through its proximity to folk culture. The sense of authenticity is
also enhanced through a perceived distance from popular music. Recall that
folk music is often dened in opposition to popular music in which music
as an authentic, self-driven collective expression . . . [is positioned] against
102
Popular Music
music as commodity or industry product.36 The sense of distance is created

through: (1) the presence of divisions for world music within major record
labels and (2) the positions created by independent record labels. Both sets of
divisions imply that world music is somehow different from popular music,
and the divisions effectively set it apart. While a sense of distance is present
for the world music divisions of major record labels, such as Sony BMG, it
is not as strong as the sense of distance produced by smaller independent labels. Independent labels such as Putumayo World Music, New Earth Records,
Real World Records, and Rough Guide Releases focus production exclusively
on world music rather than on diversied musical forms. One way of looking
at this phenomenon is to dene independent labels simply in relationship to
a niche market. This, however, would be an oversimplication because the
major labels also have a relationship to the same niche market. Instead, the
presence of independent labels is central in creating a sense of authenticity
for the world music category as a whole. In specic terms, the perception
of authenticity is enhanced through the independent labels position. Most
signicantly, independent labels are positioned outside of the majors. In this
way, outside effectively names an alternative market position. The association is made because as world music remains separate, it also seems to remain
pure. In other words, through independent labels, world music appears to be
untainted by the culture industry. Of course, this is far from true because:
(1) independent labels use the very same production technologies as major
labels, (2) they rely on the very same networks for distribution as the major
labels, and (3) they are also complicit in the creation and exploitation of
ethnic/authentic denitions.
Independent and major labels alike use the same production, reproduction, and distribution technologies. Even WOMEX, the worlds largest music
networking conference, is implicated in these systems. WOMEX is designed
as a forum for independent artists and labels to gain exposure and distribution.37 According to UNESCO, WOMEX is
the most important international professional market of world music of
every kind. This international fair brings together professionals from the
worlds of folk, roots, ethnic and traditional music and also includes concerts, conferences and documentary lms. It contributes to networking
as an effective means of promoting music and culture of all kinds across
frontiers.38
Using networking as an effective means of promoting music appears to

stand in opposition to the mass distribution techniques of the culture industry. As outside, the artists and labels participating in WOMEX effectively
produce world music independently. However, they ultimately will have to
103
work within the connes of major labels to achieve mainstream distribution.

In specic terms, world music is more usually produced by independent
labels than by majors, although majors often distribute and market music
produced independently.39 As the smaller, independent labels achieve distribution through the systems of major labels, such as Warner Music International or even the International Online Distribution Alliance, they clearly
take part in the culture industry.
In this role, the distinction between commercial and authentic becomes less
distinct. Rather than constituting a pure contradiction, however, this functions as an organizing principle in which the commercial/authentic distinction also organizes so much music making and marketing for major
and independent labels alike.40 As an organizing principle, it solidies world
musics alternative market position thereby conrming its perceived authenticity. However, the perception of this distance cannot be legitimized in light
of recording, mass production, and especially mass distribution techniques
that make it available. Specically,
This trend has continued to the point now where many otherwise independent labels are distributed by one of the major transnationals. In fact it has
been suggested that the independent record companies act in a way that
serves the potential interests of the majors. They are generally involved in
developing music outside the mainstream; if their music is successful and
generates new audiences, they may begin to pose a threat to the majors
market dominance. If so, they may simply be absorbed by the majors (and
in the process the sharp edge of whatever new sounds they have championed may become blunted by being re-packaged for mass taste). Thus,
insofar as independents may act as a source of new talent and new sounds
to feed the demands of the majors for novelty and innovation, the relationship between the two types of companies may be thought of as symbiotic
rather than oppositional.41
This organizing principle is further problematic because the criteria to

differentiate classical, folk, and popular music are articial and at best localized.42 Under a concept of global culture, the distinction between categories of music may no longer by applicable at all. For instance, all music
that is heard and enjoyed can be interpreted as popular in some sense.
Whether talking about traditional musical styles that remain important in
the social practices of individual communities or migrant groups, the mass
produced output of record labels, or the categorization of music in record
shops.43 The categories that previously dened, differentiated, and xed cultural forms have been uprooted under globalization. As a foundational denition for world music, the very distinction between folk music and popular
music is cast into doubt.
104
Popular Music
CONCLUSION
As a form of global culture, world music is part of a mobile formation that
traverses distance in a borderless world. However, world music is caught
in the tension between the drive to embed and the desire to uproot. This
process is also realized through unequal ows of culture and economy. As a
commercial category, rather than a distinct musical genre, world music is an
overwhelmingly non-Western cultural form. Disparate sounds are grouped
together based solely on their foreign market value. Additionally, because the
world music category remains focused on ethnicity, world music needs to
be recongured as third world music. As a problematic ideological category,
the distinction for third world music is rmly held in place through a binary
system of representation and especially through a distinction between The
West and The Rest. Tying third world music to nostalgic notions of rituals
in primitive cultures also works to strengthen its aura of authenticity. As a
market category, world music labels work to create a sense of distance from
the mainstream culture industry. World music is, of course, deeply enmeshed
within the production and distribution systems of the culture industry, but
it retains the appearance of purity through its alleged distance. Each factor
contributes to the production of perceived authenticity in world music. Here,
world music is not simply a form of culture or musical genre but a carefully
constructed brand. The brand capitalizes, both literally and metaphorically,
on ethnic forms of music as authentic forms of music. However, the question
of authenticity is no longer a question of truth or falsity; instead, it is a question of production. As heterogeneous forms of world music enter a global
marketplace, authenticity is strategically produced through commercial categories, ideological categories, and market positions. Most signicantly, it is
not the sounds or rhythms, not the melodies or music itself, but authenticity that is the product being sold.
As enabled by the continuing processes of globalization, world music will
most certainly continue to grow commercially. New venues and technologies, especially digital downloads, make it easier than ever for global consumers to discover the new sounds of primitive cultures. In fact, early
indicators are that the new digital revolution will be a huge plus for folk
music, helping it to be heard by millions of people that the old lters of the
pop industry prevented it from reaching.44 Implicated here is the possibility for technology to diversify distribution, thus creating a more democratic
system and potentially mitigating corporate conglomeration. However, because independent music creates alternative market positions that actually
serve the interests of major labels, this lter increases their potential to
control local music and local economies. In other words, this is a lter that
does not exclude but instead absorbs more and more of the worlds music and
the worlds audiences. These trends ultimately point toward the continued
105
concentration of global economy. Also implicated in this trend is a greater

need to be critical of the investments and consequences as economies of entertainment traverse the globe.
NOTES
1. Virginia Technical Institute Department of Music, Music Dictionary, Virginia
Technical Institute, http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary.
2. Theodor Adorno, The Culture Industry (London: Routledge, 1991).
3. J. M. Bernstein, Introduction to The Culture Industry, by Theodor Adorno (London: Routledge, 1991), 9.
4. Theodor Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. C. Lenhardt (London: Routledge,
1984), 120.
5. Simon During, Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge,
2005), 127.
6. David Throsby, The Music Industry in the New Millennium: Global and Local
Perspectives, paper presented at the meeting for Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity, UNESCO, Paris, France, October 2002.
7. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry Market Research,
Music Market Data 2007, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry,
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_statistics/index.html.
8. Ibid.
9. The Grammy Awards, 50th Grammy Awards Nominations, The Recording
Academy, http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/50th_show/list.aspx.
10. Patricia Meschino, Island Hopping, Billboard, December 8, 2007, 49.
11. Simon During, Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2005), 81.
12. Jim Bessman, The Year in World Music, Billboard, December 29, 2001, 113.
14. Ibid.
15. Warner Music Group, Warner Music Group Annual Report 2007, Warner
Music Group, http://investors.wmg.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=182480&p=irol-reports
annual.
16. Warner Music Group International, About WMG, Warner Music Group,
http://www.wmg.com/recordedmusic/?id=8a0af8120da8434e010dadfc69890538.
2005), 124.
18. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry Market Research,
Music Market Data 2007, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry,
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_statistics/index.html.
19. Ibid.
20. Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television Studies (London: Routledge,
2004).
21. Ibid., 87.
23. John Connell and Chris Gibson, Sound Tracks: Popular Music, Identity, and Place
(London: Routledge, 2003), 153.
106
Popular Music
24. John Connell and Chris Gibson, World Music: Deterritorializing Place and
Identity, Progress in Human Geography 28, 3 (2004): 343.
25. T. Brennan, World Music Does Not Exist, Discourse 23 (2001): 44 62.
26. National Geographic Music, Music Genres AZ, National Geographic, http://
worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com/worldmusic/view/page.basic/home (accessed
October 5, 2007).
27. The Rough Guide to World Music, Features and Interviews, World Music Network, http://www.worldmusic.net/wmn/news/features (accessed October 5, 2007).
(London: Routledge, 2003), 153, italics added.
29. John Connell and Chris Gibson, World Music: Deterritorializing Place and
Identity, Progress in Human Geography 28, 3 (2004): 343.
30. Stuart Hall, The West and The Rest: Discourse and Power, in Formations of
Modernity, ed. Stuart Hall and B. Gieben (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association
with the Open University, 1992), 275332.
32. Ibid.
33. Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,
in Media and Cultural Studies: Key Works, ed. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M.
Kellner (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 4870.
34. Ibid., 53.
36. Simon During, Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2005),
127.
37. WOMEX, This is WOMEX, The World Music Exposition, http://www.
womex.com/realwomex/main.php?id_headings=65&id_realwomex=10.
38. Ibid.
2005), 129.
40. Ibid., 128.
41. David Throsby, The Music Industry in the New Millennium: Global and Local
Perspectives, paper presented at the meeting for Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity, UNESCO, Paris, France, October 2002.
43. Ibid.
44. Scott Alarik, The Business of Folk Music in the New Millenium, Sing Out, 51,
3: 72.
chapter 7
I Gave My Rights Away for a Song:

How Billy Bragg Persuaded MySpace
to Change Its Tune on Ownership
Stephanie Vie
WHO OWNS THE MUSIC, MTV OR ME?

When one voice rules the nation/Just because theyre top of the pile/
Doesnt mean their vision is the clearest.
Billy Bragg, Ideology
English musician Billy Bragg has long championed the underdog, the disenfranchised, and the downtrodden. The lyrics of his songs speak for the generations of individuals who have stood strong in the face of injustice, and he
himself is no stranger to controversy, having championed the socialist party
in England for many years. His music, a blend of traditional folk and punk
rock, often features eloquently worded protestsagainst the futility of war,
against the fascist party, against homophobic sentiment. These songs are infused with genuine insight and humour, as well as a sustained and personal
commitment to political and humanitarian issues.1 Born in 1957, Bragg
has thus had a long, though not particularly protable, career as a musician, punctuated by his work at political rallies, his one-time championship
of socialism, and the release of his 2006 book The Progressive Patriot, which
continues Braggs uninching cry for British nationalism.
In early May 2006, Bragg once again drew headlines, this time not for his
political polemicism but instead for the sudden removal of all of his music
108
Popular Music
from the popular online social networking site MySpace.com. Originally the
singer had joined the site to promote his music, presumably to an audience
of individuals likely not familiar with Braggs musicthat is, the majority of
MySpace.com users, who largely fall between 13 to 25 years old. Like all
online sites that house user-generated content and data, MySpace has particular terms and conditions; the site offers free (ad-supported) server space
for musicians to upload songs, music videos, and images. A concerned friend,
however, pointed out to Bragg that MySpaces terms and conditions seemed
to imply that the site had a nonexclusive, fully paid and royalty-free worldwide license to any songs uploaded.2 The full text of the original terms and
conditions noted that:
by displaying or publishing . . . any Content . . . on or through the Services,
you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royaltyfree, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited
levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform,
publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on
and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
back-up or residual copy of the Content posted by you may remain on the
MySpace.com servers after you have removed the Content from the Services, and MySpace.com retains the rights to those copies.3
Bragg withdrew his entire catalog of music from MySpace in protest. About
a month later, in the face of Braggs repeated complaints in the media regarding these terms and conditions, MySpace changed them to specically
reassure users that theynot the sitecontinued to own the rights to their
materials.
Afterward, in a Guardian article Who Owns the Music, MTV or Me?
Bragg posed a question central to the debate regarding intellectual property
ownership in online social networking sites that I believe offers us insight
into one of the essential concerns that have emerged from the widespread use
of social networking sites to promote music:
The demand that users waive all moral rights to their material in order to
join a service brings into question the role of social networking sites. Will
they usher in a revolution in the music industry by allowing self-promoted
artists to circumvent the major record companies who have stood as gatekeepers of public taste for so long? Or will they simply be the means by
which the industry keeps its monopoly on copyright ownership and earnings through the silent harvesting of intellectual property rights?4
Braggs campaign for artists rights provides an opportunity for academics

to enter into a conversation regarding digital intellectual property rights as
I Gave My Rights Away for a Song
109
applied to media posted in online social networking sites. His experiences

with MySpace.com illustrate the difculties even professional musicians
face in understanding the legalities of copyright law as they exist in online
spaces. Although traditional copyright of physical materials is often convoluted, placing works in an online realm introduces new challenges to copyright, namely how intangible digital materials should be addressed with
regard to ownership and fair use. Because changes in digital copyright law
are slow-going, outright resistance and protest such as Braggs are the most
efcient and necessary way to enact revolutions.
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAW

Intellectual property constitutes one of the most pressing and broadranging concerns of our times.5
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085,
for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we dont give a
dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it,
thats all we wanted to do.Woody Guthrie6
Ownership, authorship, and copyright will never be issues that we will be
able to simply write into law and then walk away from. However, by examining the various shifts in intellectual property and copyright law throughout the ages, we can see a pattern emerge, one that takes creative freedom
away from artists and places oftentimes unnecessary restrictions on the use
of media in our culture. Even today, many aspects of intellectual property
law are being hotly debated, such as music sampling, fair-use guidelines, and
parody, to name a few. We have come, it seems, to a crossroads: Shall we radically revise our notions of copyright, authorship, and property in the wake
of a digital age, or shall we attempt to hold on to previous, perhaps outdated,
notions of ownership?
Certainly intellectual property and copyright law has been challenged
with the propagation of peer-to-peer le-sharing programs such as Kazaa and
Napster and court cases such as the 2005 MGM v. Grokster Supreme Court decision. Conclusions regarding the fate of copyright in our culture will not be
easily reached, but the rocky transition may be eased by carefully examining
the past, for debates over copyright law and intellectual property are surely
nothing new. Just as new technologies of reproduction in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries were followed by major upheavals in copyright law, we
seem poised on the verge of a similar paradigm shift in the twenty-rst century as the ramications of the Internet and digital media reproduction force
additional revisions of copyright and intellectual property law.
110
Popular Music
The emergence of the concepts of authorship and ownership of works occurred in sixteenth-century Britain with the London Stationers Companys
monopoly over printed works.7 It was not until the early eighteenth century
that authors began to truly assert ownership of their works. One of the most
notable cases of copyright law infringement was a case in 1774, Donaldson v.
Becket, in which Thomas Becket had purchased a book copyright from an
estate and then challenged Andrew Donaldson, who argued that statutory
copyright gave him the rights to reprint the book in question: Becket and his
partners had paid 505 at Millars estate auction in 1769; had they bought
anything?8 At the center of this case was the idea of property as an intangible rather than tangible good. Becket had purchased an idea, the rights to a
book that he did not originally author. Could he then legally lay claim to this
property in court? Copyright law currently differentiates between ideas,
which cannot be copyrighted, and their expression, which can be copyrighted;
furthermore, the law states that only material objects can be protected.9 As
a result, these differences raise difculties for the denition of music (and
reect copyrights origins in the protection of literary works).10
Donaldson v. Becket was the beginning of a long chain of legal and social struggles to understand ownership of intangible property, of an authors
ideas, a struggle that continues today as we puzzle out the complexities of
the changing nature of technology, reproduction, and ownership. One of the
things that makes intellectual property such a complicated concept is its high
uidity compared to physical property.11 Intellectual property can be copied,
shared, and distributed without diminishing its value at all. In fact, the worth
of intellectual property, measured economically, culturally, politically, and/or
socially, is often dramatically enhanced by the extent to which it circulates.12
Today, marketing terms such as buzz and the tipping point highlight the
fact that advertisers want and may even need to offer substantial samples of
goods to generate interest and guarantee sales of goods.
Consider the case of pop star Britney Spears, whose October 2007 album
release, Blackout, has been promoted almost as much by the accounts of her
personal turmoil in the gossip rags as the likely purposefully leaked singles
disseminated online to anxious fans. Blackout peaked in second place on the
Billboard Hot 100 music charts, and Spears recent single Gimme More
climbed the charts as well to reach number three. Spears success is not unusual; she is the only female artist in the United States to claim four Billboard
Top 100 Number One albums in a row.13 However, Blackout was successful
not so much because the album generated interest on its own, but because
fans were intrigued by the media portrait portrayed of the troubled singer.
After her divorce, custody of her two young boys was taken away after she
was declared an unt mother, and she was ridiculed mercilessly in the press
after her failed attempt at a comeback on the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards
show. During 2007 and 2008, Spears has been in and out of rehab as well
111
as hospitalized and held for psychiatric evaluation. Despite Spears personal

life falling apart around her, marketing buzz was still able to provide her with
more-than-adequate sales of her fth album.
Along with the ill-dened marketing term buzz, Malcolm Gladwells The
Tipping Point offers a satisfying metaphor for advertising success. The tipping point of an idea or product is the moment at which a critical mass of
participants or purchasers has been reached; it is difcult to predict how or
why a tipping point will be reached, and quite often it seems to be the result
of luck and timing above all. Gladwells The Tipping Point and Blink both
discuss social change and reasons why individuals make decisions or perform
certain actions, focusing in part on how connectors and mavens help promote social change. In social networking sites in particular, new ideas are
spread via charismatic individuals or those who simply reach a wide group of
users, an easy accomplishment as social networking sites aggressively promote the formation of both strong and weak ties. In fact, MySpace itself is
a perfect example of the power of buzz. The sites popularity spread mainly
based on word-of-mouth promotion and the aggressive marketing efforts of
its cocreators, two connectors/mavens who had an idea for a particular kind
of networking site they wanted to see take off.
Though early British copyright law was muddled and difcult to understand, it clearly placed the foundation of an authors claim to copyright in
the registration of his claim to the work. The law was radically transformed
in 1911 such that an authors claim to the copyright of his work was the
term of his life plus 50 years. With the reformation of copyright law in 1911,
an authors rights began at the creation of his work, whether it was music,
sculpture, a painting, or a book. All were given equal treatment under the
new law, which both simplied the matter as well as placed control back
into the hands of the author. Over the years, however, there is no doubt that
there has been a gradual extension of copyright regulation. The period of
copyright has gradually been extended, there is no longer the need to renew
copyright and the scope of material has extended to cover derivative works.
Much infringement has been criminalized and technical protection devices
recognized.14
In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act, which lengthened the copyright term to the life of the author plus
70 years, 20 years beyond the earlier 1911 copyright law. Commonly referred
to as the Bono Act, after Sonny Bono, who championed the law, the Copyright Term Extension Act:
was passed by Congress after intense lobbying from companies like Disney
(the copyright for Steamboat Willie, the rst cartoon appearance of Mickey
Mouse, was due to expire in 2004). It also extended copyright protection
for valuable songs like Happy Birthday to You and This Land Is Your
112
Popular Music
Land. These two songs ironically emerged from a folk tradition that emphasized the borrowing of lyrics and melodies, and which saw culture as a
common resource to be shared, not privately owned. Both songs were built
on preexisting melodies that date back to the nineteenth century.15
As McLeod points out, there is a certain delicious irony in the fact that the
copyright protections of two folk songs were extended despite the fact that
the folk song is, by denition, and as far as we can tell, by reality, entirely
a product of plagiarism.16 The irony also extends to Braggs ght against
MySpaces terms and conditions, as several of the songs he pulled from the
site were songs based on unrecorded Woody Guthrie lyrics used with permission from Nora Guthrie, his daughter; Guthrie is perhaps most famous
for recording one of the songs protected by the extended copyright act, This
Land Is Your Land.
As a result of the Bono Act, even commonplace songs such as Happy
Birthday to You remain protected under copyright law and can cost several
thousands of dollars in royalty payments when used in public performance.
Happy Birthday, originally composed in 1893 and copyrighted in 1935, is
not scheduled to expire from copyright until 2030 in the United States. Its
use in lm and public performance can command around $5,000 to $20,000
for a single instance of the song. Happy Birthday to You is one of the clearest examples of how current copyright law in the United States often goes
too far in its protection of long-dead artists copyrights. Over these many
years, then, copyright law has been fundamentally transformed as a result of
the inuence of emergent technologies.
What is most crucial in a historical account of these legal changes is an
explanation of why they occurred, partly because of new forms of unfair competition, partly because of pressure on the patent system, but largely because
of new developments in what we now call the media. 17 In the nineteenth
century, the phonograph allowed for the easy reproduction of music; in the
twenty-rst century, digital reproduction of music and lm was made both
affordable and easy via the use of CD and DVD burning software and hardware. And, with the emergence of the World Wide Web, the transmission of
digitally reproduced les through peer-to-peer networks became a simplied
process with complex ramications. As Simon Frith points out in his article
Copyright and the Music Business, the details of musical copyright are
themselves a somewhat incoherent response to changing circumstance.18 As
intimated earlier, one of the major changes in U.S. copyright law is the emergence of online social networking sites and other spaces where digital media
can be swapped and shared. Social networking sites shed interesting light on
the gray area of copyright law in the United States. In particular, the case of
Billy Bragg vs. MySpace.com shows that even professional artists can often be
unaware of the intricacies of our convoluted copyright laws.
113
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS AND DIGITAL

COPYRIGHT ISSUES
Although online community-oriented social gathering spaces have been
around almost as long as the Internet itself, online social networking sites
represent a signicant shift in our understandings of what it means to connect with others on the World Wide Web. In the early eighties, Howard
Rheingold waxed rhapsodically about the Whole Earth Lectronic Link (the
WELL), a virtual community where individuals could share materials, post
their thoughts, and band together. Today, though the WELL is still around,
its popularity has been far eclipsed by online social networking sites, which
have captured the attention of hundreds of millions of individuals across
the globe.
Social networking sites are virtual digital places that occupy neither
space nor time. They are inherently discursive spaces where people actively
convene to commune with others.19 Such computer-mediated environments
allow users to move beyond the connes of actual physical space; participants
can thus convene from any place, at any time, in many different ways. Social
networking sites build upon many of the features that previous computermediated environments such as MOOs and chat rooms offered, but one major
difference is that most current social networking sites such as MySpace,
Friendster, and Facebook offer more than just the opportunity for users to
chat, converse, and interact verbally. These sites provide a space for users to portray themselves in a particular lighttheir online self-identityand forge
connections with others who have similar interests by networking. These
sites attempt to link individual users via degrees of interest, afliation with a
group, or social connections; individual users are like nodes, which are then
connected via social ties, forming interwoven networks of participants.
On MySpace, for example, users are said to be friends or in your extended network if they are a friend of a friend. MySpace in particular offers
features that were not possible in earlier computer-mediated environments,
such as the ability to upload prole photos, upload music and music videos,
write blogs where others can comment, and so on. The combination of these
features allows for many different ways participants can approach the social
networking aspect of the site. Because of their rich variety of features and,
in particular, the ease of sharing multimedia compositions with others, online social networking sites have captivated millions of users and are quickly
becoming ubiquitous on college campuses in particular but also throughout
the world.
These networking sites focus on the interests and activities of the individual while allowing them to use basic HTML along with embedded multimedia clips, such as music videos, to jazz up their prole pages and share
them with friends. Much of the media shared on these sites contributes to
114
Popular Music
what Lawrence Lessig has termed the remix culture, works that rely heavily on sampling already-published material. Thus, online social networking
sitesbecause of their large membership numbers and easy-to-use communication toolsare rapidly becoming repositories of this user-created content. To more easily share materials among individuals, their sites can be
linked together by declaring a friendship bond between the two users; larger
connections can then be made by establishing links among many different
possible friends available in a network. To some extent, collaborative elements are built into the site design, along with features that allow for more
traditional individualistic expression; the combination of the two combined
with word-of-mouth promotion has pushed MySpace into headlines and the
collective consciousness of many twentieth-century individuals.
It is important to consider the impetus for the social networking site
MySpace before assessing its effect on copyright and intellectual property.
Cofounder Tom Anderson weathered several failed attempts to promote his
band. Instead, he created a site where he envisioned bands could easily network and connect with each other for free. MySpace therefore has aggressively worked to promote itself as a site to share ones own music as well as
discover new bands. The founders of MySpace, Tom Anderson and Chris
DeWolfe, designed the site by borrowing the most attractive features displayed in other incarnations of networking sites and blogging sites, compiling these features in one easy-to-use Web site. Their site included photos,
blogs, personal prole spaces, and so onall successful aspects of earlier
sites that capitalized on the establishment of social networks. However, to
pitch MySpace as a unique addition to the social networking universe, Anderson and DeWolfe added an additional layer to the site: music promotion.
Bands began to use MySpace as a space to advertise concerts and music,
and the site was quickly picked up in various media, highlighted as a new
opportunity for musicians interested in self-promotion. MySpace became immensely protable for Anderson and DeWolfe, who sold the site to Rupert
Murdochs News Corporation in July 2006 for $580 million.
Interestingly, many users have begun utilizing MySpace as a free dating
site and are thus moving away from for-prot sites such as Match.com and
eHarmony. Some business owners promote themselves via their MySpace
proles, and a small portion of users have emerged as MySpace celebrities,
individuals who have aggressively pursued fame through MySpace. Tila Tequila, one such MySpace celebrity, is a former Playboy model who wanted to
move into acting and singing. As the front woman for her band, Jealousy, she
was featured on the rst MySpace music compilation. Tila is infamous for
her MySpace networkingat last look, she had almost two million friends
on the site. The immense popularity of the site helps users to successfully tailor
the site to their needs for promotion and marketing, such as Tila Tequilas rapid
rise to fame through MySpace. What prompted MySpace to take off so fast,
115
and so fara feat which was largely accomplished without spending money
on advertisingwas a lucky combination of kairotic timing, word-of-mouth,
and appealing design.
Anderson noted in an interview with Forbes that the site provided features
and freedoms that other social networking sites didnt, thus offering users
a site that built on the success of other online community sites, but with a
twist:
A lot of the early growth . . . had to do with the features and what our competitors were not allowing people to do. We recognized from the beginning that we could create proles for the bands and allow people to use
the site any way they wanted to. We didnt stop people from promoting
whatever they wanted to promote on MySpace.20
Because of his experience as a musician in a band that failed to take off, Anderson believed that a networking site such as MySpace would allow smaller
bands to succeed in a society that, until recent years, has favored artists who
sign on with large corporations that invest huge amounts of money in promoting the artists. Though artists often receive an initial advance, this money
is usually pitted against the amount of the parent companys promotion; an
artist or group who doesnt make the cut and sell enough units can end up
bankrupt rather quickly. But the technological advancements in recent years
have shifted the means by which bands are promoted. No longer must artists rely on the protective backing of large corporate interests or else go the
more difcult route of aggressive self-marketing through their own label.
Today, artists can hype themselves as a product in social networking sites
such as MySpace and reach their target audiences quickly and easily.
However, MySpace was acquired by Rupert Murdochs News Corporation
when that company bought MySpaces parent company, Intermix Media Inc.
for $580 million. In large part, Braggs decision to remove his music from
MySpace was prompted by the fact that the site was now owned by a large
media conglomerate; originally, he could not necessarily be reassured that
his work would not be used without his consent for other purposes. Ironically, Murdoch chose to acquire Intermix and MySpace because of the possibilities that media convergence in these spaces offered, such as the ability
of MySpace to provide unedited, unfettered access to content and news to
users. In an interview with the BBC News, Murdoch railed against the idea
of newspapers editing content into a one-size-ts-all package to be consumed without question by the reader:
Young people dont want to rely on a God-like gure from above to tell
them whats important, Mr. Murdoch said. And to carry the religion
analogy a bit further, they certainly dont want news presented as gospel.
Instead, they want their news on demand, when it works for them. They
116
Popular Music
want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it. They want
to question, to probe, to offer a different angle.21
Ironically, Murdochs assertion that people want control over the media,
instead of being controlled by it was encapsulated quite clearly in Braggs
response to MySpaces terms and conditions. Rather than being controlled
by the sites peculiarly stringent intellectual property clause, Bragg chose instead to resist this media and protest against it. His concern was for the generations of young musicians who might, like him, not carefully read the terms
and conditions and, as a result, might sign their rights away for the privilege of
allowing MySpace to promote their songs. Though Bragg had been careful
over the years to retain most of the copyrights to his songs, licensing them
to the record companies that have released his albums over the years, his
concern was for the generation of people who are coming to the industry,
literally, from their bedrooms.22
Indeed, many young adults growing up in the wake of constant technological access are growing up less critical of media, unable to analyze at a deep
level just what it means to be a participant in a certain technology. These socalled digital natives are unlikely to read the terms and conditions of a Web
site before clicking through and agreeing. Braggs origins are in the resistance movements of early British punk and folk music, with the underlying
philosophy among some practitioners . . . of a communal effort where commoditization of the product was undesirable or even unavailable.23 As such,
he has long been steeped in the idea of protest, of a (perhaps cynical) distrust
of big business and media conglomerations. For Bragg, ghting the restrictive terms and conditions of a social networking site is another step in a long
tradition of opposition against fascism, homophobia, religion, and so on. Can
we necessarily assume the same of todays digital natives, who have grown up
accepting the ubiquity of technology in their lives? Not necessarily.
Braggs protest, thus, is a clear case of the necessity of encouraging all
users of technology to approach cautiously, to think about the impacts of
terms and conditions on their rights, and to think above all of what they may
be giving away and receiving in return. After all, Bragg almost gave away his
rights for the ability to promote his songs that epitomized the ght against
the relentless encroachment of capitalism; it would have been a disappointing
quirk of fate if MySpace had in fact retained control of Braggs music without
his explicit, informed consent. The site did change its terms and conditions
eventually, though it did not explain any connection between Braggs protests and the revised terms and conditions, which included the words, The
license you grant to MySpace.com is nonexclusive (meaning you are free
to license your content to anyone else in addition to MySpace.com). After
being interviewed about the changes, Bragg noted that he found the possibilities of social networking sites both exhilarating and disturbing:
117
Social networking sites are a revolutionary tool for new artists who utilise
[sic] them in order to gain a following, said Bragg. Any ambiguity about
the ownership of rights could have serious implications not only for artists
but for the sites themselves. If this new medium is to attain its full potential,
it is crucial that artists are able to post content secure in the knowledge that
doing so will not hinder their future career and earning potential.24
CONCLUSION
In order to benet from their intellectual property, copyright owners
have to be able to administer their rights.25
Changes in intellectual property and copyright laws are often the result
of change that is forced by the emergence of particular technologies. With
the creation of Gutenbergs movable type printing press and the shift from
priceless hand-lettered books to books distributed on a much larger scale,
notions of intellectual property surfaced that aimed to protect the monetary
rights of the author. Once books could be bought and sold for a prot, then
individuals wanted to assure their ability to turn that prot. Similarly, when
technologies such as the phonograph, the cassette tape, and the compact disk
allowed for simplied copying of music recordings, intellectual property law
shifted to once again restrict the ability for individuals other than the record
company and, to a lesser extent, the artist to make money off of their music.
Now with the growing popularity of peer-to-peer le-swapping and online social networking technologies, we are likely to see a resultant shift once
again in the dominant paradigm of intellectual property law. Indeed, the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has made it illegal for individuals
to circumvent copyright protection measures on digital media such as compact disks and digital music downloads. The DMCA in fact makes it illegal
to even post information that would allow an individual to potentially circumvent such measuresone does not even have to follow through to be in
violation of the act. Each iteration of change to intellectual property law has
resulted in laws becoming stricter; their approach is quite simply punitive in
most cases. Rather than championing the complexity and sophistication of
movie trailer remix projects such as Shining and Ofce Space Horror, for
example, movie studios are instead forcing these remixeswhich are often
protected at some level as parodies of the originalto be removed from sites
such as YouTube and MySpace. The documentary lm Eyes on the Prize was
delayed in its re-release for quite some time because of copyright issues stemming from the use of archival footage (including the use of the Happy Birthday song) that cost signicant amounts of money to clear. Even educational
fair-use guidelines in school settings are becoming increasingly difcult for
instructors to navigate, particularly those unschooled in legal doctrines.
118
Popular Music
Without those who, like Bragg, stand up and raise their voices in protest
of the escalating severity of U.S. intellectual property and copyright law, we
may soon face a world in which our abilities to compose multimodal works
is severely limited. In such a world, we might face the daunting task of gaining approval from copyright holders before using even brief materials for
classroom use. We might face a world where parodies of popular songs and
images are no longer protected. Chillingly, what we face is a world where
creativity is in fact restricted by the very laws that aimed to protect that
creativity in the rst place. Braggs tale offers us a chance to think about the
moment where we are poised, a moment where we can decide to raise our
voices and protest that we will not give away our rights only for a song.
NOTES
1. Everything about Billy Bragg, Biography, http://billybragg.co.uk/biography/
index.html (accessed October 26, 2007).
2. Robert Levine, Billy Braggs MySpace Protest Movement, The New York Times,
July 13, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/business/media/31bragg.html
3. Billy Bragg, Sorry Theres No Music!! MySpace.com, May 18, 2006, http://blog.
myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=34570397&blogID=1224
81288 (accessed October 26, 2007).
4. Billy Bragg, Who Owns the Music, MTV or Me? The Guardian, August 31,
2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/aug/31/comment.media (accessed October 26, 2007).
5. Ted Striphas and Kembrew McLeod, Strategic Improprieties: Cultural Studies,
the Everyday, and the Politics of Intellectual Properties, Cultural Studies 20, nos. 23
(March/May 2006): 119 44.
6. Rachel Metz, Sue You: This Song Is Our Song, Wired, 29 July 2004, http://www.
wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/07/64376?currentPage=2 (accessed January 25, 2008).
7. Joseph Loewenstein, The Authors Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002), 5.
8. Loewenstein, 13.
9. Simon Frith, Copyright and the Music Business, Popular Music 7, no. 1 (1988): 63.
10. Frith, 63.
11. Gilbert B. Rodman and Cheyanne Vanderdonckt, Music for Nothing or, I Want
My MP3, Cultural Studies 20, nos. 23 (March/May 2006): 247.
12. Rodman and Vanderdonckt, 248.
13. Yahoo! Music, Britney Spears Sells 609,000 Copies of In the Zone, December 1,
2003, http://music.yahoo.com/read/story/12064351 (accessed January 25, 2008).
14. Richard Jones and Euan Cameron, Full Fat, Semi-skimmed or No Milk Today
Creative Commons Licences and English Folk Music, International Review of Law
Computers and Technology 19, no. 3 (2005): 262.
15. Striphas and McLeod, 9.
119
16. Jones and Cameron, 63.

17. Loewenstein, 5.
18. Frith, 73.
19. Robert V. Kozinets, On Netnography: Initial Reections on Consumer Research
Investigations of Cyberculture, Advances in Consumer Research 25 (1998): 367.
20. Natalie Pace, Q&A: MySpace Founders Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson.
Forbes.com, January 4, 2006, http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2006/01/
04/myspace-dewolfe-anderson-cx_np_0104myspace.html (accessed August 10, 2008).
21. Jeremy Scott-Joynt, What MySpace Means to Murdoch, BBC News, July 19,
2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4697671.stm (accessed October 26, 2007).
22. Levine.
23. Jones and Cameron, 260.
24. Julia Day, Bragg Claims Online Victory for Musicians Rights, The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/aug/24/news.newmedia1 (accessed October 26, 2007).
25. Frith, 67.
chapter 8
15MB of Fame: Independent

Musicians Use of MySpace
Marjorie D. Kibby
There is a perception that the ability to swap, purchase, or trade music les
over the Internet has revolutionized the music industry. However, while compressed les and online distribution may have hastened the revolution, they
were not in themselves the source of the current upheaval in the industry.
The changes toward a consumerartist business model can be traced back
to the early nineties mergers and acquisitions creating ever-larger record
labels, plus rising promotional costs and a slump in the sale of compact disks,
combining to produce a climate in which the major labels were reluctant to
take a risk with new artists, emerging genres, or innovative formats. In response, small independent labels began to produce music that people wanted
to hear, catering to niche markets. Home taping became a major concern for
the labels as consumers created and swapped their own music products, more
suited to their musical tastes than the CDs on offer in the stores.1 One effect
of this trend was that the artistlistener relationship grew closer than it had
been for a long time, as consumers bypassed established promotional channels and sought out individual artists, sharing information on releases and
tours with others in their taste culture.
The role that mp3s and the Web played in the revolution was to facilitate a
movement that had already begun; speed, convenience, and cost effectiveness
proving to be a major impetus to the move to connect artists and audiences
without an intermediary. Online music allows the consumer to be in control,
not the A. & R. executive,2 and it enables independent musicians and small
labels to challenge the stranglehold of the major labels, bringing about a
return to the independent musician as the centre of the music world.3
122
Popular Music
The business of music has three major components: production, marketing, and distribution. The major labels were able to control the music business by controlling these three components through symbiotic relationships
between recording studios, music press, retailers, merchandisers, radio stations, and performance venues. This enabled them to lock the three components into a package that was provided to the musicians who signed with
them. However, recording artists have become increasingly dissatised with
the terms enforced by major labels in return for this package, including recording restrictions, retained revenues, ownership and control of the music,
and restricted marketing options.4
Developments in recording technologies enabled the small studio, allowing some musicians to take back a measure of control over the production
process. Now musicians are using the Internet to circumvent the labels domination of marketing and distribution. As Darryl McDaniel of Run DMC says
of promoting your own music online, You dont have to answer to A. & R.,
you dont need anyones permission, you can make your own music.5
While the Internet provides a way for artists to market their music direct
to consumers without having to chain themselves to a binding, lengthy, and
often inequitable recording contract, freedom of distribution is not the same
thing as effective marketing, and independent musicians who move their
business online will need to create effective links to consumers they can distribute to. Recording technology placed a distance between performer and
listener; however, fans still maintained a connection with the musician as
symbolic links were developed to maintain a sense of commonality between
performer and listener, and create a community among fans.6 The development of social networking provided a way to restore those links in a more
tangible form, and independent musicians are using social networking sites
such as MySpace to connect directly with their fan base without the intermediation of a major label.
MYSPACE AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
MySpace is one of over 200 social networking Web sitesonline spaces
that provide a variety of ways for people to connect. The sites facilitate community development by combining a range of communication tools from
one-to-one to many-to-many modes; for example, from instant messaging
through blogs to wikis and le uploads. These sites allow users to nd others
with similar interests, to maintain contact with distant acquaintances, or
to extend their circle of friends. At a fundamental level, social networking
sites mimic the development of face-to-face acquaintances through networks;
users meet new people through existing friends and the friends of friends.
At the core of the MySpace site is the ability to create a prole, an expression of who the user is through descriptions of interests and tastes, a blog of
15MB of Fame
123
daily thoughts and activities, and personal photos and videos. These proles
are linked through friends networks. With 80 percent of the market share,
MySpace is currently the most visited of the social networking sites. Initially,
when it was launched in 2003, it was primarily populated by 20-somethings
interested in the LA indie music scene. It still has a strong association with
contemporary music and was the rst of the social networks to provide a
specic prole for musicians and bands to communicate with their audiences,
including the representatives from publishers, venues, and broadcasters that
also use MySpace. The popular media now regularly cover stories of musicians using MySpace as a springboard, such as that of Ingrid Michaelson, an
unsigned musician whose music was discovered on MySpace and featured on
four episodes of the television drama Greys Anatomy.
danah boyd sees three major issues surrounding teens use of MySpace:
identity production, hanging out, and digital publics.7 For MySpace musicians the issues are very similar: impression management, making fans of
friends, and digital marketing. As boyd says, the dynamics of identity production play out visibly on MySpace.8 Users are given basic tools (words,
images, colors, sounds) from which to construct an impression of their identity. An interpretive textual analysis of the MySpace sites of seven musicians
and personal follow-up interviews with them suggested that, for them, the
music was a primary source of their identity production with other elements
playing a more or less minor role. The elements that MySpace provides musicians on their homepage include: icon, headline, location, prole, genre categories, inuences, sounds like, label and type, music player, friends space,
signature, and visitors comments.
Musicians make use of the available tools within the given constraints to
create a space that depicts the image of the band that they want to project.
Impression management is the process of employing a range of methods in
order to inuence or control the impressions others form of ones identity, a
process rst described by Goffman.9 A study of participants on Facebook and
MySpace revealed that a prole on these sites is judged on the impression
management skills of its creator.10
The MySpace screen is a cluttered place, and while there are numerous
third-party applications, such as Pimp-My-Prole, most seem to add glowing
text and raining symbols to further complicate the layout rather than methods for projecting a clear, streamlined message. The top left of the screen is a
key area for creating an immediate visual impression to accompany the music
that plays as the site is opened. The musicians photo on the top left of the
screen becomes the icon displayed on friends sites and beside the comments
left on other pages, so it is a key signier. The genre categories display immediately above the image, below the artists name. The three elements (image,
name, and genre) have the potential to be linked with the track being played
to create a strong, unied impression of the musician and their music.
124
Popular Music
The background colors, photos, and videos and how the site varies from
the standard format all contribute to the image of the musician. As Nick
Green from Heartbreak Club said, there are little details you can employ to
further certain things you would associate with your music.11 Other elements
that can be used to create a band identity are the inuences and sounds
like sections where musicians can list other artists or give a description of
their musical philosophy. These sections come up in MySpace searches, so
it is a way for bands to enhance linkages rather than simply provide similarities; a search for a known musician will bring up the sites of those that
have described themselves as sounding like the original. This would seem
to be one of the strengths of MySpace as a promotional tool over a standalone Web site; there is the ability to create networks that enhance identity
production and promotion. Yet, it did not seem to be an element that was
consciously or constructively used in this way by the musicians interviewed.
While identity management is a documented concern of individual users of
online social sites, musicians seemed to have less interest in communicating
this is who we are than this is our music, though Matt Baker of Thirsty
Merc said that MySpace means you can go and assess an artist on your own
time and in your own terms and make your decision based on the way they
have presented their website. The Thirsty Merc MySpace site gave neither
inuences nor sounds like musicians; Anthony Snape used both spaces for a
poetic description and a slideshow of images; the other ve musicians gave
a list of 10 to 25 inuences, but none provided the names of musicians they
sound like. This space was used for links to an online store, a sign-up for
a street team, and reviews of the music from the press. The nonuse of this
feature was explained in terms of the musician having an original sound, one
that did not sound like anyone else.
How individuals present themselves isnt always a conscious choice. As
Goffman explains, some aspects of identity may be actively given, but others
are given off without conscious intent. Beliefs, philosophy, history, and so
forth can leak out through a number of channels without the individuals
knowledge. With the musicians of MySpace, the artists image is not only
being communicated through the consciously constructed prole but also
through other site elements such as the comments left by visitors, the listing of top friends, and the groups belonged to or managed. With up to 50
comments displayed on the homepage, the comments are a highly visible
symbol of the artist, yet one that does not seem to be actively controlled by
most musicians. A line of artists with icons that mesh with the artists prole; or that are funny, clever, or informative; or that positively review the musicians performance or recordings enhance the groups projected identity.
Many of Thirsty Mercs visitors use an icon that features them posing with
the groups lead singer, giving off the impression of an approachable, fanoriented band. A long line of amateurish icons, simple Thanks for the add
15MB of Fame
125
messages, large advertisements for incompatible music styles, and spam selling mobile phones and computer software may all have a negative impact on
identity management. While deleting comments may seem to be counterproductive to building a fan-base, the high level of visibility of the comments
displayed makes it valuable to select to display those that project the desired
image, or at least to delete those that reect an undesirable characteristic.
While a user can have thousands of MySpace friends, the icons of the top 4, 8,
or 16 are displayed on the homepage. It is possible to View all friends, but
the top group is an immediate signier of musical or stylistic connections.
By default, the friends who have been MySpace members the longest are
displayed, which may convey very little information about the artists afliations, whereas eight prominent artists in the same genre, or eight similar
performers, or eight musicians who have appeared at the same venues can
give a clear and immediate impression. For example, MC Lars top friends
are quirky storytellers: Weird Al Yankovic, King Missile, Bowling for Soup,
and Atom and his Package suggesting a similar approach to material by
MC Lars.
MAKING FANS OF FRIENDS
For many people, music is the method through which acquaintances are
made and friendships develop. In a context where individuals were free to
discuss absolutely anything that they considered relevant to the task of becoming acquainted, the majority talked about music.12 People believe that
their musical preferences are more revealing of their personalities than other
tastes and interests,13 particularly for young people who report much stronger musical preferences than older adults.14 Most social interaction involves
music, and the social interaction on MySpace is no different. MySpace represents a new system for hanging out and hooking up, activities in which
music has an integral role, but it follows traditional patterns. Individuals
believe music preferences reveal information about their identities,15 they deliberately use music preferences to convey information about themselves,16
and they use music as a common topic of conversation when getting to know
someone.17
MySpace is structured on a network of friends. Music preferences play an
important role in constructing these networks, and as a result, musicians
are able to use friends networks to introduce themselves to new audiences
and maintain contact with existing fans. Unlike musician-oriented discussion
boards, where fans talk to each other, on MySpace visitors leave comments
addressed to the site owner, and a response is made by leaving a comment
on the visitors site. There is no conversational ow but rather a series of
parallel statements directed at the musician. Fans have always drawn pleasure from a mostly imaginary reciprocity with their favorite musicians. The
126
Popular Music
commodication of popular music that followed the development of recording technology inscribed a division between music producers and music consumers. But despite an increasing gap between them and the performer, fans
retained a belief in the bonds linking them, though these links were largely
illusory. MySpace enables the connection to seem a little more real.
MC Lars believes that with music the product is not something physical
but rather the interaction with the listener, the connection that is formed
between a musician and an audience. Nick Green agrees, saying that MySpace
provides that sense of communication with the artist. Its a lot more personon-person, even just leaving a comment gives a feeling of connection. MySpace provides a number of ways of building Friends networks, including a
search by keywords, topics, areas of interest, and artist names; perusing the
Friends list of similar bands and looking through the comments section on
relevant musicians sites and browsing for people based on postcode, age, and
other demographic criteria. The browse feature was probably designed to
facilitate online dating, but it can be a useful tool for targeting a market segment. Mark Wells of Supersonic sees MySpace as a sort of word-of-mouth
equivalent on the net, where people nd out about others acts just by referring people on to their mates sites and stuff like that. Matt Baker of Thirsty
Merc says that they are less interested in the social aspects of MySpace: Im
not playing the game that a lot of them do, where they treat it like an internet chat room. For me its a business thing, not a social thing . . . thats how
Ive set [my MySpace site] up, and its basically like an online resumethe
equivalent of a website but in MySpace format. However a comment left
on Thirsty Mercs site says Do you guys ever respond to comments? You
should.18 Morgan Evans of Solver believes Thats the secret to why weve
had 15,000 hits in the last month and a half, and every other Newcastle
band has had, probably, 3,000because we actually sit on there for an hour
to two hours every day, each and reply . . . through those 200 messages, people
feel like theyre getting to know us, and they come to the shows. A visitor
to MC Lars site left the following comment Ive gotta say, when I read my
comments, and saw you had commented, I kinda went like, crazy. Its awesome that you take the time to like, reply to your fans.19 Solver also uses bulletins with appropriate subject headings to communicate with specic groups
of fans. You dont need EMI to tell people in one city the details of dates and
venues, When we want to promote one of our tours . . . in the heading well
say what its about, like Insurgency begins in Port Macquarie.
Young peoples creation and maintenance of Friends networks using
social software has been explained in terms of the fundamental values
that drive their use of communication technologies. A study of young consumers use of interactive technologies revealed ve key values: the opportunity to express ones identity, social interaction, immediate and constant
entertainment, discovery, and the ability to create and record.20 People in their
15MB of Fame
127
teens and early twenties are going through a stage of identity formation and
development, and music plays an important part in this process. MySpace
facilitates both the linking of self and favorite artists and the publicizing of
that link to others. In this age group, the specic activity is less important
than the social environment in which it takes place. MySpace allows users to
be in a social environment almost permanently; they can be an integral part
of each of each others lives, sharing every signicant moment. Young people
are accustomed to immediate and constant entertainment, and they turn to
technology to provide entertainment on demand. The multimedia environment of MySpace presents a range of entertainment activities within a social
context, providing a wealth of activities that keep MySpace users on the site
for nearly three times as long as static Web sites. Young people value discovering information and experiences for themselves, it provides them with a
unique and tailored experience over which they feel a sense of ownership.21
An element of the appeal of MySpace is that the user-generated content is
seen as authentic in comparison with entertainment products that are perceived as being marketed to users.22 Another of the pleasures of MySpace is
that of discovering new music and musicians. As Anthony Snape said, one
of the thrills of MySpace is that excitement of nding an artist and being
able to say I knew them rst before they became big. This sense of involvement, of ownership, meshes with another of the values that drive young
peoples use of technology, that of being able to create. Being able to not only
set up ones own site but also to add to favorite musicians sites, and to do so
in a variety of media, allows users to create reproductions of their lives and
interests. Through MySpace facilities such as enabling the addition of their
tracks to users sites, musicians can integrate their marketing strategies into
the recreational practices of young people.
DIGITAL MARKETING
Viral market has been around since the beginning of commerce. Spreading
the word through word-of-mouth was the worlds rst form of marketing.
But the Internet has taken this organic from of marketing to new heights by
making communications better and communities of people tighterthus making word-of-mouth even more effective. Viral marketing takes advantage
of networks of inuence among customers to inexpensively achieve large
changes in consumer behavior. Network-based marketing moves viral marketing online, taking advantage of Web-based links between consumers to
increase sales.23 Sharing music recommendations is also not a new concept;
music as a social currency is well documented, and the transition from physical to virtual access to both music sources and social networks has led to
a rapidly burgeoning use of consumer recommendation tools as a music
marketing technique. Harnessing consumers natural inclinations to share
128
Popular Music
music and information about music to social software applications was an

obvious step.
During the past 25 years, the record industry has become highly concentrated, and radio and TV have acted as a marketing bottleneck, playing
a principal role in shaping tastes. This led to a situation where a very small
proportion of music was available for acquisition, Wal-Mart must sell at
least 100,000 copies of a CD to cover its retail overhead and make a sufcient prot; less than 1 percent of CDs do that kind of volume,24 so only
around 1 percent of major releases nd their way to Wal-Mart shelves for
purchase. However, Rhapsody, a subscription-based streaming music service
(owned by RealNetworks), offers over a million tracks, and all of these tracks
are streamed, by someone, somewhere. Rhapsody streams more songs each
month beyond its top 10,000 than it does in its top 10,000. This market,
which lies outside the reach of the physical retailer, is big and getting bigger.
As Anderson says, Forget squeezing millions from a few megahits at the top
of the charts. The future of entertainment is in the millions of niche markets
at the shallow end of the bitstream.25 He offers three rules for making the
most of the long tail: make everything available; cut the price in half, then
lower it; help me nd it.
On MySpace, musicians can provide up to four tracks and make them
available for download, or streaming, or link to a sales point. Fans can also
rate the songs or comment on them and access the lyrics. Fans can then add
a track to their own MySpace site. For the most part, musicians make available four single tracks. Anthony Snape has edited a spoken introduction to
his tracks. Other musicians not part of this study have provided four samples
each consisting of several excerpts edited together with spoken commentary.
Through MySpace, independent musicians can take advantage of the long
tail in the music market to create or locate a niche market for their music
products. One fan hears a song and tells a dozen others online. Each in turn
sends the information (and sometimes the entire song le) to another dozen
people, and so on. The song is mainly sent to friends with similar tastes so a
niche market can be covered almost instantly, and if the songs hook is catchy
and universal enough, the artist can reach thousands of fans in a matter of
seconds.
The portable music le player symbolized by the iPod has changed the
way that music is used. Music is now worn as an accessory or exchanged as
a means of communication. Contemporary music use is oriented toward large,
current, disposable playlists, and online musicians are well placed to take
advantage of this trend offering individual tracks, samples, and ring-tone
sized bites.
Anthony Snape says, MySpace is a really excellent tool for independent
artists. . . . Ive just been over to Perth . . . if I were with a major record company
I would have done radio, I would have had articles in magazines, we would
15MB of Fame
129
have done some sort of television thing . . . I use MySpace to target audiences
in areas that Ive never been to. Snape described making friends of musicians
whose music is similar to his, in the area that he is about to visit, and then
sending invitations to that network. He says that some will support you, but
of them you might get twenty or thirty people who become passionately
involved . . . theyre the people who will ring the radio station and ask for the
CD in mainstream outlets. And before MySpace there was no access to those
people. He went on, I think the internet is absolutely incredible and fantastic. Its blown a big hole in the industry, and it has denitely made room
for other artists, independent artists. Independent artists are charting now,
independent artists are out there doing the business.
MC Lars felt that, The problem with the major labels is that they are slow
to get trends, and theyre slow to react to what is happening to the music
scene and the underground. Trent Greenwell of the Seabellies reported that
an A&R rep (Mark Holden) from Universal explained that the days of the
A&R guy signing unknown artists is over and basically said that its all about
whats happening on the internet . . . and on the road. Nick Green of Heartbreak Club also sees that MySpace, or online distribution, is part of the
process of proving that you have worth as an artist.
Morgan Evans believes that the amount of legwork that [the band] can
do online in terms of promotion, compared to what a distributor is prepared
to do is just like ridiculously different. Evans and Solver use MySpace
MySpace is recognized by everyone, we sell CDs on there through PayPal,
we sell tickets to our show, and we promote ourselves to venues when booking a tour.
CONCLUSION
MySpace seems like the realization of a musicians utopian ideal. It at least
marginalizes the traditional gatekeepers between those who make music and
those who listen to it. A band doesnt need a recording contract, a single on
radio high rotation, or a video on MTV to nd an audience. The audience
will nd them through their friends on MySpace. Perhaps a MySpace site
alone will not propel a musician into superstardomcross media promotion
such as a television reality program or a lm soundtrack might still be required for thatbut in enabling musicians to participate directly in their fan
communities and to target networks that constitute specic taste cultures, it
does allow them to establish viable markets and to retain most of the prots
from those markets. MySpace could make it easier for musicians to earn a
living from their music without the intervention of a major label.
In the face of declining CD sales, the dominant industry response was to
raise defenses around the CD; using digital rights management, proprietary
hardware, and legal action to prevent consumers from acquiring alternative
130
Popular Music
music products and to impose what had been traditional consumption patterns upon music users. It is rather ironic that MySpace is revolutionizing the
music industry not by doing anything new, but by making it a little easier for
people to do what they now wanted to do. Young people were already sharing
information about favorite music and new bands, bands were already communicating with fans, consumers were already ranking and rating music,
and musicians were already using fan communities to market their music.
MySpace music just streamlined the process, limiting the need for a record
label to create the links between music consumers and music producers.
NOTES
1. Steve Jones, The Cassette Underground, The Cassette Mythos (Autonomedia,
1990), http://www.halcyon.com/robinja/mythos/SteveJones.html (accessed October 12,
2007).
2. Yinka Adegoke, Sound Bytes: The Internet is Having a Huge Impact on the
Music Industry, New Media Age, May 4, 2000, 39.
3. Michael Pfahl, Giving Away Music to Make Money: Independent Musicians on
the Internet, First Monday 6, no. 8 (2001), http://rstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/
pfahl/index.html.
4. Steve Albini, The Problem with Music, http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
5. Andy Patrizio, MP3 Cant Beat Old School, Wired, Dec 16, 1999, http://wired.
com.news (accessed October 17, 2007).
6. Marjorie D. Kibby, Home on the Page: A Virtual Place of Music Community,
Popular Music 19, no. 1 (2000): 99.
7. danah boyd, Identity Production in a Networked Culture: Why Youth Heart
MySpace, American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference (St. Louis,
Missouri, Feb. 19, 2006), http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html (accessed
October 12, 2007).
8. boyd, http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html (accessed October 12,
2007).
9. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday,
1959).
10. Catherine Dwyer, Digital Relationships in the MySpace Generation: Results
from a Qualitative Study, 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2007, http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/DwyerHICSS2007.pdf (accessed
October 13, 2007).
11. All unfootnoted quotes in this chapter come from personal interviews conducted
by the author in February and March of 2007.
12. P. J. Rentfrow and S. D. Gosling, Message in a Ballad: The Role of Music Preferences in Interpersonal Perception, Psychological Science 17 (2006): 241.
13. P. J. Rentfrow and S. D. Gosling, The Do-re-mis of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology (2003): 84.
15MB of Fame
131
14. A. LeBlanc, W. Sims, C. Sivola, and M. Obert, Musical Style Preferences of

Different Age Listeners, Journal of Research in Music Education 44, no. 1 (1996).
15. Rentfrow and Gosling, The Do-re-mis.
16. A. C. North and D. J. Hargreaves, Music and Adolescent Identity, Music Education Research 1 (1999).
17. Rentfrow and Gosling, Message in a Ballad.
18. MySpace comment by Victoria, May 30, 2007 2:27 P.
19. MySpace comment by Samurai WIRIAMUZU Taira, June 4, 2007 11:54 A.
20. Damien Arthur, Claire Sherman, Dion Appel, and Lucy Moore, Why Young
Consumers Adopt Interactive Technologies, Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for
Responsible Marketers 7, no. 3 (2006).
21. Arthur, Sherman, Appel, and Moore, 35.
22. Ting-Jui Chou and Ting Chih-Chen, The Role of Flow Experience in CyberGame Addiction, CyberPsychology & Behavior 6, no. 6 (2003): 663.
23. Shawndra Hill, Foster Provost, and Chris Volinsky, Network-Based Marketing: Identifying Likely Adopters via Consumer Networks, Statistical Science 21, no 2
(2006): 260.
24. Chris Anderson, The Long Tail, Wired 12, no. 10 (October 2004), http://www.
wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html (accessed October 15, 2007).
25. Ibid.
chapter 9
Its Up To You . . . No Really, Its Up To

You: Radiohead, Big Music, and the
Future of the Record Industry
Andrew deWaard
What is noise to the old order is harmony to the new.

Jacques Attali
Let me begin with a question: Can you think of any mass-produced, massdistributed commodity for which you, as the consumer, get to choose the
price and assign its value? Possibilities include eBay and other auction-like
economies, though these are individual items, not distributed en masse. Minor
bartering sometimes occurs over mostly xed prices, such as automobiles or
housing, but this only happens on a per-item basis. The concept of a suggested donation and tipping is another possibility, but again, these are not
attempted on any mass scale. I do not believe that the option of personally
assigning monetary value to a mass-produced commodity exists in the current structure of Western late capitalism. Until now.
On September 30, 2007, infamous British rock band Radiohead posted a
new message on their blog, Dead Air Space: Hello everyone. Well, the new
album is nished, and its coming out in ten days; weve called it In Rainbows.
Love from us all. Jonny. With that simple announcement, a media storm
ensued and decades of music tradition was turned on its head. Not only was
the worlds biggest band going to self-release its long-awaited new album,
bypassing the corporate record industry and its major label dominance, but it
was going to release it online for whatever price each consumer felt appropriate. When one logged on to InRainbows.com to download the album, instead
134
Popular Music
of a price at the checkout basket, there was a box to ll-in with a question
mark beside it. Clicking on the question mark prompted a message: Its Up
To You. Clicking again refreshed the screen: No Really, Its Up To You.
This included zero dollars, if one was so inclined.
Guitarist Jonny Greenwood describes the strategy as the band wanting
to make people pause for even a few seconds and think about what music
is worth now. I thought it was an interesting thing to ask people to do and
compare it to whatever else in their lives they value or dont value.1 The
press was quick to comment that this was the rst major album whose price
was determined by the consumer, but to my mind, it is the rst major commodity whose price is determined by the consumer. This Radiohead paywhat-you-want experiment, then, was not just about the changing nature
of the music industry but of late capitalism itself, of our conceptions of commodity value, labor, and intellectual property in the digital age. By putting
the onus of value on the consumer, Radiohead allowed the public to vote for
an alternative vision of society by way of, increasingly and unfortunately, the
only method available: the consumer dollar. The shifting terrain of popular
culture and the entertainment market, especially the music industry, is at
the forefront of the paradigm shift in social order we are experiencing in the
digital revolution.
Music is uniquely equipped for the digital age in terms of production and
distribution because of its simplicity and ease of use. Music itself is easily
made, compared to the other art forms in popular culture. Unlike the massive collaborative teams needed for lming (cinema and television) and programming (video games), musical creation is available to anyone with a home
computer and ever-more-affordable recording equipment/software. While
lm, television, and video games are able to be shared electronically, they
require large le sizes and more advanced computer skills, which will keep
the average consumer away until advancements are made in Internet speed
and distribution convenience. The mp3, meanwhile, is only a few megabytes
per le and is quickly and easily transferred in a variety of manners, including le-sharing networks, instant messaging, hyperlinking, free le-hosting
services, mobile phones, and recordable compact disc media. It is also embedded and streamed within a Web page quite easily, a method of distribution
that has gained immense popularity with social networking Web sites such
as MySpace and Facebook. As a result of these many technologies, music has
been extremely destructive in ignoring and appropriating copyright law:
Because music is digital, it can be easily produced, copied, and transferred
and it can be easily adapted, modied, and transformed. Any given piece
of digital music can quickly be borrowed, mutated, sampled, morphed,
and adapted into a new piece, and this practice tests the assumptions that
underpin copyright law and the nature of ownership.2
Its Up To You . . . No Really, Its Up To You
135
As a result, the barriers to production and distribution are now much easier
to overcome in the music industry than in any other popular art form, which
is why we are seeing such bold innovations occur in its economic structure
before other popular forms.
Jacques Attali proclaims that music is prophetic. It has always been in its
essence a herald of times to come.3 Noise traces the political economy of
music across the history of human culture, expounding how the musical process of structuring noise is also the political process of structuring the social
order. Music is both a mirrorit runs parallel to human society, is structured like it, and changes when it does4and a prophecy; Attali chronicles
a history indicating this ability in previous social orders. The French Revolution, for example, was preceded by the struggle for ownership rights and
subsequent liberation of French composers. If every major social rupture
has been preceded by an essential mutation in the codes of music, in its mode
of audition, and in its economy,5 then what is our music telling us about our
impending social order? Attali wrote his treatise in 1977, well before the
rise of personal computers, the Internet, and the digital revolution, yet, the
progression he identies is traceable to the current age, as we shall see. Our
music foretells our future. Let us lend it an ear.6
A BROKEN SYSTEM, AN INDUSTRY
IN TRANSITION
There is no denying that the music industry is currently in a state of
ux; a multitude of technological changesincluding the steady rise of personal computers and the Internet as well as the recent popularization of le
sharing and digital music playershas prompted widespread shifts in the
way consumers access music. However, it is important to note that the music
industry is in a very healthy state; there is more music available and more
people creating and listening to music than at any time in history. It is the
record industry that is in dire straits, namely the monopoly maintained by Big
Music. Also referred to as the Big Four (technically making it an oligopoly,
rather than a monopoly), Big Music is comprised of Universal, Sony-BMG
(who merged in 2004), Warner, and EMI, the major labels that collectively
control 80 85 percent of global recording sales. Faced with rapidly declining compact disc sales, Big Music and its many lobbying frontsnamely,
the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA)have been very vocal
about blaming their nancial woes on le sharing. Hiding behind this supposed ethical mistreatment of artists and musicians, Big Music makes moralizing claims about stealing music in an attempt to maintain their market
hegemony, misconstruing the true impact of le sharing while continuing
their long history of exploitation.
136
Popular Music
I would like to frame this consideration of Radioheads pay-what-youwant experiment within the battleground that has developed concerning
not only the future of music production and access but of popular culture and
intellectual property as a whole. As we will see, the digital music wars are
but the precursor in a vast technological transformation of the entertainment
market and the struggle over access and control that will ensue. Crucial to
this dispute, popular music has become a central site in popular culture by
which we talk about labor and value. In debating the ethics of le sharing
and digital music, supporting the artist is always of utmost importance,
while the impact on the record label (and its corresponding corporation) is
inconsequential. However, up until this point, the consumer has always been
caught in the middle by having to support Big Music in order to support the
artist. By cutting out the middle man, and by directly raising the question
of how much we value music in an era where we can easily get it for free,
Radiohead cuts to the heart of the problem and strikes a major blow against
Big Music. Hyperbolic rhetoric aside, it is not as if Radiohead has created a
viable new model for music distributionnor did they even attempt to do
sobut in their subtle, almost poetically simple act, they have reminded us
that the media monopoly will not completely control our cultural expression,
and they have proved that an alternative is possible.
Attali claims that the process of aggression [in music] can only succeed
if the existing code has already become weak through use.7 The corrupt
practices of Big Music and their unfair treatment of its artists are welldocumented and are becoming more and more well-known. As Eduardo
Porter delightfully expresses in an op-ed for The New York Times, part of
the reason for the success of Radioheads experiment was the pleasure at
being able to bypass the record labels, which many see as only slightly worse
than the military-industrial complex.8 The industry works hard to earn this
reputation, engaging in such draconian tactics as the RIAA suing a single
mother of two who makes $36,000 a year to pay $222,000 in damages for
having made copyrighted songs available on a le-sharing network. Nowhere else are we so concerned that the individual artist get their due, that
is, the worker get paid appropriately for the production of their commodity.
Flush with admiration and gratitude, Peter C. Baker of The Nation writes
concerning his purchase of the album, I started thinking seriously about my
payment. My goal was not to work through the constellation of disputes and
options that dene todays music business, just to buy In Rainbows at a price
that felt fair and respectful.9
Unlike lm, television, and video games, music is a popular art form whereby
consumers are able to make a conscious division between the art and the industry. The two are inexplicably entwinedand will be for the foreseeable
futurebut because music seemingly comes from a comparatively small group
of artists (setting aside the important creative input of producers, engineers,
137
technicians, and the like), the consumer continually aligns his or herself with
the artist, and the business be damned. As Rodman and Vanderdonckt proclaim:
Musicians are being robbed . . . but the principal thieves are all those industry suits, rather than the lesharers, and an honest economic analysis of
the music business undermines the claim that downloading fans are taking
bread out of the mouths of struggling artists.10
Even if we set aside its long history of corruption (payola, price xing, underpaying its artists, widespread mistreatment of minority artists, etc.), the record industry continues to engage in lengthy, unfair recording contracts and
devious accounting practices, making the biggest abusers of artists rights
the record companies themselves. A persistent honest economic analysis is
required to cut through the mistruths and deceptions of Big Music.
Operating as an economy of scale, Big Music has fostered an industry in
which the cost of record sale success has continued to escalate, as album
pressing, marketing, music videos, tour managing, packaging costs, studio
time, and other services must all be paid back to the label before an artist can
receive royalties from their album. The result is a system in which only 10 percent of recordings break even,11 and the record companies recoup their investment on a mere 5 percent of new artists.12 Prot is made predominately
with hits, the massive sellers by folks such as Eminem and Britney Spears,
which subsidize all the failed investments. This also means that only a small
minority of artists make any money from album sales; the vast majority do
not and make their living primarily from touring, merchandising, and licensing. Such an unbalanced arrangement has been justied by the claim that the
record labels are assuming all the nancial risk. However, this is exactly how
Big Music retains such a tight monopoly over the industry, escalating the
cost of entry into the business and controlling the means of production and
distribution. File sharing has provided an alternative distribution system,
but it is not at the heart of the record industrys woes as they would have
you believe.
Big Music is correct in claiming that the decline in units shipped and gross
receipts began at the same time as the early years of le sharing, around the
turn of the millennium, but that does not make le sharing the culprit. In fact,
a multitude of reasons contribute to the drop in compact disc sales. During that
same period, Big Music signicantly reduced their rosters of active artists and
cut almost 20 percent of their workforce, resulting in far fewer new albums
being released.13 Meanwhile, Big Music actually raised the standard list price of
compact discs, despite the decreasing cost of production and negligible economic
ination. While its total units shipped may have fallen, the per-album prot
margin appears to have risen as a result of its self-imposed industry shifts.14
138
Popular Music
Outside of internal industrial changes, a number of other reasons contribute to declining CD sales. Competition from other forms of entertainment, including video games and DVDsostensibly providing more bang
for the entertainment buckis a crucial factor. Another is the corresponding
changes occurring in the radio industry, as consolidation by the likes of Clear
Channel Communications and Innity Broadcasting has resulted in shorter,
homogenized playlists. Consider this chilling statement concerning the state
of music on the radio from Clear Channels CEO Lowry Mays: Were not
in the business of providing well-research music. Were simply in the business of selling our customers products.15 Furthermore, talk radio has been
replacing music-centric radio for some time, while music television (MTV,
MuchMusic, etc.) has moved away from music videos toward reality and lifestyle programming.
Another key change in the record industry in recent years, rarely reported
or discussed, is the drastic shift in the U.S. retail music channel. The previous coexistence of smaller, specialized shops along with larger, wide-ranging
retailers, which fostered diverse selections and sales strategies, has been
replaced by the dominance of mass-market, big-box retailers such as WalMart, Costco, and Best Buy. These stores, which now account for the vast
majority of CD sales, sell a small selection of albums at heavily discounted
prices, often below the actual wholesale price. Using compact disc sales as a
loss-leader to attract consumers to purchase other goods in their stores,
these giant retailers have pushed many independent music stores and dedicated music chains (such as Tower Records) out of business, as they cannot
compete with the big-box pricing power. Moreover, compact disc sales are of
little importance to these retailers, accounting for a minimal percentage of
overall revenue; in the case of Wal-Mart, which holds the largest share of the
U.S. market, compact disc sales are less than one-tenth of 1 percent of their
revenue. The business strategies of the record labels are no longer aligned
with the strategies of their main distribution partners, explain Kusek and
Leonhard, leading them to sarcastically ponder: Could this be a recipe for
disaster?16
Amidst this faltering business strategy, what of the artist? The musician,
Attali notes, is the one who provides the insight into labor-value as the standard for capitalist-exchange.17 Currently, music is perhaps the only commodity whereby consumers can respond to what they feel is unfair treatment of
labor; many consumers actively engage in stealing music online, guilt-free,
and support the artists they choose, in the manner they choose (concerts,
merchandise, exposure, etc.). The current paradigmwhich Big Music is
fruitlessly attempting to maintainof paying 10 to 20 dollars for a physical
album that may only contain one or two enjoyable songs is seen by most consumers as, at best, outdated and unfair and, at worst, as a blatant case of pricegouging. The prot bonanza of an $18 CD? Those days are gone forever.18
139
Online, music becomes a virtual commodity that can be attained for a

nominal fee or free-of-charge. In recent years, the capital required for both
the production stage and distribution stage of music has drastically decreased
in many respects. Affordable home audio-recording technologies and various
online distribution methods have knocked down some of the barriers of entry
upheld by Big Music for the last 70 years. While album mastering, international distribution of physical product, and many forms of marketing are still
expensive endeavors, there is no denying that a multitude of alternatives to
Big Musics hegemony have arisen. Case in point: Radioheads pay-whatyou-want experiment.
THE ACT THAT LAUNCHED A THOUSAND
THINK-PIECES
Radioheads In Rainbows pay-what-you-want experiment was a resounding success. Though the band is refusing to release ofcial statistics (to avoid,
I suspect, the backlash of revealing the massive prot they earned from their
little experiment), Gigwise.com, citing a source close to the band, reported
that the album was downloaded 1.2 million times on its rst day alone, and
is said to have been pirated even more.19 Industry newsletter Record of the
Day conducted a poll revealing that nearly a third chose to pay nothing for
the album, but the average price was about $8.00.20 Another online survey
conducted by ComScore estimated the average payment, factoring in free
downloads, to be $2.26, though this survey did not include college networks,
Radioheads prime demographic.21 The band issued a statement rejecting the
accuracy of these gures, calling them wholly inaccurate and exaggerated, though Thom Yorke, lead vocalist and multi-instrumentalist for the
band, did admit in an interview that In Rainbows had passed well over one million downloads.
Nevertheless, with minimal costs for hosting the les on their server
maintained by their merchandising company and cyber-cottage industry
W.A.S.T.E., and subtracting producer fees and the costs of operating their
own recording studio, Radiohead is estimated to have made at least $1 million and upwards of $5 million from their experiment. And this is not including the prot from the $80 deluxe mail-order gift box version of the
album including two compact discs, two vinyl records, and a booklet they
offered alongside the download, which is reported to have garnered between
60,000 and 80,000 orders. Unlike major label contracts that would allocate to
the artist(s) 15 percentat bestof revenues earned from album sales after
labels expenses are recouped, Radiohead retains both publishing rights and
recording rights of In Rainbows, earning them 100 percent of revenues
from the digital release. In terms of digital income, Thom Yorke explains,
weve made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead
140
Popular Music
albums put together, foreverin terms of anything on the Net.22 According

to Jon Cohen of Cornerstone Promotion, itll be the most protable album
of this current era.23
On January 1, 2008, In Rainbows was released in traditional compact disc
form, licensed to independent label TBD (part of ATO Records) in the United
States, boutique label Maple Music/Fontana in Canada, independent label
Hostess in Japan, and independent label XL Recordings across the world.
It debuted at number one on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart, the U.K. Album
Chart, the Canadian Albums Chart, and the United World Chart. The band
is sure to have negotiated a much more lucrative deal as free agents with
ATO as opposed to the exploitation they would have faced from Big Music.
In Rainbows was also the rst album the band decided to release on iTunes,
requiring it be available in DRM-free iTunes Plus format. Despite its availability for free for two months preceding its ofcial release, the album still
managed to become iTunes No. 2 top-selling album in its rst week. In Rainbows has continued to succeed in all its various windows of release; its stellar critical reception, appearing on the vast majority of critics year-end lists,
has no doubt buoyed this economic victory.
Equally as impressive as their successful challenge to Big Musics economic domination was the subsequent media storm they unleashed. Radioheads scant 24-word announcement on its Web site triggered a torrent of
reports and arguments, running the gamut from blog discussions to vast
mainstream press coverage. Critics everywhere were weighing in with what
they felt the industry repercussions would be and what it meant for the value
of music. Even business sections considered the implications of pay-whatyou-want; The Economist wondered whether it was The Day the Music
(Industry) Died? and BusinessWeek pondered The Big Record Labels NotSo-Big Future, while The Financial Times went on the defensive, claiming
Radiohead MP3 release a tactic to lift CD sales. MTV.com proclaimed 2007
The Year The Music Industry Broke, while The New York Times Magazine named The Radiohead Payment Model as one of its 70 big ideas that
shaped 2007. Not bad for an idea hatched during a stoned philosophical
conversation about the value of music between Radioheads managers.24
While Radioheads act was certainly the most high-prole challenge to
the music industry in 2007, a slew of major artists deed the norms of the record industry, contributing to a possible artist-led tipping point in the economic structure of Big Music. Within days of Radioheads announcement,
Trent Reznorknown to encourage concert-goers to steal his bands albums onlinealso made a notable blog post: Hello everyone. Ive waited a
LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now
Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with
any label . . . it gives me great pleasure to be able to nally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see t and appropriate.25 Reznor went on
141
to distribute Saul Williams latest album, which he produced, in a similar

strategy to Radioheads pay-what-you-want experiment. On October 16,
in the midst of the Radiohead publicity storm, Madonna announced that she
was dropping from her long-time music label Warner, opting instead for a
global partnership with concert promoter Live Nation, Inc., a $120 million
deal in which she became a shareholder in the company. Responding to the
paradigm shift in the record industry, the Material Girl struck a 360 deal
that would encompass a wide range of revenue streams, including album releases, touring, merchandising, licensing, sponsorship, lm and TV projects,
DVD releases, and her invaluable brand name. Spin would award its 2007
Story of the Year to this cluster of challenges to Big Music, aptly naming
it The October Surprise.
Earlier in the year, Prince sparked controversy in July when he gave away
2.5 million copies of his album Planet Earth for free in the United Kingdom
through the newspaper Mail on Sunday, and everyone who attended one of
his 21 sold-out shows in London also received a free copy. Always the provocateur, Prince was the rst major artist to release an entire album1997s
Crystal Ballexclusively on the Internet. In December, the Charlatans released their latest single and album for free through the radio station Xfm,
making the shift to complete reliance on touring and merchandise for nancial return. The Eagles signed an exclusive deal with WalMart, as well
as offering their album on their own Web site, while Joni Mitchell ditched
Warner and Paul McCartney abandoned EMI in favor of Starbucks new record label, Hear Music. Oasis and Jamiroquai are the latest big-name bands
rumored to be considering dropping their major label and considering alternatives upon completion of their contracts.
Artists have long been challenging the hegemony of the record industry,
one might trace Radioheads pay-what-you-want experiment back to the
Grateful Dead, who allowed fans to freely distribute recordings of live shows
and encouraged a trading system whereby fans could mail one another blank
tapes in order to get new bootleg recordings of live Dead shows. Public
Enemy and its outspoken front man Chuck D have been staunch supporters
of digital distribution, rst releasing 1999s Theres a Poison Goin On over
the Internet and on zip drives, and 2007s How to Sell Your Soul To A Soulless
People Who Sold Their Soul through ad-supported, online le sharing. The
Smashing Pumpkins encouraged fans to share a limited pressing of 2000s
Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music online. Wilcos infamous
experience with Warner is another success story. Having been dropped from
their Warner subsidiary Reprise Records for recording an uncommercial
album, the band negotiated ownership of the master tapes and, responding to
low-quality leaks of the album, streamed it for free on their ofcial Web site.
Garnering much critical praise and Internet buzz, Wilco negotiated an even
more lucrative contract with Nonesuch Records, also a Warner subsidiary
142
Popular Music
(in effect paying for the album twice). Yankee Hotel Foxtrot sold more copies
than any of Wilcos previous records. Another example of responding to
Internet leaks, the Canadian indie band Stars released 2007s In Our Bedroom After the War for download just 10 days after completing itand nearly
3 months before its physical release date. Countless more examples could
be culled from the history of artist-led challenges to Big Musics hegemony;
let us turn to the technologies accelerating these alternatives.
MUSIC IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION
The digital music revolution has been developing slowly ever since the
record industrys imposition of the digital compact disc format in the 1980s,
followed by the development of the ISO-MPEG Audio Layer-3 compression/
decompression algorithm (mp3) in 1992. Along with the steady increase in
broadband access, le sharing gained popularity with Internet relay chat
(IRC) and other virtual communities until it hit the mainstream with Napsters release in 1999. Despite legal victories by the RIAA and intellectual
property right enforcement through the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
(DMCA) in the United States, peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technologies have continued to evolve with Gnutella, Morpheus, KaZaa, Grokster,
LimeWire, and others, leading to the current method-of-choice: BitTorrent.
Estimated to represent 1830 percent of all Internet trafc, BitTorrent
is a P2P protocol that operates with a much more decentralized structure
whereby each user supplies pieces of data to newer users, reducing the cost
and burden on individual sources and allowing for more effective use of Internet bandwidth. A multitude of Web sites carry the metadata torrent les
(which contain no copyrighted information) needed to begin downloads, and
whenever any such site is shut down by legal injunction, many more arise in
its wake. Legal downloading has also increased signicantly in recent years,
as 2007 saw digital album sales rise 53 percent and legal downloads of individual tracks increase 45 percent.26 With the popularity and success of
Apples iTunes and other legal downloading options, Big Music has nally
embraced digital music to some extent, but the battleground for the future
of the record industry is still being shaped.
With such drastic changes to the music industry occurring so rapidly, it is
worth returning to Attalis suggestion of the predictive nature of the political economy of music. The hit parade, Attali claims, bears a relation to
the dream-form of the socialist economy, in which price is no longer the sole
determining factor of use/exchange value, in which choice is expressed not
only by disposable income but by the democratically expressed preferences
of the consumers.27 Attali goes on to dispel this fantasy, locating the actual
structure of the hit parade from the 1930s to the 1970s in records sales and
industry manipulation; but online, with le sharing, the virtual commodity,
143
and limitless choice, do we not see the birth pangs of a socialist economy?
As Chuck D of Public Enemy proclaims, P2P to me means power to the
people. 28 What began as a subcultural gift economy has evolved into a
vast, decentralized network of digital music distribution.29
An inuential paper written by employees of Microsoft in 2002, titled
The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution, popularized the
term Darknet, which refers to a collection of networks and technologies used
to share copyright-infringing digital content, such as the P2P le-sharing
networks. Peter Biddle and his colleagues suggest that the Darknet forces
businesses to compete on the Darknets own terms, a practice that values
convenience and low cost rather than additional security.30 The efcient
and convenient sharing of les is at the heart of this issue, not copyright
infringement or protection. It is not hard to imagine why consumers would
operate in such a manner. Simply put, copies of digital media proliferate
freely in network environments because sharing music is a basic ritual held
in common across cultures.31 There is more to the story of le sharing than
Big Music and its lawyers will acknowledge.
Not only has Big Music ignored the cultural imperative of le sharing, it
has ignored the positive impact on music sales that many surveys and studies have indicated. Some conservative studies nd a negative impact of P2P
on music sales but agree that the impact is low.32 Conversely, many studies conclude that there is no negative impact but, in fact, a positive one. A
2001 survey by Jupiter Media Metrix found le sharing to be a net positivetechnology, with 52 percent of experienced le sharers increasing their music
purchases.33 A study of direct data of download activity by Oberholzer-Gee
and Strumpf in 2002 found most downloading to be done by younger users
who would not have had the disposable income to purchase the album even
in the absence of le sharing. Older users, however, were found to use le
sharing to sample new music, a practice that, like radio, increases sales.34
A widely cited study for Industry Canada in 2007 that used representative
microeconomic data found that there is no direct evidence to suggest that
the net effect of P2P le-sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole. Even more surprising was the nding that
among the dedicated le-sharing subpopulation, P2P le-sharing tends to
increase rather than decrease music purchasing.35 More akin to promotion
than piracy, le sharing could have been harnessed by Big Music for greater
sales opportunities; instead, they chose to treat their customers as thieves
and earned its image as a ravenous, heartless vampire.36
According to Attali, music explores, much faster than material reality
can, the entire range of possibilities in a given code.37 As a result, internal
and external noises do violence to the code and to the network.38 The digital
revolution has made this come true, literally: mp3s are music transformed
into binary code, exchanged through the network of the Internet, enacting
144
Popular Music
violence to the traditional structure of the record industry. It is estimated

that roughly 20 billion songs are illegally downloaded or swapped each year,
by as many as 200 million users worldwide. Clearly, people do not feel overly
guilty about this illegal copyright infringement and are more concerned with
the convenience and diverse access this new system of distribution allows
them. Now that the cat has been let out of the bag, so to speak, there is no
going back. Consumers demand the latest technological convenience, and
it is quite apparent that technology has outmoded the traditional model of
the record industry. The sheer popularity of digital downloads is forcing
Big Music to move beyond an infrastructure predicated on the sale of hard
goods such as compact discs. iPods need to be lled, and mobile phones need
new ringtones: What model of distribution is going to meet this demand?
David Kusek and Gerd Leonhard, in The Future of Music: Manifesto for
the Digital Music Revolution, propose a Music Like Water business model
that they foresee as the future of the music industry. Although it is overly
idealistic and does not account for some of the harsh economic realities of
the entertainment industry, the book provides a useful metaphor for considering the transformation of music when it imagine[s] a world where music
ows all around us, like water, or like electricity, and where access to music
becomes a kind of utility. 39 Freed from the constraints of being treated as
merely a product, music becomes a service: ubiquitous, mobile, shareable,
and as pervasive and diverse as the human cultures that create it.40 A central
concern for Kusek and Leonhard is whether we are leading to a system in
which access replaces ownership. If we can access whatever music we want,
whenever we want, wherever we want, then owning music becomes unnecessary.
In this new musical economy, the traditional model of selling content is
abandoned in favor of a very potent liquid pricing system that incorporates
subscriptions, bundles of various media types, multi-access deals, and addedvalue services.41 Music has been viewed as static for too long; treating it as
a more uid and participatory entertainment experience is more consistent
with musics dynamic nature of continual evolution and change over time
and between musicians and cultures. Music as a product, something to be
owned, is a relic of the Industrial Age. In the Information Age, access is key.
This transition will not come easy and will be a dire time for some people and
businesses, but like the invention of the printing press, the automobile, and
the television, the chaos the Internet is causing will be followed by tremendous access and diversity.
Attali could not have anticipated the technological transformation that
we are now experiencing, but he did accurately predict that there would be
a new status for music that would not be a new music, but a new way of
making music.42 He called this era Composition, and it is not hard to see
its presence in our current digital age. Composition: in which there is no
145
longer any usage, any relation to others, except in the collective production
and exchange of transcendence.43 Furthermore: Music is no longer made
to be represented or stockpiled, but for participation in collective play, in an
ongoing quest for new, immediate communication, without ritual and always
unstable.44 So, here we have two ingredients for a new social order: collective production and collective play. The Internet, of course, is the ideal
facilitator for both of these functions. Open source software (such as Linux
and Firefox) and social networking sites (such as Facebook and Flickr) are
popular examples of simultaneous collective production and collective play
that occur online, but we can nd many pertinent examples within the realm
of digital music as well.
The proliferation of fan Web sites, message boards, and blogs dedicated
to music of all kinds has promoted vibrant and diverse online fan communities. Radiohead is no exception; they are known to have a rabid and obsessive
fan base of Internet users. W.A.S.T.E. is Radioheads own fan service and
has been operating ever since the band began releasing records in the early
1990s. Starting out as letters posted by Radiohead themselves, it has grown
along with the band, providing a direct link between the fans and the band,
with Web services, ethically sourced merchandise, tickets, and now the digital release of In Rainbows. Radiohead is keenly aware of this cyber dimension
to their fan base, maintaining an expansive and oft-updated Web site including frequent personal blog posts and offering unique benets to its online
fans, such as their thumbs_down and Scotch Mist promotional Webcast
performances on radiohead.tv.
In the four-year lead-up to the release of In Rainbows, fan sites documented
every new ounce of material, and countless recordings showed up on YouTube, some dating back to the late Nineties. Nude, for instance, has been a
fan favorite for more than a decade, previously only available in concert (or
on YouTube) before being ofcially recorded for In Rainbows. Videotape
debuted the previous year as a solo piano ballad on producer Nigel Godrichs
online show From the Basement, then progressed as many different fullinstrumental incarnations in concert, before returning to the stripped-down
swan song it now occupies as the nal track on In Rainbows. In this way, the
collective fan community could witness the development and evolution of
the new songs, feeling a part of their growth and maturation. Attesting to
this direct relationship with the fans, Thom Yorke concluded the thumbs_
down Webcast with an appropriate sign-off: See you on YouTube.
Radioheads online interaction with its fan base is indicative of a largescale industry trend in which artists are harnessing technology to directly
communicate with their fans. The success of Fall Out Boy, for example, is
attributed in large part to their very active online presence, building a community with its young, Web-savvy demographic. Bassist/lyricist Pete Wentz
went so far as creating his own social networking site, FriendsorEnemies.
146
Popular Music
com. Kembrew McLeod argues that le sharing and direct marketing has
been a boon to those musicians working outside the major label system. Independent artists and the owners of indie and micro-labels operate on more
balanced, prot-sharing models that rely on a small but loyal fan base. It
is now possible for a musician to succeed in the industry by selling fewer
units but retaining their copyright and disregarding the Big Music strategy
of needing to sell a half million records just to break even. As a result, an
independent sector of middle-ground artists is emerging, founded on the
principle of community.
Collective production and collective play online has also resulted in many
unique economic approaches to collective music making. SellaBand.com,
where you are the record company, gives music fans the chance to invest
in up-and-coming acts and even earn money if they turn out to be a success.
Similarly, Slicethepie.com aims to turn every music fan into a record label
and enables artists to raise money directly from their fans to record and release an album. Fans can earn money, too, and a stock marketstyle trading
exchange allows investors to gamble on the success of the artists and help
[themselves] to a slice of the music industry. Amazingtunes.com describes
itself as a fair trade Web site, promising that 70 percent of revenues from
all music sales, after bank charges and taxes, go straight to the artists. From
mainstream le sharing to Internet-based community labels on the fringe,
digital music is parading its prophetic nature and revealing many bold new
developments that we will no doubt witness in other factions of culture and
politics. As in the eighteenth century, according to Attali, the monopoly
over music was one of the rst destroyed by the people, before they tackled
the others.45
NOT SO FAST: BIG MUSIC ADAPTS
TO THE CELESTIAL JUKEBOX
Before we travel too far with this technologically determinist, cyberutopian train of thought, we must account for Big Musics recent attempts
to regain its footing in this new digital paradigm. Though it may have been
dragged into the digital age kicking and screaming and litigating, Big Music
has also been hedging its bets and investing in new structures and sources of
revenue. In a particularly enlightening example, in 2001, BMG was involved
in a joint venture with Grokster to establish a model for distributing licensed
music through a P2P network while at the same time suing Grokster in the
MGM v. Grokster case. The writing on the wall has been visible for quite
some time: the Internet, along with mobile and satellite networks, is soon
going to be the primary mode of digital media distribution and a crucial
site of revenue for the media conglomerates. The outcome for control of the
distribution of music is being keenly watched by the entertainment industry
147
as a whole because it paves the way for control of the illustrious Celestial
Jukebox.
Paul Goldstein popularized the term Celestial Jukebox in 1994 with the
publication of Copyrights Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox. Imagining it as a technology-packed satellite,
Goldstein sees the Jukebox as awaiting a subscribers order . . . to connect
him to any number of selections from a vast storehouse . . . [combining] the
power of a television set, radio, CD player, VCR, telephone, fax, and personal computer.46 In Digital Music Wars: Ownership and Control of the Celestial
Jukebox, Patrick Burkart and Tom McCourt adopt and update the term to
describe the various systems whereby any text, recording, or audiovisual
artefact can be made available instantaneously via wired and wireless broadband channels to Internet appliances or home computers.47 Unlike the idealistic vision of Kusek and Leonhards Music Like Water model, Burkart
and McCourt trace Big Musics oppressive control of access and assault on
intellectual property rights through the gradual implementation of the Celestial Jukebox.
There are a variety of opinions concerning the outcome and effect of the
Celestial Jukebox, according to Burkart and McCourt. Futurists, such as
Goldstein as well as Kusek and Leonhard, believe it to herald a technological
utopia of open access and abundant choice. Creators of intellectual property
hope it provides them the opportunity to avoid industrial barriers to entry
and retain copyright on their work. Distributors expect a huge new revenue stream while eliminating overhead costs and geographic constraints.
Electronics and technology companies aim to prot from new devices and
software, while Internet, telephone, and cable service providers will continue
to roll out lucrative broadband access. And consumers expect a vast intellectual commons of diverse, immeasurable choice at low cost. Burkart and
McCourt advise us to temper these desires, and consider the technocratic
ideology that in fact underlies the infrastructure of the Celestial Jukebox.48
While the title of their book suggests a war over control of the Jukebox,
Burkart and McCourts heavy-handed, though insightful analysis indicates
their belief that the war has already been won by the corporate media oligopoly, resulting in strict boundaries on intellectual property, pervasive threats
to individual privacy, and tight restrictions on access to popular culture and
the knowledge-based economy.
A crucial element to this imposition of an oppressive, strictly controlled
Celestial Jukebox is the legal underpinning aggressively pursued by the
RIAA and other lobbying organizations. In 1998, both the DMCA and the
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act were passed in the United
States, furthering the media monopolys competitive advantage in the digital
media market. Internationally, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the World Intellectual Property Organization
148
Popular Music
(WIPO), a subgroup of the World Trade Organization (WTO), are working

to coordinate intellectual property protections across the globe. The 1996
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was implemented in the United States with
the DMCA and in the European Union with the 2001 European directive on
copyright. By incorporating criminal sanctions into multilateral trade agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), an
intellectual-property enforcement regime has been established and is steadily
gaining momentum throughout the world.49
In Who Are the Pirates? The Politics of Piracy, Poverty, and Greed in a
Globalized Music Market, Jack Bishop composes a convincing argument
regarding this global imposition of intellectual property policies and unfair
pricing standards by Big Music. Looking at music consumption in Latin
America, where music occupies an indispensable role in cultural expression,
the vast majority of consumers simply cannot afford the suggested list price
of compact discs enforced by the RIAA and IFPI. Compact discs are sold for
the same price in Latin America as they are in the United States, yet, comparing Mexicos gross national product per capita of $4,748 with the $33,933 of
the United States illuminates in dollars and sense the disparity between the
social classes of each country.50 Bishop is correct in identifying this practice
as a form of neocolonialism and economic oppression. In response to this
unjust power structure, music pirates are not seen as thieves in these lowincome societies, but Robin Hoods, offering liberation and freedom of choice
with each illegal CD-R. From this viewpoint, it is not hard to see who the
real pirates are. If Big Music intends to implement the Celestial Jukebox
internationally with the same disregard for its global audience as it currently
employs, it will likely encounter much opposition.
In the intervening years since the publication of Digital Music Wars, the
two technologies Burkart and McCourt identify as central to the implementation of the Celestial Jukeboxcustomer relationship management
(CRM) and digital rights management (DRM)have continued to develop
in curious directions. Customer relationship management refers to personalization systems in which proles of user attributes and behavior are
developed in order to customize content delivery, while also tracking interactions and purchases in order to assemble merchandising dossiers about
individual and general consumer tastes and behavior. The information
gathered can be used by companies internally, to automate and further specialize marketing, or it can be traded between corporate divisions and sold
to outside interests without the customers consent. Burkart and McCourt
devote comparatively little space to describing CRMs impact, instead focusing on Big Musics reliance on DRM. However, as evidenced by the
dramatic increase in popularity and market value of Facebook, MySpace,
and other social networking sites, as well as customizable portal Web sites
such as iGoogle and My Yahoo!, CRM is playing a key role in the digital
149
media landscape and will gure most prominently in any incarnation of the
Celestial Jukebox.
Digital rights management, on the other hand, has undergone a serious
change in direction, rendering moot much of Burkart and McCourts analysis. It refers to access control technologies that limit and regulate usage of
digital media, requiring the consumer to access content on the providers
terms. With regards to audio compact discs, Big Music attempted for many
years to severely limit consumers ability to make backup copies or rip the
music on to their computer. Use of malicious softwareeven crashing the
users computer and exposing them to security vulnerabilitiesled to public
outcry and several class-action lawsuits resulting in the eventual abandonment of DRM for audio CDs by Big Music. The use of DRM for downloadable music, however, is still a contentious issue.
In a rare case of actual competition within the record industry, Big Music
denied the advent of digital music and staunchly enforced DRM for so long
that it unwittingly handed over signicant distribution power to a new competitor. With the overwhelming success of the iPod and the iTunes music
store, Apple, Inc. has achieved an estimated 80 percent market share of legal
downloads, retaining its own proprietary DRM system, FairPlay, which does
not allow any of Big Musics DRM-encoded downloads to be played on the
iPod. Its market domination threatened, Big Musics only chance of competing with Apple was to offer DRM-free downloads so they could still be
played on the iPod, the most popular digital music player. Finally embracing the digital future, the Big Four all individually announced, throughout
2007, that they would be experimenting with DRM-free downloads and are
now mounting a challenge to Apples domination by aggressively supporting Amazons new digital music service, as well as other subscription services such as Universals Total Music. No longer required to uphold an
unfair and ineffective system, iTunes now offers higher-quality, DRM-free
downloads, fullling its promise to abandon DRM in an open letter called
Thoughts on Music, written by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, in February of
2007. Though DRM is not completely deadWalMarts service and Reals
Rhapsody continue to protect their lesit has certainly lost precedence.
Once a pillar of Big Musics containment strategy for digital media, DRM
has now been all but abandoned by the Big Four, as well as Apple. Though
there is no telling how DRM might rear its ugly head in the future, this
battlefront of the digital music war appears to be conceded.
It is difcult to predict the future of such a ckle and transitory industry
with any accuracy, but it is a pretty safe bet to count on a substantial expansion of the digital music market, leading the way into more digital distribution of lm and television as well. The desertion of DRM seems to indicate
Big Musics acceptance that their future is in controlling the access to music
through various download and subscription services, rather than the sale of
150
Popular Music
products. The media monopoly will continue their attempt to institutionalize and manage the mass proliferation of music and other digital media, artists
will continue to seek larger audiences in innovative new ways, and consumers
will continue to aggressively demand wider access and greater convenience.
Is the cyber-utopian Music Like Water model presented by Kusek and Leonhard really that opposed to Burkart and McCourts vision of the oppressive,
technocratic Celestial Jukebox? Both, in fact, propose that the future of music
is as a service and a utility, yet, they disagree on its impact and effect. If we
consider each model as occupying an endpoint on the spectrum of the possible future of music and acknowledge the current position as somewhere
near the middle, precariously ready to shift in either direction, we are left with
a reasonable depiction of what is on the horizon for the music industry.
CONCLUSION: THE DIGITAL DANCE
I know today has been the most perfect day Ive ever seen.
Videotape, In Rainbows
Important dates in the transformation of the music industryand the
entertainment market as a wholeinclude the release of the mp3 format
in 1992, Napsters debut in 1999 and shutdown in 2001, and the everapproaching day when digital sales nally eclipse physical sales (will we continue to use the term record?). Besides these and other industrial markers, the
digital release of In Rainbows on October 10, 2007, will go down in history
as a symbolic moment in music history when the digital futurewith all its
messy possibilities and complicationswas undeniably here. Radiohead embodies the new (digital) music experience. No longer relegated to the margins of the Darknet, digital music is now front and center in an ongoing
debate about the future of digital media; In Rainbows signaled a symbolic
alternative in which artists and consumers can both win: culturally, artistically, and economically. The pay-what-you-want experiment is no model
for the music industry, but it represents a symbolic victory against the media
monopoly and the capability of music to predict and impact a paradigm shift.
The very fact that Radiohead denies they ever intended to subvert Big Musics hegemony is further proof of the possibility of innovation in the digital
age and the capability of music to uniquely, even unknowingly, subvert social
codes while foreshadowing new ones.
We can now append Attalis central formulation in Noise. Corresponding
to the three stages of the historical usage of music by powerritual power,
representative power, and bureaucratic powerAttali succinctly summarizes musics violent role: Make people Forget, make them Believe, Silence
them.51 In precapitalist society, music afrmed that society was possible;
it made people forget that normalcy and order had prevailed over carnival
151
and freedom. The rise of spectacle and exchange value led to musics transformation into a commodity and private ownership. This new paradigm of
musical production and consumption made people believe in social order: it
characterize[d] the entire economy of competitive capitalism.52 The invention of auditory recording techniques created a new economy of music
based on repetitive mass production, the same basis that would soon dene
all social relations. As individualized accumulation and stockpiling of music
is encouraged through consumerism, community and the collective order is
silenced. With the digital revolution, we have now entered the era of Composition, and one is tempted to add Make them Share to complete Attalis
formulation. However, that would deny the personal agency that is so key to
a collective social order.
Instead: Make people Forget, make them Believe, Silence them, Behold
them Share. If representation is tied to printing, says Attali, and repetition
to recording . . . composition is tied to the instrument.53 Unbeknownst to
Attali, this instrument would be the Internet, the ultimate musical instrument for collective production and collective play. The Round Dancethe
culmination of 25 centuries of musical struggle Attali anticipates, signaling
a postcapitalistic futureoccurs in the electronic global village. What happens there, is up to you.
NOTES
1. John Del Signore, A Conversation with Jonny Greenwood, Gothamist (October 10, 2007), http://gothamist.com/2007/10/10/jonny_greenwood.php.
2. David Kusek and Gerd Leonhard, The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital
Music Revolution (Boston: Berklee Press, 2005), 44.
3. Jacques Attali, Noise: A Political Economy of Music (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1985), 4 (emphasis original).
4. Attali, 10.
5. Attali, 10.
6. Attali, 11.
7. Attali, 34.
8. Eduardo Porter, Radioheads Warm Glow, New York Times (October 14, 2007).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14sun3.html (accessed August 21,
2008).
9. Whats Radiohead Worth? The Nation (August 15, 2007). http://www.thenation.
com/doc/20071029/baker (accessed August 13, 2008).
10. Gilbert B. Rodman and Cheyanne Vanderdonckt, MUSIC FOR NOTHING
OR, I WANT MY MP3, Cultural Studies 20 (2006): 253 (emphasis original).
11. Harold Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
12. Eric Leach and Bill Henslee, Follow the Money: Whos Really Making the Dough?
Electronic Musician (November 1, 2001), http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.
asp?magazineid=33&releasedid=9554&magazinearticleid=132835&SiteID=15.
152
Popular Music
13. C. Goldsmith, M. Karnitschnig, M. Peers, and B. Orwall, As Music Sectors

Woes Worsen, Sony and BMG Propose a Merger, Wall Street Journal (November 7,
2003): A1.
14. Rodman and Vanderdonckt, 255.
15. Kusek and Leonhard, 27.
17. Attali, 58.
18. Justin Bachman, The Big Record Labels Not-So-Big Future, BusinessWeek (October 10, 2007), http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnash/content/oct2007/
db2007109_120106.htm?chan=innovation_branding_industry+trends.
19. Scott Colothan, Exclusive: Radiohead Sell 1.2 Million Copies of In Rainbows,
Gigwise.com (October 11, 2007), http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusiveradiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows.
20. Adam Sherwin, How much is Radioheads online album worth? Nothing at all,
say a third of fans, The Times (October 11, 2007), http://entertainment.timesonline.
co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2633798.ece.
21. For Radiohead Fans, Does Free + Download=Freeload? ComScore (November 5,
2007), http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1883.
22. David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music, Wired (December 18, 2007), http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/1601/ff_yorke.
23. Lane Brown, Radiohead, Inc. Spin (December, 2007): 3536.
24. Jon Pareles, Pay What You Want for This Article, New York Times (December 9, 2007), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/arts/music/09pare.html?_r=3
&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all.
25. Trent Reznor. Announcement on Nine Inch Nails Web site. Reposted on Sixeyes
MP3 Blog. http://sixeyes.blogspot.com/2007/10/nine-inch-nails-label-free.html
(accessed August 12, 2008).
26. Paul Taylor, Music downloads speed decline in CD sales, Financial Times (January 4,
2008), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc29aa7c-ba6711dc-abcb-0000779fd2ac.html.
27. Attali, 107.
28. Katie Dean, Rappers in Disharmony on P2P, Wired (October 1, 2003), http://
www.wired.com/gadgets/portablemusic/news/2003/10/60650.
29. Richard Barbrook, The Hi-Tech Gift Economy, First Monday 3, no. 12 (1998).
30. Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman, The Darknet
and the Future of Content Protection, 2002 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management (November 18, 2002), http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc: 16.
31. Patrick Burkart and Tom McCourt, Digital Music Wars Ownership and Control of
the Celestial Jukebox (Lanham: Rowman & Littleeld Publishers, 2006), 49.
32. Michael Fine, SoundScan Study on Napster Use and Loss of Sales, June 2000.
http://www.riaa/com/news/lings/pdf/napster/ne.pdf; Stan Liebowitz, Will MP3
Downloads Annihilate the Record Industry? The Evidence So Far, Advances in the
Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth 112 (2004).
33. Matt Richtel, Access to Free Online Music Is Seen as a Boost to Sales, New
York Times (May 6, 2002): C6.
34. John Schwartz, A Heretical View of File Sharing, New York Times (April 5,
2004): C1.
153
35. Birgitte Anderson and Marion Frenz, The Impact of Music Downloads and
P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada, Industry Canada, http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01462e.html (accessed
January 5, 2008).
36. Jack Bishop, Who Are the Pirates? The Politics of Piracy, Poverty, and Greed in
a Globalized Music Market, Popular Music & Society 27, no. 1 (2004): 103.
37. Attali, 11.
38. Attali, 34.
39. Kusek and Leonhard, x.
42. Attali, 134.
43. Attali, 45 (emphasis mine).
44. Attali, 141 (emphasis mine).
45. Attali, 73.
46. Paul Goldstein, Copyrights Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 199.
47. Burkart and McCourt, 1.
50. Bishop, 105.
51. Attali, 19.
52. Attali, 32.
53. Attali, 144.
chapter 10
The Future of Radio

in the Digital Age
John Allen Hendricks
The late twentieth century brought about rapid technological advancements

in the communications industry. In an effort to address antiquated federal
regulatory legislation, the U.S. Congress examined and scrutinized the Communications Act of 1934 and determined that it was indeed antiquated and
needed to be replaced with legislation that would address the issues and
challenges facing the communications industry of the twenty-rst century.
Moreover, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a movement toward deregulation of numerous industries, including the communications industry, to
stimulate competition in the consumer marketplace. Thus, Congress passed
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The 1996 act replaced the 1934 act but kept the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) as the regulatory agency for the communications industry and kept the public interest standard as a tenet for
twenty-rst-century terrestrial media, which required licensees to operate
radio stations in a manner that benets the publics interests and needs.
There were several aspects of the telecommunications act of 1996 that
many industry observers found controversial and that played a pivotal role
in determining the programming content available to consumers. First,
economists posited that deregulation would stimulate competition in the
marketplace, but that was not what occurred in the media marketplace upon
deregulation because large conglomerates were (a) permitted to own up to
45 percent of the nations television households, (b) cross-ownership of television stations and newspapers was permitted for the conglomerates, and
(c) there was an elimination on all national radio ownership caps, which
156
Popular Music
allowed for ownership of multiple stations in multiple media markets. Thus,

the act promoted a concentration of power in the radio industry instead of
creating a competitive environment. Second, the 1996 act made license renewals automatic for licensees and extended the period of time a license is
effective. These instances created an environment in which the radio industry was owned and operated by a small group of conglomerates that served
as informational and musical gatekeepers to millions of television and radio
listeners throughout the nation.
The effects of deregulation from the 1990s were far different than the
purported intentions, especially as concerns the end result for users. In fact,
consumers found themselves listening to homogenized, bland formats that
did not allow for the introduction of diverse and niche music and programming genres. In fact, as a result of deregulation, four companies controlled
more than 50 percent of the total listening audience in regard to 28 out of 30
of the major music formats, while just two companies controlled 42 percent
of all radio listeners in the entire nation.
DEREGULATION: AN EXAMINATION
OF ITS SHORTCOMINGS AND IMPACT ON
CONSUMERS AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRY
The 1996 act allowed corporations to own up to 35 percent of the nations
television viewing households. In 2003, the FCC increased the national ownership cap to 45 percent and also granted approval for televisionnewspaper
cross-ownership to occur. This was controversial because it allowed for additional deregulation in an industry where there still remained a robust debate
as to whether the move to allow for deregulation in the 1996 act was the
best decision,1 thus creating an environment where only a few conglomerates
would own a majority of the television broadcast frequencies, which had the
potential to limit multiple perspectives and opinions.
The 1996 act eliminated all national radio ownership limits and allowed for
conglomerates to own multiple stations in multiple media markets throughout the nation. The duopoly rule for radio, where two conglomerates or owners
were not allowed to have rm control of a media market, was repealed, allowing for the ownership of up to 8 radio stations in media markets with 45
or more radio stations, 6 radio stations in media markets with 15 to 29 radio
stations, and 5 stations in smaller media markets with less than 15 radio stations.2 Critics argued that the 1996 act promoted a concentration of power
and conglomerate mergers rather than creating a competitive environment
in the media marketplace.3
The 1996 act also extended the length of time that licenses were effective
from seven years to eight years. But, more importantly, the 1996 act created
a situation where license renewals were automatic unless the licensee
The Future of Radio in the Digital Age
157
requesting renewal had demonstrated a pattern of (1) not serving the public
interest, (2) demonstrating serious rule violations, and (3) not violating other
regulations that combined would constitute a pattern of abuse. Unless these
three things combined could be demonstrated by anyone wishing to challenge the license renewal, there was an automatic renewal to the existing
licensee. This was a vast departure from previous practices where licensees
were required to prove they were serving the public interest and had earned
the privilege of receiving a license renewal. DiCola and Thomson note that
the 1996 act virtually ruled out the possibility of licensees being challenged
by competitors on the grounds of their public behavior.4 Prior to 1996, it
would cost large sums of money in legal fees for licensees to defend their
right to maintain the license and frequency assignment.
The purpose of the deregulatory nature of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 was not only designed to stimulate economic growth in the communications industry but also to advance the core public interest concerns of
promoting diversity and competition.5 The marketplace was indeed stimulated with billions of dollars worth of media mergers taking place just prior
to and after the 1996 act was signed into law. In anticipation of the bills passage, Chancellor Broadcasting Company owned by Roy E. Disney, a nephew
of Walt Disney, paid $395 million for 17 radio stations located in many of the
largest media markets in the nation, including New York, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Houston, and Atlanta.6 In 1995, Innity Broadcasting Corporation purchased 12 radio stations from Pyramid Communications for $306
million.7
Rather than promote diversity and competition, one study found that two
companies aloneClear Channel Communications and Viacomwere in
control of 42 percent of radio listeners and 45 percent of radio revenue. The
same study found that only 10 companies controlled two-thirds of all the listeners and all the revenues of the radio industry.8 In the case of Clear Channel Communications, it owned 1,240 radio stations throughout the nation,
reaching more than 100 million listeners or nearly one-third of the entire
U.S. population.9 This consolidation of ownership had a tremendous impact
on the music industry. The same study revealed that only four companies
controlled over 50 percent of the total listening audience in regard to 28 out
of 30 of the major music formats available to consumers.10
Peter DiCola, the Director of Economic Analysis for the Future of Music
Coalition, asserted:
Radio consolidation has no demonstrated benets for the public. Nor does
it have any demonstrated benets for the working people of the music
and media industries, including DJs, programmersand musicians. The
Telecom Act unleashed an unprecedented wave of radio mergers that left
a highly consolidated national radio market and extremely consolidated
158
Popular Music
local radio markets. Radio programming from the largest station groups
remains focused on just a few formatsmany of which overlap with each
other, enhancing the homogenization of the airwaves.11
Gigi Sohn, the Executive Director of Media Access Project, agreed that there
is a homogenization of radio formats, observing everything sounds the same
regardless of which city the radio station is located.12
Some listeners complain of the blandness of radio formats or the repetitious nature of post-deregulatory programming. Paragon Research conducted
a study to determine whether listeners believed radio programming was repetitious and found that 84 percent of listeners thought radio stations should
stop playing the same songs over and over, 75 percent of radio listeners
thought that stations should play more than one or two songs from a CD or
album, and 54 percent of radio listeners thought stations should play more
unfamiliar music.13
Clear Channel Communications beneted enormously from the passage
of the 1996 act and has been the target of much criticism as a result of its
impressive dominance of the radio industry and aggressive business practices.14 Clear Channel is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, where in 1972
the company started with one radio station; it now owns more than 1,200
radio stations throughout the United States.15 Not only does Clear Channel
own more radio stations than any other media conglomerate, but it also owns
concert, or live entertainment, venues throughout the nation. The company
has been accused of forcing musicians to perform in its concert venues or not
have their music played on Clear Channel radio stations.16
In 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee examined the issue of payola,
which is a pay-for-play system in which radio station owners require payment from artists and record companies before music is played on radio stations. Despite the fact that payola is an illegal practice in the radio industry,
critics of Clear Channel Communications allege that the conglomerate is engaging in the practice.17 In 2003, Clear Channel Communications adopted a
policy that ended the practice of payola in which promoters of music had to
pay radio stations to have the music they were promoting played on stations
owned by Clear Channel Communications.18
Pay-for-play, or payola, is big business for the industry. Studies show that
nearly $100 million is spent annually by record companies through middlemen, known as indies, to serve as promoters of a record companys music.19
The consolidation of radio stations has encouraged the use of pay-for-play.
Katunich noted, With multiple stations in the same market controlled by
one entity, the number of station outlets available should a station in one
market refuse to air a songis considerably reduced, which encourages record companies to participate in payola.20 Moreover, New radio conglomerates hungry for revenue to compensate for the expensive consolidation
159
process are exploiting potentially illegal ways to increase prots through

joint marketing airplay, promotions, and free radio concerts.21
Pay-for-play can inuence not only which songs are played on radio stations but also which songs are heavily promoted to radio listeners and consumers of music. For example, if a large radio station wishes to sponsor a
concert to generate a prot, the station will offer a band or artist less than
the usual performance price to appear at the concert. If the band rejects the
radio stations offer, the radio station has the ability to stop playing the performers music. And, with large conglomerates such as Clear Channel Communications owning the vast majority of radio stations throughout the
nation, it could have a detrimental impact on the success of the performer.
One observer characterized this as extortion by the conglomerates.22 Critics of payola suggest that the system promotes bland, homogenized music
that was simply the highest bid from an indie rather than good music that
radio listeners and music consumers actually desire.
As a result of the pay-for-play investigation that involved major radio
conglomerates such as Clear Channel Communications and others, the FCC
concluded that there was inappropriate business practices occurring and that
the conglomerates should be required to air 4,200 hours of local and independent music. The Future of Music Coalition blog stated, This meant that
the talented artists that had long been excluded from the airwaves in favor of
payola driven play lists were nally getting a small bone.23
Financially, though, this did not mean much to the independent musicians
because Clear Channel Communications required independent musicians to
waive their performance rights to prevent the conglomerate from having to
pay royalties on the airing of the music. Moreover, when the Digital Performance Act was established, the NAB successfully worked behind the scenes
with legislators to ensure that the conglomerates would not have to pay performance rights to musicians from music played on high denition radio.
The Future of Music Coalition stated, Thats right, the richest, largest and
most powerful broadcastersincluding Clear Channelsecured an exemption for themselves. Other digital broadcasters such as Live365, Sirius, and
XM pay the royalty.24
In 2002, there was an attempt by U.S. Senator Russell Feingold
(D-Wisconsin) to get legislation passed, titled Competition in Radio and
Concert Industries Act, which would have prevented monopolistic practices
from occurring in regard to the ownership and control of live entertainment
venues.25 At a hearing on the matter by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Senator Feingold stated,
I have been hearing from independent radio stations and concert promoters in Wisconsin who are being pushed out by anti-competitive practices
that are in turn a result of concentration. The Telecommunications Act
160
Popular Music
of 1996 opened the oodgates for concentration in the radio and concert
industry, and thats exactly why we are here todaybecause we need
to repair the damage that has been done through this anti-competitive
behavior.26
At the 2003 Senate hearing on radio consolidation and deregulation,

the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, Lowry Mays, argued that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually saved the radio industry from nancial collapse noting that before the 1996 act was passed more than half
of the radio stations in the nation were not performing well nancially and
were in the red. Mays noted that while the top 10 largest corporations owning radio stations do indeed produce 44 percent of the industrys revenue,
only 5 record labels control 84 percent of CD sales.27 Additionally, Mays
noted that concert ticket prices have increased to account for a decrease in
CD sales to listeners and fans and did not attribute the rise in concert ticket
prices to anything that Clear Channel Communications was responsible for
through its live entertainment venues.28
The regulatory changes of the 1996 act created a situation where programming choices for radio listeners were scaled back. One study noted
that oligopolies, a situation where a few producers have a signicant affect
on the entire market, exist in geographic media markets and music formats
and asserts the consequences of geographic and format oligopolies have
more acute effects for the listening public, small businesses, and musicians.29
In a study titled False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History
of Ownership Consolidation, it was found that large conglomerate-owned
radio stations tend to choose from approximately eight music formats, or
genres, thus excluding many niche musical formats such as Classical, Jazz,
Bluegrass, New Rock, and Folk.30 DiCola and Thomson asserted, consolidation reduces the number of gatekeepers controlling access to the airwaves.31
For example, if one company owns most of the stations that format a specic
music genre, then that company controls which musicians get air play on
radio stations.
As a result of ownership consolidation within the radio industry, there
now exists a consolidation of formats. DiCola and Thomson suggested: Few
rms controlling a format may mean less competition and less innovation in
playlists, resulting in less diversity and less interest.32 In contrast, an FCC
study found that consolidation has played a very little role in playlist diversity, although this might not be the case in smaller markets.33 DiCola and
Thomson believe that a lack of diversity in radio music playlists has become
a reality.
A lack of diversity in the playlists is not the only thing some observers of
the radio industry have noticed since the passage of the 1996 act. WQBHAM was an African Americanowned station in Detroit that programmed
161
liberal to moderate talk shows, gospel music, and religious programming

but is now owned by a conglomerate, Salem Communications. Now, WQBH
no longer exists and has not only changed its call letters to WDTK but also
programs conservative talk shows and religious programming on the weekends only. One Detroit radio industry observer noted, The Federal Communications Commission has destroyed community radio by letting all these big
conglomerates buy these stations. Its leading to the destruction of minorityowned small stationsstations all over the country.34
In their study, DiCola and Thomson found that every radio format available to radio listeners, except for Adult Standards and Nostalgia, is controlled by an oligopoly. Thus, musicians nd it difcult to get airplay time
for their music because over 60 percent of radio listeners are controlled by
oligopoliesor a small number of radio station owners. DiCola and Thomson observed: This makes it much harder to gain airplay because only a
large promotion budget can get a musician and a song through the bottleneck . . . Coupled with the growing practice of centralized programming, the
reduced number of gatekeepers makes access to the airwaves far more difcult for musicians, especially local musicians.35 Perhaps more alarming to
musicians and listeners is the fact that some conglomerates have blacklisted
musicians for holding political beliefs that are contrary to the conglomerates
political beliefs.
Clear Channel Communications and Cumulus Media banned all music
performed by the Dixie Chicks from being played on radio stations owned
by the two conglomerates because Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the
Dixie Chicks, criticized President George W. Bush and the Iraqi War.36 Tom
Pettys song The Last DJ was also banned by some radio stations because
it was considered antiradio. In response, in a Rolling Stone interview, Petty
said, I dont really give a ying fuck about any of it. Ive tuned out. But I was
elated when my song was banned. I mean, nothing could have complimented
me more than to hear they banned it at such-and-such a station because its
anti-radio. Now, in 2002 to have a song banned that doesnt have a dirty
word, doesnt advocate violenceits fascinating, you know. Like, what are
you afraid of ? No record has ever been made that was more pro-radio, you
know.37
In an effort to protest further deregulation that was considered by the
FCC in 2003, 30 well-known recording artists signed a letter of protest that
stated that deregulation had reduced marketplace competition, reduced
programming diversity and the homogenization of playlists, reduced public access to the airwaves for local programming, and reduced public satisfaction with listening options.38 The petition was signed by artists from
all musical genres, including Jimmy Buffett, Don Henley, Toby Keith, Tim
McGraw, Stevie Nicks, DJ Spooky, Pearl Jam, Tom Petty, Bonnie Raitt, and
others.
162
Popular Music
NEW MEDIA: SATELLITE RADIO

AND PODCASTING
The rapid proliferation of the World Wide Web has enabled and encouraged innovative ways to distribute information and entertainment. Traditionally, terrestrial radio and television were the primary outlets consumers
used to access and listen to music and other types of entertainment. But, the
appearance of and mainstream adoption of new media is changing the traditional media landscape. In 2007, at a Congressional hearing on the radio
industry, W. Russell Withers, Jr., the founder and owner of Withers Broadcasting Companies, stated: Now, radio stations are competing for the same
advertising dollars as television, cable, newspapers, Internet sites and huge
Internet aggregators like Google.39
Also, satellite radio is increasing its audience size because most new vehicles
sold now come equipped with a satellite radio. Currently, there are two satellite radio providers, XM and Sirius. In 2007, there were attempts to merge the
two satellite radio providers. Interestingly, although not linking the negative
assertions about the merger of the two satellite companies to the traditional
radio industry, members of the traditional radio industry proposed that if
the merger was permitted by Congress that many of the predicted negatives
were exactly what critics of traditional radio charged had occurred when deregulation was permitted within that industry. Withers stated, A monopoly
in satellite radio would clearly harm consumers by inviting subscription price
increases, stiing innovation and reducing program diversity.40 In 2008, the
U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the merger could occur.
DiCola and Thomson noted that proponents of the 1996 Telecommunications Act suggested that nancially sound radio stations would be able
to compete more effectively against new media competitors such as cable
television and the Internet.41 And, former FCC chairman Michael Powell,
believed that competition from the emergence of new media such as satellite
radio and the Internet balanced the power gained by the conglomerates over
traditional terrestrial radio and broadcasting. However, when Powell was
considering initiating additional deregulation of the broadcasting industry
in regards to television stations, one observer noted:
If you think concentration in Old Media is okay because New Media will
provide the discipline, then stand up for freeing the New Media from the
shackles that Old Media are trying to weld on. Because if youre not serious about freeing the New Media, then youre not serious about competition, and what youre describing isnt a bold new world, but a sellout.42
Boehlert noted, When one company dominates an industry, it can leverage its monopoly power in all kinds of unpleasant ways, both politically and
economically.43
163
As one observer of the radio industry noted, the deregulation of radio

was tough on good-neighbor radio because Clear Channel and other conglomerates were anxious to vacuum up every station in sight for fabulous
sums of cash and turn them into robot repeaters . . . With a whole generation
turning to iPod and another generation discovering satellite radio and Internet radio, the robotic formatted-music station looks like a very marginal
operation indeed.44 Another observer offered additional criticism of terrestrial radio: By the 1990s terrestrial radio had ceased being entertainment.
Instead it became a real estate grab and a political game.45
The traditional radio industry has had a difcult time integrating Internet
radio as a means to offer ancillary programming to listeners. The Copyright
Royalty Board (CRB) was criticized by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) for implementing copyright law it deemed incompatible with
traditional radio practices. Specically, there were three copyright conditions
the NAB requested to be removed from the traditional radio stations who
stream audio via the Internet, which included (1) the prohibition of playing
three tracks from the same CD within a three-hour period, (2) the prohibition
of pre-announcing songs, and (3) the requirement of providing text data identifying the programming. Withers noted, Radio stations should not be forced
to choose between either radically altering their over-the-air programming
practices or risking uncertain and costly copyright infringement litigation.46
Satellite radio is growing in popularity. As one observer noted, In a marketplace where seemingly every company wants evergreen monthly charges
on consumers credit cards, satellite radio delivered a product that millions
upon millions of end users thought was worth it and they bucked up.47 Several core approaches are believed to have contributed to the success of satellite radio. They include the ability to offer satellite radio listeners local
programming through trafc reports and weather reports in the major media
markets, offering better programming based on listener preferences, having a
satellite radio installed in all news cars, and increasing the audible quality of
sound of satellite radio through digital quality audio and surround sound.48
By 2001, technological advancements permitted audio les to be transferred to and from Web pages thus creating a rudimentary form of podcasting. A podcast is an mp3 le that is located on Web pages for consumers to
download and listen to at a convenient time, known as time shifting. There
are many Internet podcast, or mp3, portals, such as iTunes, that permit
consumers to purchase music and download it to mp3 players or download
programs, similar to traditional radio programs, that discuss specic topics.
Hendricks noted:
As a result of this technology, consumers can listen to podcasts at their
convenience. Traditional terrestrial broadcasting does not offer consumers
this exibility, or time shifting. If a listener misses a favorite radio show,
164
Popular Music
then he must wait until the following day or week when the show is programmed. Podcasts signicantly change this listening paradigm by offering consumers the ability to access programming and listen to it at a time
that is convenient to their schedules.49
In 2005, one study indicated that approximately 11 percent of all Americans

own iPods.50 Moreover, one study indicated that more than a billion songs
have been downloaded for podcast, or mp3, use.51 Podcasting is being marketed to not only an older consumer but also to younger consumers in their
teens and preteens with such programming as Disneys High School Musical and Nickelodeons Zoey 101. Most importantly, podcasting permits consumers to access the genre of music they desire, and it permits consumers
to listen to that music when and where they desire. Traditional radio cannot
make that claim. Niche programming, diverse programming, and consumer
driven programming are the desires of the twenty-rst-century music consumer, and podcasting offers it all to consumers.
LOW POWER FM RADIO STATIONS
On January 20, 2000, the FCC authorized the issuance of licenses for a
new form of terrestrial radio referred to as low power FM (LPFM) radio, and
the rules for this new type of broadcast license became effective on April 17,
2000. Although noncommercial educational facilities are eligible to apply for
a license and operate a LPFM radio station, individuals are not permitted to
apply for a license. The maximum wattage for a LPFM station is 100 watts,
which would provide geographic coverage of approximately three and a half
miles, while the 10 watts is the smallest LPFM station and would provide
geographic coverage of approximately one to two miles. There will be no
commercial LPFM radio station licenses issued by the FCC nor can companies currently owning cable systems or newspapers be granted a LPFM
radio license. The FCC must specify certain windows of time when applications can be submitted for a LPFM license.52
The NAB, a powerful lobbying group that represents traditional terrestrial broadcasters, has successfully opposed the full-scale licensing of LPFM
radio stations. The NAB argued that LPFM radio would introduce technical interference by being placed alongside traditional FM radio stations on
the radio dial. In 2007, at a Congressional hearing on the future of radio,
Withers stated, local broadcasters do not oppose the licensing of LPFM
stations.53 Coincidentally, in the same testimony before Congress, Withers
stated, local broadcasters oppose S. 1675, the Local Community Radio Act
of 2007, which allowed for licensing of additional LPFM radio stations.54
In 2000, there was Congressional wrangling over whether the LPFM
radio stations should continue to be allowed to exist. The FCC allows for
165
public comments when such matters are considered, and the LPFM radio
issue generated more than 3,000 written comments from the public, which
was more than the FCC had received in its entire history on any single issue.55
Additionally, the LPFM radio issue had an impressive list of supporters, including the Green Party, the Catholic Conference, the Library Association of
America, the ACLU, the Council of Calvin Christian Reformed Church, Native American tribes, the United Church of Christ, and several high-prole
celebrities such as Jesse Jackson and Bonnie Raitt.56 Initially, not only did
the NAB oppose LPFM radio, but also National Public Radio (NPR) opposed the concept. Public Radios Regional Organization recommended that
LPFM radio be delegated to the Internet and not the FM spectrum despite
the fact that more than 100 million Americans lacked Internet access.57
The traditional radio industry encouraged Congress to push through
legislation increasing the use of FM translators, which allows for the retransmission of existing radio signals to further points in a geographic area.
Withers stated, Affording preferential treatment to new LPFM stations
would jeopardize FM stations delivery of important, locally-oriented programming to many parts of the country via FM translators.58
In June 2007, U.S. Congressmen Mike Doyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, and Lee Terry, a Republican from Nebraska, announced their intention to introduce legislation that would promote the creation of more LPFM
radio stations. The Future of Music Coalition Blog viewed this as a positive
move for the music industry and stated, Given the shrinking playlists and
bland programming brought about by radio consolidation over the last decade, low power FM has the potential to create radio that is truly radio: local
voices, cutting edge music and genres that are not regularly heard on commercial radio.59
Low power FM radio stations have the ability to serve underrepresented
community groups and musical genres that have been overlooked by large,
mainstream, traditional radio stations owned by conglomerates. A fact sheet
from the Future of Music Coalition asserts: Music that is not perceived as
highly protable is not usually heard on the radio in many communities, impacting the livelihoods of many musicians, including jazz, classical and world
music artists. Musicians nd it increasingly difcult to reach listeners via the
airwaves, while presenting organizations, orchestras and opera companies
have fewer opportunities to promote their performances and broaden their
audience base.60 Illustrating this point, the Future of Music fact sheet on
LPFM radio stations pointed out that Opelousas, Louisiana, was the birthplace of Zydeco music, but the genre could not be heard on local radio stations until a LPFM radio station was licensed to that community.61
Moreover, LPFM radio stations offer women and minority opportunities
to own and work in radio, musicians are afforded valuable airtime for new
and diverse music, religious groups get access to airtime, farmers benet
166
Popular Music
from agricultural information that can be targeted to that demographic, and

LPFM radio stations provide yet another viewpoint.62 Proponents of LPFM
radio stations note that 51 percent of the population is female, but only 6 percent of radio stations are owned by women; also, 33 percent of the population consists of ethnic minorities, yet only 7.7 percent of all radio stations
are owned by minorities. Low power FM radio has the potential to improve
these statistics.
Observers of the LPFM radio movement, noted that the low wattage stations have not been as successful as groups such as the National Federation
of Community Broadcasters (NFCB) had hoped. Proponents of LPFM radio
stations believe the licensing process is too slow with the FCC and is risky
on the front end of the venture because the FCC requires that the LPFM stations be built in advance of a license being issued. Also, the existing LPFM
radio stations have failed to offer the diverse programming some had predicted. Silverman stated, nearly half of the 710 low-power permits the FCC
issued have gone to religious organizations.63 A LPFM radio station success story, however, is KEDU-LP in Ruidoso, New Mexico, which broadcasts
both local and international news, music, and a womens football team; the
station relies on local DJs with local programming.64
FUTURE OF RADIO
Technological advancements are having profound inuence on traditional
mass media in general and particularly the radio industry. The Internet
and other new media such as LPFM radio offer unprecedented outlets and
choices to music consumers. Perhaps more importantly, the Internet and new
media technologies are enabling music consumers to obtain music and information that is tailored specically to their individual interests. Technological
advancements are providing consumers the ability to have more control of
what they listen to and when they listen to it, rather than to have it all ltered by large media conglomerates.
Regarding new technologys impact on radio and music listening habits,
one study noted that the dialogue was well underway regarding whether
podcasting is simply a fad that will soon fade or a rapidly proliferating new
mass medium that will rival modern radio.65 It is not evident if one considers
that Adam Curry, the individual considered to be the founder of podcasting,
has a traditional radio show on Sirius satellite radio that can be listened to
with traditional radio receivers versus an mp3 player. However, in contrast,
one could also point to the fact that satellite radio differs greatly from traditional radio and is actually a form of new media similar to podcasting. In
this regard, Greenlee stated, podcasting is more about the grassroots creation of audio content and listener control than about being a technological
revolution.66
167
As new media such as podcasting, satellite radio, Internet radio, and LPFM
radio generates more advertising revenue and listener support, Greenlee asserted that all the same issues of distribution and advertising placement will
come back into play and the model that made broadcast radio successful will
make podcasting [and all other new media] a commercial success.67 The
sizeable new media listener base should remain steady as young consumers
of music mature and remain loyal to the technological advancements. Also, it
is possible that technological advancements will continue to attract new and
younger listeners to other Internet-based interfaces, thus creating the possibility that traditional radio listenership will continue to decline. Specically,
regarding satellite radio, observers noted, As these new satellite services
mature and grow in popularity, they will become an increasingly important
vehicle for fans who delight in the discovery of music.68
Internet-based technology such as Pandora, which is an Internet radio station that can be listened to on computers and home entertainment systems,
offer a truly extraordinary experience for consumers of music. Other popular
and growing Internet radio services include AOL, Musicmatch, and Yahoo!s
Launch.69 Using a musical taxonomy called the Music Genome Project,
once the listeners provide Pandora with the name of a favorite song or artist, the listener is then provided a list of artists and Internet radio stations
that precisely match their musical tastes.70 Pandora boasts 8.5 million registered users and is the third largest Internet radio service in the United States.
Furthermore, studies indicate that music listeners prefer niche programming,
and Pandora-type technology certainly takes it to an elevated level.
Regarding Pandora, Westergren stated, Something unique about Pandora is that all music, once analyzed by our musicologists and entered into
our database, wins and loses audience in the purest of democratic processes.
If listeners vote thumbs up a song and artist are electronically added to
more station playlists, the exposure is greater, and more people can offer
opinions about that music. If listeners consistently vote thumbs down then
the song is performed and heard less.71 Pandora has a music library of hundreds of thousands of songs from all genres that range from the most popular artists to the completely obscure.72 Furthermore, while only 10 percent
of the music on traditional radio is performed by independent musicians, on
Pandora that number is more than 50 percent. This is indeed the future of
radio precisely because music consumers are adopting these new technologies and all of its advantages over traditional radio. In total, Internet radio
boasts more than 70 million listeners, while traditional radio and homogenized music formats are losing listeners.
Above all, to maintain its listener base and effectively compete in the marketplace, traditional radio must confront several important constraints that
new media do not face. New media posses several advantages: (1) the popularity for new media illustrates consumers desires for niche programming;
168
Popular Music
(2) new media can be archived for later use, or time shifted; (3) audiences
are attracted to the less intrusive advertising used in new media versus the
commercial breaks that interrupt programming in traditional broadcasting;
and (4) new media programming is mostly unregulated by the FCC. In sum,
traditional broadcasting remains strong, but the industry must stay alert
as emerging technologies offer listeners more personal, unltered programming options for music acionados.73
In conclusion, David Kusek and Gerd Leonhard note, Podcasting is pirate radio for the twenty-rst century, and will have as profound an effect
on traditional radio as blogging has had on publishing.74 The reason that
podcasting, along with other forms of new media such as satellite radio and
LPFM radio stations, is expected to have a signicant impact on the future
of radio is due in part because of its ability to deliver interesting, diverse,
and new music along with consumer driven programming. New media also
offer less repetitious programming and less homogenization in regard to
programming. The future of radio is reliant upon its ability to recognize and
deliver better programming based on listener preferences in accordance to
the desire of consumers to hear what they want to hear when they want to
hear it as they can with other new media such as iPods, Satellite radio, and
LPFM radio. Despite the emergence of new media, the traditional radio industry remains robust and has a long history of successfully adapting to
competition (e.g., television), and consumers will remain the beneciaries of
this competitive media marketplace in the twenty-rst century.
NOTES
1. FCC Gives Big Business A Boost With Latest Ruling Dated June 2, 2003,
Swingmusic.net, http://www.swingmusic.net/FCC_Music_Ownership_Media_Mergers.
html (accessed November 18, 2002).
2. George Williams, Keith Brown, and Peter Alexander, Radio Market Structure
and Music Diversity, Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau Staff Research Paper (September 2002).
3. John Allen Hendricks, The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Its Impact on the
Electronic Media of the 21st Century, Communications and the Law, 21 (1999): 3953.
4. Peter DiCola and Kristin Thomson, Radio Deregulation: Has it Served Citizens
and Musicians? Future of Music Coalition, http://www.futureofmusic.org, p. 12 (accessed November 18, 2002).
5. FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, November 8, 2001.
6. Allen R. Myerson, The Media Business; Chancellor to Acquire 17 Radio Stations, The New York Times, August 4, 1995, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.
html?res=990CE0D9143FF937A3575BC0A963958260 (accessed November 9, 2007).
7. Ibid.
8. Peter DiCola and Kristin Thomson, Radio Deregulation: Has it Served Citizens and Musicians? Future of Music Coalition, http://www.futureofmusic.org, p. 12
(accessed November 18, 2002).
169
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Peter DiCola, False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry (December 2006), p 5. http://www.futureof
music.org/research/radiostudy06.cfm (accessed December 18, 2007).
12. Matt Spangler, Cant Find Nothin On Radio?: Consumer Advocates, Group
Heads Clash Over Consolidations Effect on Programming Diversity, R&R Online,
July 31, 1998, http://www.radiodiversity.com/nothingonradio.html (accessed on November 11, 2007).
13. Ibid.
14. Randy Dotinga, Murky Water for Clear Channel, Wired, August 7, 2002, http://
www.wired.com/print/techbiz/media/news/2002/08/54038 (accessed November 10,
2007).
15. Clear Channel CEO Defends Radio Deregulation, The San Antonio Business
Journal, January 30, 2003, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2003/
01/27/daily29.html?t=printable (accessed November 11, 2007).
16. Eric Boehlert, Clear Channels Big, Stinking Deregulation Mess, Salon.com,
February 19, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/02/19/clear_
channel_deregulation/ (accessed November 11, 2007).
17. Ibid.
18. William Baue, Blacklisting, Voicetracking, and Payola: Clear Channel and the
Effects of Media Consolidation, Socialfunds.com, May 23, 2003, http://www.social
funds.com/news/print.cgi?sfArticleId=1130 (accessed November 11, 2007).
19. Lauren J. Katunich, Time to Quit Paying the Payola Piper: Why Music Industry Abuse Demands a Complete System Overhaul, Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 22 (April 29, 2002).
20. Ibid., 654.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 667.
23. Low Power Radio Bill Drops as Clear Channel Causes More Static, Future
of Music Coalition Blog, June 19, 2007, http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/
2007/06/low-power-radio-bill-drops-as-clear-html (accessed November 10, 2007).
24. Ibid.
February 19, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/02/19/clear_
channel_deregulation/ (accessed November 11, 2007).
26. Clear Channel CEO Defends Radio Deregulation, The San Antonio Business Journal, January 30, 2003, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/
2003/01/27/daily29.html?t=printable (accessed November 11, 2007).
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
30. Peter DiCola, December 2006, False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative
History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry, http://www.futureofmu
sic.org/research/radiostudy06.cfm (accessed December 18, 2007).
170
Popular Music
31. Ibid., 36.

33. George Williams, Keith Brown, and Peter Alexander, Radio Market Structure
and Music Diversity, Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau Staff Research Paper (September 2002): 18.
34. Luther Keith, Detroit Radio Lost Community Fixture, The Detroit News,
June 13, 2005, http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0506/13/A02213375.htm (accessed November 9, 2007).
36. William Baue, Blacklisting, Voicetracking, and Payola: Clear Channel and the
Effects of Media Consolidation, Socialfunds.com, May 23, 2003, http://www.social
funds.com/news/print.cgi?sfArticleId=1130 (accessed November 11, 2007).
37. David Wild, Tom Petty is Pissed: And Hes Got Plenty of Good Reasons, Rolling Stone, October 23, 2002, http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5933643/
tom_petty_is_pissed (accessed January 13, 2008).
38. Bill Holland, Artists Take Stand Against Radio Deregulation, Billboard, April 29,
2003, http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-stores-not/
46103101.html (accessed November 11, 2007).
39. Testimony of W. Russell Withers, Jr., on behalf of the National Association of
Broadcasters at the Hearing on the Future of Radio. United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, October 24, 2007, pp. 56.
40. Ibid.
42. Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Open and Shut, TCS Daily, May 20, 2003, http://
www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=052003B (accessed November 11, 2007).
February 19, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/02/19/clear_chan
nel_deregulation/ (accessed November 11, 2007).
44. Garrison Keillor, The Nation, May 23, 2005, http://www.thenation.com/doc/
20050523/keillor (accessed November 11, 2007).
45. Jerry Del Colliano, Jr., Will One Satellite Provider Be Better Than Two?: How
Satellite Radio Can Rule Supreme and Save the Music Business at the Same Time,
Audio/Video News, February 22, 2007, http://www.avrev.com/news/0207/22.xm
sirius015.shtml (accessed November 11, 2007).
Broadcasters at the Hearing on the Future of Radio. United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, October 24, 2007, p. 11.
47. Jerry Del Colliano, Jr., Will One Satellite Provider Be Better Than Two?: How
Satellite Radio Can Rule Supreme and Save the Music Business at the Same Time,
Audio/Video News, February 22, 2007, http://www.avrev.com/news/0207/22.xm
sirius015.shtml (accessed November 11, 2007).
171
48. Ibid.
49. John Allen Hendricks, Podcasting vs. Broadcasting: An Analysis of Listener
Pervasiveness, Advertising Revenue, and Regulatory Considerations, Feedback, 48,
p. 17.
50. L. Rainie and M. Madden, Podcasting, Pew Internet & American Life Project Data
Memo, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_podcasting20050506-podcast (accessed June 12, 2007).
51. D. Smith, Why the iPod Is Losing Its Cool, The Observer, http://observer.
guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,1869042,0 (accessed September 9, 2006).
52. Low Power FM Radio Service, Federal Communications Commission, http://
www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/lpfm/ (accessed November 10, 2007).
54. Ibid., 6.
55. Eric Boehlert, Big Radio Bites Back! Salon.com, October 16, 2000, http://archive.
salon.com/ent/feature/2000/10/16/lpfm/print.html (accessed November 10, 2007).
56. Ibid.
57. Eric Boehlert, Mixed Signals, Salon.com, April 11, 2000, http://archive.salon.
com/news/feature/2000/04/11/print.html (accessed November 10, 2007).
59. Future of Music Coalition Blog, June 19, 2007, Low power radio bill drops as
Clear Channel causes more static, http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2007/
06/low-power-radio-bill-drops-as-clear.html (accessed November 10, 2007).
60. Future of Music Coalition on Low Power FM Radio Fact Sheet 2007, http://www.
futureofmusic.org/articles/LPFMfactsheet07.cfm (accessed November 10, 2007).
61. Ibid.
62. Support Low Power FM: Local radio Now . . . Who Benets from Low Power
Radio? Freepress.net, http://www.freepress.net/lpfm/=benets (accessed November 10, 2007).
63. Jason Silverman, Low-Watt Radio Wields Its Power, Wired, April 26, 2004,
http://www.wired.com/print/politics/law/news/2004/04/63198 (accessed November 10, 2007).
64. Ibid.
Pervasiveness, Advertising Revenue, and Regulatory Considerations, Feedback, 48.
66. R. Greenlee, Is Podcasting Becoming Just Radio? Web Talk Radio, 2005, p. 1
http://www.webtalkguys.com/5182005.shtml (accessed July 2, 2006).
67. Ibid., 2.
Revolution (Boston, MA: Berklee Press, 2005), 63.
69. Ibid.
70. Testimony of Tim Westergren on behalf of the Digital Media Association at the
Hearing on the Future of Radio. United States Senate, Committee on Commerce,
Science & Transportation, October 24, 2007.
172
Popular Music
71. Ibid., 2.
72. Ibid.
Pervasiveness, Advertising Revenue, and Regulatory Considerations, Feedback, 48.
Revolution (Boston, MA: Berklee Press, 2005), 62.
chapter 11
The Business of Radio in the Daily

Soundscape: Reshaping and Defining
the Music Box in Consumer Culture
Phylis Johnson
Millions of Americans listen to radio when they wake up in the morning,

perhaps with a song serving as their alarm on their digital clock. Others
depend on radio to entertain them in cars as they head for work. They scan
the radio dial, with a large number of drivers seeking out stations with more
music, less talk, occasionally allowing for a minute or two of headline news.
Satellite radio services offer competing options with a plethora of music
genres not previously available to drivers. The daily soundscape of music listening is being redened at home, at work, and on the road. Many listeners
choose to tune to favorite Internet stations off their laptops or music downloaded into their mp3 players. Radio, as a concept, is no longer conned to
the AM/FM dial. That should not be so surprising given that radio, as a
medium, has historically been in a state of transition as new technologies
improved listeners experiences. Such experiences have usually centered on
listening to live music performances and recorded renditions from popular
singers. Technological changes have moved radio out of the house to the
streets and into the factories and ofces, as well as across the world through
the Internet.
Radio Today (2007) reports that radio is doing well even among erce competition for audience attention: Well over 90% of all consumers 12 years and
over listen to the radio each weeka higher penetration than television,
174
Popular Music
magazines, newspapers or the Internet. Radio reaches people everywhere

they are: at home, at work, in the car, in stores, restaurants and online
and, more recently, via cell phones. Regardless of age, time of day or geography, radio is Americas true media companion.1
From the radio industrys vantage point, the business is doing well. Radio
executives acknowledge that the impact of competing technologies and music
services cannot be ignored. The chipping away at radios audience has made a
number of companies proactive in their approaches to maintaining listenership.
In a 2007 panel that I moderated as part of my universitys alumni celebrations, Clear Channel Radio executives stated that they are closely analyzing the
listening trends among young consumers, particularly within the 7- to 10-yearold age range, to determine future directions for radio and music listening. On
the other hand, college students and young adults increasingly voice complaints
that AM/FM radio stations have outlived their usefulness to their lifestyles,
given the availability of new satellite services and the growth of Web radio.
To some, it is a matter of time before these new technologies completely capture younger demographics, while older audiences cling on to familiar technologies. The question then, is this: How will these new technologies change
the denition of radio for the consumer in terms of their listening to music?
With the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) continual relaxation of radio regulation and the subsequent growth of already super-sized
corporate media entities, it is timely to consider the expectations of radio audiences, especially with regards to the wants and interests of music listeners
given consolidation trends in entertainment industries in general. Moreover,
one needs to consider the impact of these expectations on commercial radio
stations that have historically generated audience and revenue primarily
from music airplay and promotion. Particularly of concern are three relevant themes that appear to dominate industry discussions on the business of
radio: (1) how to dene radio culturally and technically in the digital Disney
era, which began in the late 1990s with the launch of Disney radio marketed
to young children and tweens on terrestrial stations and over the Internet;
(2) the personalization of radio the impact of customized online playlists
on listening trends; (3) and the transformation of music technologies into
viable global social platforms that promote lifestyles as well as songs. Online
communities such as Last.fm and Second Life give us a glimpse of future
listening and perhaps threaten to complicate the relationship between radio,
record industries, and the listener (as a digital consumer).
THE CONCEPT BEHIND HIT RADIO
Since its inception, U.S. radio quickly assumed its role as an information and music provider. Music provided an inexpensive way to ll massive
The Business of Radio in the Daily Soundscape
175
amounts of radio time. When live performances lled the airwaves, radio
complemented the recording industry. When it began to merely play songs
freely over the airwaves, the industry became concerned whether listeners
would buy songs or albums. Radios relationship with the recording industry
became particularly acrimonious when tape-recording technologies became
available to consumers. When the listener was able to tape their favorite
songs or popular song countdowns, the record industry would once again
think long and hard about its association with radio and what role radio
should have in helping to launch recording artists. The record industry historically has been the primary music supplier for the majority of commercial broadcast stations, and as such it still fuels the radio industry, although
mainly with new releases and songs encompassing the past 50 years.
In the United States, programming among music stations, in particular,
offers little differentiation from one another, aside from falling into the mainstream formats and playlists tracked on the weekly charts of Radio & Records
and Billboard Magazine. These publications are leading voices among several
of the trade magazines shaping the sound of radio be it online, satellite, or
terrestrial. Radio & Records, the weekly radio industry trade publication, represents the symbiotic relationship between the two industries. Radio & Records reports on everything from the promotion of label executive and radio
program directors to weekly station playlists representing every major radio
format, from new age to urban to rock and everything in between. Stations
report on the number of times a particular new artist is played weekly, and
some stations take the lead in determining future hits. In contrast, Billboard
Magazine reports on the number of records sold weekly in the consumer
market.
When Internet radio began to stream music, the radio industry rushed
toward buying into its share of the Web market. The idea was to brand radio
onto the Web. Prior to this point, the major record labels had a fairly strong
and consistent business relationship with AM/FM radio. In fact, station personnel depended on record labels to provide the promotional materials to
market new records and artists. Record labels, in turn, counted on radio to
add these new artists into its music rotation. Radio has traditionally been
a major player in determining what songs would become hits, at least until
recent years. Music Television, of course, has been a strong player since the
1980s. But record labels sell songs, not necessarily videos. Radio disc jockeys
promoted songs on the air, and listeners would run down to the local record
stores. To some extent, consumers were prompted to shop for music when
hearing a song on the radio. At the record store, they might pick up a weekly
playlist from the number one Top 40 station to help them nd new releases.
As listeners began to tap into new songs on Web stations and increasingly
subscribe to download sites, they began to recognize the convenience of purchasing music online. One could listen to a song, and then buy and download
176
Popular Music
it. Others downloaded music illegally from a number of online services, many
of which are now legitimate (e.g., Napster).
Today consumers create their playlists using iTunes or the like, then archive them online, and download their selections onto personal digital players.
They can create their own personal radio stations using WinAmp or Windows Media Player. They can compose and download playlists in several
ways and bypass radio completely. The mystery and science behind the playlist is not as relevant in a consumer-driven marketplace. Whereas the radio
industry was once dependent on the talents of program directors who could
pick future hits, a number of competing services challenge these traditional
methods. Consumers make their voices heard not by calling into radio stations on request lines, but by the downloading decisions that they make online while listening to online stations or services.
The broadcast industry is dependent on a large song database for its daily
airplay, with popular music being the primary product of many stations. In return, the radio stations comply with royalty fee structures established within
the recording industry, primarily by contracting with performing rights
organizations such as the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Musicians Incorporated (BMI). Such agencies
assist in the tracking of airplay and the payment of such services on behalf
of record labels and recording artists. Given that most radio stations, not
just AM/FM, air songs by artists represented by established record labels,
this system seemed to work fairly well, until recently when new technologies
became readily available to consumers through online and satellite services
and triggered an industry of digital music bootleggers. Some AM/FM stations began to stream their programming online to their listeners from their
Web sites.
Add to that, payola scandals have made headlines in news media, with a
number of radio personnel at the corporate level accepting promotional gifts
and monies for excessively favorable promotion of new artists over broadcast
airwaves.2 Independent labels and artists who have traditionally struggled
for airplay on radio complain that major corporate radio stations and record
labels ultimately restrict access into the music entertainment industry to
those outside the mainstream. Many of these independent labels and artists have sought opportunities on Web radio, which has not only been perceived as a threat to the recording industry but an increasing challenge to
terrestrial broadcasters who are restricted by tower transmission. Web and
satellite radio and download services continue to wrestle with the record
industry in determining appropriate licensing fee structures for use of copyrighted music. Listeners now have more access to recorded music (although
not necessarily legally) than at any other time in the history of recording
technology.
177
THE GENERATIONAL GAP: DEFINING

RADIO THROUGH YOUNGER EARS
The Disney Corporation probably presents the best example of where radio
is headed, at least from the perspective of younger generations and those companies that market toward their interests. With the rise of teen stars such as
Hanna Montana, Disney radio has demonstrated the buying power of this maturing demographic, and it reaches its audience through a variety of technologies. Disney Radio is available as a format on 54 radio stations, with nearly
all of them being AM frequencies.3 Disney has managed to capitalize on AM
technology for a particular audience more interested in content than quality.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, the bulk of radio audience transitioned to the FM
dial, which was marketed as offering a quality listening experience.4 AM station managers sought formats such as news and talk that could generate new
audiences, and by the mid-1980s even news/talk moved to FM.5 Meanwhile,
Disney did some background research and found that children were hungry
for content, regardless of its quality. Their rst radios were often bought in
stores toy departments, and these receivers had stronger AM than FM signals. When Disney Radio was launched in 1999, nearly all of the host stations
transmitted across the AM dial. Nearly a decade later, Disney Radio remains
strong across America, with most of its programming played on AM stations.
Disney radio is also available on XM and Sirius satellite radio, online through
iTunes, and through Mobile Radio via certain phone services.
The popularity of highly compressed digital technologies such as mp3
players, which offer mobility en lieu of sound quality, gives evidence toward
a new generation interested in content and convenience. mp3 players are
digital recorders and players that allow the listener to download their music
from their computer and play hours of songs on personal portable listening
devices. Music played back on these devices has the clarity of compact discs
but not the sound quality. mp3 songs typically exist within a narrow bandwidth, similar to the digital music played on satellite and Web radio.6
Dening radio used to be quite simple because it was the only game in
town. Children have listened to radio since its early arrival, alongside parents and friends as well as alone in their bedrooms. Advertisers have only
learned how to tap effectively into this market over the past two decades.
Actually, the evolution toward childrens radio as a market force is not a new
idea. Exceptional shows in the days of early radio generated family audiences. A generation of listeners has grown up experiencing radio as more
than AM/FM and listens to Web radio or readily available downloads. Redening radio has been a gradual process that has occurred over the past
decade and can be linked to the growth of technology and the children who
were part of radios transition on to the Internet.
178
Popular Music
Since the mid-1950s, very little programming specically targeted the

youth market (particularly ages 11 and under) until 1990, aside from some
occasional childrens shows that were aired on public radio in the United
States, such as the popular PickleBerry, a weekly half-hour music program
syndicated to 55 stations.7 In addition, this show airs on satellite and 300 cable
outlets, as well as on the Radio Reading Service for the Blind. It is also
streamed across the Internet. It can be heard in New York and New Jersey on
Networks Companion Radio, a service for Convalescent Hospitals and Retirement Homes, as well as in four Childrens Hospitals in North California.
Radio Lollipop offers a similar cable service that is broadcast in childrens
hospital wards in the United Kingdom. Some producers have moved their
efforts toward the Internet, believing that National Public Radio did little to
support kids radio since the late 1980s.8
In 2000, Nickelodeon partnered with the Sesame Workshop (formerly
the Childrens Television Workshop) to create Noggin, a network aimed toward 2 to 14 year olds complete with an interactive Web site for toddlers to
teens. Noggin Radio soon became available to preschoolers via the Internet.
Radio producers and programmers were eager to change the way American
children listened to music and sought alternative programming on air and
online in an attempt to capture a share of the youth market.9 The genesis
of kids radio, a trend toward the broadcast of childrens programming on
both commercial and noncommercial radio stations, as well as across the
Internet, led to a rethinking of radios role. Scholarly research with regards
to the phenomenal rise of childrens programming on radio and the Internet
is virtually nonexistent. For the past decade, only one or two organizations,
such as Children Now, have attempted to address the availability and quality of childrens programming on radio. The Internet is home to numerous
childrens shows, some of which can also be heard on public and community
radio stations.
Until 2000, commercial radio in generalhad generally positioned itself away from younger demographics as a marketing strategy and instead
targeted the 18 and older audiences. Christopher T. Dahl, single parent of
two sons and founder of Childrens Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), has
been credited with changing all that with the launch of Radio AAHSa.k.a.,
kids radio. At its peak, Radio AAHS had 32 afliates in the United States,
with a 40 percent audience share of American households.10 By 1998, Radio
Disney had launched a successful competing network.11 The CBC went silent
on January 30, 1998. In 1994, Arbitron, the largest radio research company,
released the results of its study on childrens radio listening habits and reported that radio reached 91 percent of children, aged 2 to 11 years old, who
spend an average of seven hours a week listening to radio.12
Of all the radio shows available to children, many are linked to Web sites,
and at least one-third offer programming via the Internet. Children and
179
teens comprise the two largest growth sectors on the Internet. Music is its
largest product. In 1992, Fox Broadcasting Network was one of the rst
companies to seek such opportunities, and in doing so, a radio version of its
Foxs Kids Countdown was bornindeed a 3-hour advertisement broadcast
on contemporary hit radio stations across the United States. Decidedly, this
move on the part of Fox management acknowledged radios ability to attract
young listeners8 to 17 year olds. Kids radio also offered investors another
way to tap into the future consumers of America. At its launch, the airplay
and marketing of teen superstars created huge teen markets: Radio Disney
plays heaping helpings of teen-appeal acts, such as Britney Spears, NSync,
Backstreet Boys, and Christina Aguilera [and] seasoned with lm and TVsoundtrack hits.13 The children who once listened to early Disney radio are
now teens, and Disney radio has established itself as a music market force
beyond the AM dial.
Commercial radio has historically attracted the attention of the youth market. It is only recently, however, that researchers have acknowledged the role
of radio in the lives of youth and adolescents. Little research exists on radios
presence and impact in the lives of children and teens, with the majority of
media research focused primarily on television.14 Paul Guillifor states, Adolescence is a time to rebel against the authority, and radio may help legitimize
that rebellion.15 Topics include drugs, politics, teen fads, and others, many
of which are most often mentioned on youth-oriented radio stations by disc
jockeys, and through the lyrics of popular music.16 In the November 6, 1999,
Testimony of the American Academy of Pediatrics on the Social Impact of
Music Violence, Frank Palumbo, MD, stated that music is crucial to the
identity of teens, and issued a general warning to the Senate Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and The District
of Columbia: As a society, however, we have to acknowledge the responsibility parents, the music industry, and others have in helping foster the nations
children.17
One reason why radio may have escaped much of the attention of media
researchers and advocacy groups for childrens rights is because offensive
lyrics have been typically blamed on the musicians and the recording industry. Yet, the radio industry, like cable and television, has aggressively pushed
content limits over the past decade. Indecent language has ltered through
the airwaves and has boosted, in several cases, record sales and airplay for
some musicians. The Christian music industry ourished as a result of the
backlash from teens and parents seeking Top 40 radio alternativespop
songs with a positive message. Fox Kids Countdown, the biggest nonDisney syndicated program, as well as Disney Radio, in contrast, did not seek
to provide moral alternatives to todays popular music, rather its strategies
were primarily concerned with ways in which songs capitalize on the teen
market.18
180
Popular Music
RADIO AS A PERSONAL MEDIUM

Certain music formats, such as rhythmic contemporary hit radio, contemporary Christian, active rock, and alternative, have strongly established in-car
listening audiences.19 Some of these formats do equally well with other mobile technologies, such as portable digital players. AM/FM Radio has served
not only as a personal medium but also a social medium, as it has traditionally brought people together to share in music and culture. Black/urban
radio has particularly reached out to help its listeners in times of great strife,
for example, during the civil rights era and the Los Angeles riots of the late
1960s and again in the early 1990s. A number of New Orleans broadcasters
came together to provide continuous coverage during Hurricane Katrina
and subsequent relief efforts. Music, however, was not at the core of these
experiences as stations transformed into news/talk operations for the duration of the crisis. Radio has particularly brought people together in times of
celebration and crisis. However, listening is increasingly becoming a private
experience. Disgruntled listeners tired of worn-out music rotations seek options that are less dependent on rigid corporate formats and polices. Format
fragmentation during the 1990s was as much about radio stations nding
their identity among 50 or so stations in the top radio markets as it was
about offering consumers what appeared to be a choice among music genres.
Listeners soon became weary of stations with marketing hype, cookie-cutter
formats, and tight music rotations in which the same songs played over and
over throughout the day.
On the other hand, MTV has led the youth music movement since its inception in 1981, boasting a high percentage of male viewers 1224 years
old.20 It presents a mainstream approach comparable to radio with its limited playlist. In 2004, MTV decided to cater to its young male audience segment, which was determined as the networks most loyal audience, through
MTV2.21 This channel builds upon its audiences niche interests in sports,
video games, and cars and connects its viewers to content beyond a primarily
musical emphasis. MTV seemed to realize that this audience wanted something beyond the music, although that was still important to their lifestyle.
Radio managers are waking up to the fact that they must offer content beyond
music in order to remain attractive to listeners who can get their music
elsewhere. Interestingly, MTV Network Radio is one of the latest additions
to the companys media offerings. Radio is ubiquitous and is present in our
listening soundscapes where we shop, work, and live, and some argue that it
will remain viable in years to come. Its owners and programmers cannot easily overlook the challenges of Internet and digital radio as competing market
forces and perhaps as evolutionary technologies.22 The record and radio industry, as a whole, have struggled toward a modern-day denition of radio not
bound by transmission in the face of a consumer-driven market. MediaWeek
181
reporter Katy Bachman states, Todays listeners can text or e-mail the station, compose playlists, chat with each other and on-air personalities, enter
contests and buy music. Technology has allowed them to become truly involved in a stations programming and advertising.23 Bachman reports on
how radio has been historically limited by its license, citing David Goodman, president of marketing for CBS Radio: Now radio can be more. If you
want to listen, thats great. If you want to interact with the station using
another device, you can. If you want to watch radio, you can.24
Arbitron research clearly indicates that over the past decade radios national audience has remained strong. Yet, broadcast practices that worked
ve years ago are becoming obsolete in the wake of portable digital devices
such as mp3 players and iPods. The challenge for the radio industry is to nd
a way to stay relevant to young consumers 1217 years old and 1824 years
old, who enjoy a variety of listening options and segue between technologies
effortlessly. For some companies, such as Clear Channel Radio, that means a
strategic plan that envisions radio as more than AM/FM transmission. More
than 50 percent of 12 to 17 year olds own a digital audio unit for personal
music recording and playback.25 Arbitron reported in 2001 that radio had a
strong role among preteens and younger audiences, and these listeners were
more likely to be loyal toward a particular AM/FM station than other demographic groups.26 Other research indicates older teens and young adults are
more likely to listen to their favorite tunes on an mp3 player or other digital
media, citing reasons such as mobility and playback convenience.27 In doing
so, these listeners tend to edit out commercials and nonmusic programming.
Satellite users merely expand their listening options to include a variety of
genres, without chatter or commercials. Subscribers tend to be in the upper
middle class and represent annual household incomes of at least $100,000.28
The availability of satellite as an option to the general public is well known,
with Howard Sterns well-publicized move to Sirius Satellite Radio on January 9, 2006, underscoring its viability as a strong market force. The uncensored Stern is a signal to consumers, provoking them to embrace the new
freedomin speech and musicoffered by satellite radio. As new cars come
fully loaded with satellite services, FM stations will have to ensure their
place on the dashboard. BMW promises that new cars in the near future will
stream music and video content, and the companys emphasis is currently on
nding a content provider and working out licensing arrangements. A mini
satellite dish would be placed on the roof of the car, and content would be
downloaded for playback while on the road.29
As for the immediate future, online stations continue to supplement or
replace radio for at-work listening in those settings where the listener sits in
front of a computer during most of the day. Many online stations are available commercial free, as well as nearly talk-free, and provide an environment
that does not interrupt workow. Acoustic stations or new age stations offer
182
Popular Music
background music and light vocals that do not distract from the workplace.
A seemingly endless stream of genres offers advantage to listeners seeking
variety and a break from mainstream radio that relies on very structured
formatscountry, Top 40, rock, and adult contemporary.
The good news for AM/FM radio is that the growth rate for online listening has slowed somewhat to 11 percent of U.S. listeners, down 1 percent
from 2006.30 As online stations become more reliable in streaming capabilities and develop consistency, listening rates might increase substantially. Of
the 1834 demographic, 16 percent listen to online radio weekly, and 14 percent of those 1849 years old tune online for programming, mostly music.31
A GLOBAL RADIO CULTURE
Music is one way to dene social identity individually and collectively,
especially in terms of creating a youth culture.32 Both personal and group
identities appear shaped by music.33 With trends toward music globalization, the potential for a worldwide youth identity moves toward reality.
This trend provides social and political challenges for some Asian countries as their youth begin to reevaluate their beliefs, values, and preferences
against a growing World MTV egocentrism that invites, unites, or acculturates (some would say assimilates) them into a world culture.34 Music trends
have been typically determined through record sales, but adolescent and college students increasingly have sought music from alternative sources, such
as pirated downloads off the Internet, which made headlines in the late 1990s
at many universities.35 Growth in the world music market has indicated an
increase of $33 billion, from $4 billion in 1985 to nearly $37 billion over an
approximate period of 15 years.36
In September 2000, several Asian regional radio stations in Hong Kong,
Beijing, Shanghai, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia united to create the
rst Global Chinese Pop Chart to truly represent a Pan-Asian outlook
on music.37 The Internet became the impetus for the launch of an Asian hit
music chart because listeners had immediate access now to music artists in
other countries. Genres such as hip-hop and rhythm & blues readily became
radio favorites in the Asian market. These genres were also among the top
10 U.S. formats, according to record sales in 2002 and consistently in subsequent years.38 The boundaries are fading, as a larger soundscape and denition of radio articulates listenership in the United States and the world than
at any other time in modern history.
THE BIG RADIO PICTURE
Since the late 1990s, the FCC has paved the way for additional consolidation among the largest media companies, despite public clamor and increasing
183
opposition. Its latest round of deregulation comes at a time when several of

the largest radio conglomerates in Americathe corporate owners of FM
radio stations across the nationare within the scope of the FCC probe
into what appears to be a modern-day payola scandal, reminiscent of the payfor-play that occurred within the industry in the 1950s.39 Instead of radio
deejays at the receiving end, the money goes to the bottom line of the radio
stations and the conglomerates that own them, according to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.40 As industry reporter Eric Boehlert writes:
Radio is an entity unique to the music industry. Its an independent force
that, much to the industrys chagrin, represents the one tried-and-true way
record companies know to sell their product. Small wonder that the industry for decades has used money in various ways to inuence what radio
stations play. The days are long gone when a DJ made an impulse decision about what song to spin. . . . Indeed, say many industry observers, very
little of what we hear on todays radio stations isnt bought, one way or
another.41
Although the record industry acknowledges radios traditionally strong role

in promoting music artists, it is also aware of how radio is being redened
through the Internet, as is the music business. On June 26, 2007, Web radio
stations and channels in North America participated in the Day of Silence in
an attempt to rally publicly against royalty fees that would shut down some
operations. The rates did increase and a number of small- to mid-size services went dark. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides the record
industry the opportunity to reevaluate its royalty rates for song play for
Internet radio, broadcasters, and other services every ve years.42 Corporate
radiobe it Web, AM/FM, or satellite has weathered the escalating rates,
while smaller competitors have been forced out of the industry. In December
2007, XM Satellite Radio settled with Universal Music Group over a copyright infringement lawsuit involving its sale of a portable music player that
made it possible for consumers to make digital copies of music.43
Arbritrons latest research indicates that Clear Channel Radios online
stations are the only ones that have made steady and signicant gains in
listeners.44 Part of the reason might be attributed to its launch of highdenition radio and a variety of formats offered on its digital subchannels.
These stations are also available as Web streams. Pride radio is a new format
that targets homosexual audiences with music and information. Other subchannel formats include opera, independent music, future country, extreme
hip-hop, and eclectic coffee house formats.45 Under its division Clear Channel
Music Group, several live sessions of various artists recorded in its studios
are archived and accessible online through the company Web site. Listeners
can tune to new music releases on demand and buy CDs through Amazon.
184
Popular Music
com. They can also listen to their favorite artists in-concert via the site or
watch streams of their music videos.
Clear Channel Communications is branding its formats based on its ability to deliver content through terrestrial and online radio. As the largest
radio company in the world (with markets in Australia, Mexico, and New
Zealand), it has access and money to take the lead in redening listeners
radio experiences and positioning itself for the future with technical quality, format diversity, and a cultural and technological expansion of radio at
the forefront of its marketing campaign. Clear Channels 10-year programming agreement with XM Satellite Radio expires in 2008, about the time
of the anticipated merger between the two largest radio satellite services in
North America. Sirius Satellite Radio stockholders voted on November 13,
2007, to proceed with the acquisition of XM Satellite Radio pending FCC approval. Given Clear Channels strength in the overall radio marketplace, it
will be a formidable rival to satellite radio. The radio industry will be dominated by two major radio powerhouses, and the music industry will have to
contend for its place among the corporate giants.
FUTURE OF RADIO LISTENING
Radio listening in the United States has been tracked by noting gains and
losses in AM/FM radio formats, which have tripled over the last 30 years.
Small and medium radio markets tend to have less format fragmentation than
large metropolitan areas. Arbitron tracked 50 formats in 2006, and gains
were reported for adult hits, contemporary Christian, country, Spanish, and
urban adult contemporary. Among the new formats reported is childrens
radio. Formats that remain consistently strong are adult contemporary, rock,
classical, easy listening, contemporary smooth jazz, oldies (urban, Spanish,
and pop), and nostalgia. Not surprisingly, the largest gains in time spent listening are among those 65 years and older, and listening for those younger
than 18 was down 9 percent from 2003 to 2006.46
Behind the multitude of radio formats is station access to the classic hits
and songs from the recent past, with the quality of much older songs being a
limiting factor in airplay. Record companies fuel the music libraries of stations
by granting permission to a variety of songs, repackaged as radio formats
through licensing and royalty fees. Over the past several decades, the volume
of music produced has grown substantially and so has the number of radio
formatsrst supplying AM/FM stations and now Internet radio stations.
Last.fm began as an Internet radio station and music subscription service in
the United Kingdom, and it may provide a glimpse of where radio is headed
on a general scale as the social and technical aspects of radio are reconceptualized online. Founded in 2002, Last.fm has become the social music platform with over 20 million active users based in more than 232 countries.47
185
The service keeps track of user proles and adjusts their music choices into
a weekly playlist, and in fact, in early 2007, it released the Worldwide Music
Chart based on customer selections. Through their subscription, customers
are given access to an extensive music database from which they can listen
to or download songs. System users can connect to each other through their
prole spaces, and that appears to have led to the success of the service. CBS
bought the company in 2007.
Children, adolescents, and young adults are moving toward technologies
that allow them to create personal music libraries. FM stations provide a
way to listen together, for now, collectively with other listeners. Traditional
radio stations in local markets unite a group of listeners who seek out concert events and promotional information regarding a new artist or a release.
With services such as Last.fm that allow listeners of like music interests to
socialize online, and as the means of social communication is redened by
the Internet, traditional radio stations will need to reconsider both their social and technical roles in an increasingly global and computer-driven world.
MySpace.com and its competitors provide additional evidence of such trends.
Corporate radio continues to shrink the number of AM/FM stations, and a
number of the smaller companies in large and small local markets cannot
compete against national dollars.
Simultaneously, with the FCCs call for another round of low-power licenses, community-based radio stations might offer alternative, localized,
ways to socialize based on music interests, particularly those representing
small labels and niche formats.48 Radio corporations represent one aspect of
media consolidation, but the existence of such conglomerates should not be
reminiscent of the rise and fall of networks in the early days of radio. Consolidation is not a trend; it is a way of business in modern economy. Successful small entrepreneurs with innovative ideas will be merely bought out like
Last.fm. For those willing to challenge the radio powerhouses, they might
nd themselves outspent by corporations that command incredible resources
and audiences. Over the past decade, smaller community stations have banded
together and incorporated assets collectively to compete against larger players, and the issue of whether that strategy is effective over the long run will
be settled in time.
As opportunities abound across the Internet and through other technologies, the radio and music industries will remain in ux, and corporations will
be forced to follow consumers as they move and experiment with platforms.
For the most part, changes in listening patterns will evolve slowly as people
attempt to manage new technologies into their lifestyles and budgets. Second
Life (SL), a virtual community owned and operated by Linden Labs since 2003,
offers its more than one million residents space to build and design houses
and buildings, own businesses, and interact with each other online.49 Second
Life also hosts a teen grid. In both communities, residents (as avatars) can
186
Popular Music
stream music and video into their virtual propertiespersonal and public
and anyone ying over these spaces can hear any one of a number of Internet radio streams. Some dance clubs in SL are dependent on these streams,
and the issue of royalty fees has not been addressed as of yet. Some record
company executives have taken a wait-and-see approach, refraining from imposing restrictions on emerging communities. Second Life attracts college
students who are required to participate in the grid for university classes
and activities, as well as those who tend to be middle-aged, college-educated,
and more computer literate than the general public. To the listener, radio
is a service that provides music, regardless of its transmission means. The
traditional radio industry has been attempting to play catch-up to some of
these listeners, who demand much more from their listening experience. The
move toward greater consolidationif you cannot beat them, own them
seems to be the solution for corporate radio executives who realize that the
Internet offers social and technical opportunities that compete with their
services. The goal then for the radio industry is to not let the public redene
their business but move proactively among the various listening options to
market it uniquely to the consumer while being extremely cognizant of the
reasons why listeners tune online or to satellite services. Kurt Hanson, in his
column for RAIN: Radio and Internet Newsletter, also points out Internet radio
stations need to consider the best way to use the Web that is unique from
traditional AM/FM and satellite broadcasters:
Webcasters who take advantage of the characteristics of the new medium
e.g., LAUNCHcast, Pandora, etc.are, I believe, going to be the ones that
see the greatest success in this medium. And right now, the Internet efforts of traditional radio broadcasters (AM/FM broadcast groups, satellite
radio companies, etc.) are not playing in that game.50
FURTHER IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Radios relationship with the music industry has been in transition from
the rst broadcast of a song to its expanded role on Internet radio, and its
future can no longer be bound to terminology and concepts centered on a
particular source of transmission. From an industry point of view, satellite
radio, streaming media, and terrestrial stations are competitive players for
the attention of listeners. From the listeners vantage point, radio in all its
forms is part of the larger soundscape in their life. Listeners hear a multitude
of songs in the car, at home and work, and in restaurants and stores. The
Radio Ink Convergence 2008 conference has become one way to bring traditional and new media broadcasters into the same venue to discuss the future
of radio as it relates to streaming, blogging, podcasting, social networking,
mobilecasting, and more familiar forms of transmission.51 Such discussions
187
are needed within the radio industry, for even with all its consolidation, it
is confronting an endless stream of new technologies that are changing the
ways Americans and the world are listening and socializing.
Nevertheless, the radio industry has been a dominant player in determining what popular music will reach the public. This exposure is invaluable
to the music industry. To some listeners, the convenience of tuning into a
radio station and learning about a new artist is a signicant part of a ltering
process that assists them in choices amidst family and work priorities. When
the radio industry launched the Jack FM format in 2000, it was based on the
rise of the download culture. mp3 listeners had become accustomed to listening to their favorite songs randomly and did not seem to mind when their
favorite country song played after a classic metal tune. This sort of listening
dees the programming logic long held dear to the radio industry. Jack FM
offered a mix of music that tapped into the mp3 way of listening and attempted to make it a viable format. The format developed, in part, as a result
of an American Internet radio station by Bob Perry, a radio station manager,
who relocated to Connecticut to live near his wifes aging parents. The positioning statement for Jack FM sprung from the theme playing what we
want and was introduced to the listening public as You Dont Know Jack.52
Some media headlines, such as in Variety, exclaimed that radios future
sounds a lot like the past.53 The format is syndicated across traditional radio
outlets throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom and
serves its audience with hits from the 1960s through the 1990s, adding some
contemporary favorites into the mix.54 Variations of the brand are Bob, Joe,
and Frank, and the format was launched in the United States in 2004, with
Canadian stations rst airing Jack in 2002. Jack FM and its off-brands, although garnering more than 8 million listeners in the United States and
Canada, have not commanded strong and consistent ratings across major
markets compared to traditional radio formats.55 The format, as a niche, also
cannot compete over the long term against the hundreds of thousands of
personal mp3 playlists, the combination of which is mind-boggling and fairly
impossible to replicate across formatted radio. Radios advantage over mp3s
and iPods, according to industry analysts, is the deejay, and many of the Jack
formats have eliminated personality in favor of music:
No particular order. Bigger playlist than most commercial stations, but just
hits. Heard worse. Take it or leave it. Someone elses iPod . . . Jack doesnt
bother naming the tune or the singers of the songsunless you want to
go to the Web site. Jack is much too cool for that. Just music, commercials,
PSAs and those one-and two-liners spoken by the anonymous man. . . . An
op-ed writer in The New York Times said: Jack has attitude but no soul.
A Newsday writer described the march of Jackism as another step toward
the McDonaldization of radio.56
188
Popular Music
At this juncture in media history, the radio industry is best advised to emphasize what it does bestprovide information, particularly as in the exposure
of music from up and coming artists and established ones. To simply assume
that average consumers will nd their way through the millions of songs available without any sort of guidance is absurd. Add to that, the record industry
works best when new songs and albums are promoted to the public as scheduled releases that can be properly hyped. When deciding which of the six to
eight motion pictures to watch showing weekly at the local theater, moviegoers seek guidance from a host of reviewers. Might radio audiences seek
similar information with regards to music? As social music communities grow
audiences online, such information might be shared in more effective ways
than is commonly the case and challenge the need for a radio personality.
Why should the radio industry anticipate that music listeners, in general,
will be eager to wade through a litany of new artists and new songs without
any sort of professional ltering process? The radio and record industries
have always been confronted with complaints against their mainstreaming
of music, but then again, the majority of listeners remain interested in pop
music culture. Online radio stations, for the time being, might build upon
AM/FM radios emphasis on music and culture and/or differentiate their
offerings by developing unique ways of presenting songs and artists that
involve less hype and pure music listening. They can provide streams of new
music to online subscribers, in addition to their mainstream formats. The end
process is the consumers ability to purchase music online in an effort to develop personal music collections. No doubt that is why the radio industry has
aggressively pursued consolidation of its traditional broadcasting opportunities with those of major online media companies. Convenience will always
be at the heart of consumer choices because many listeners do not have the
time to sort through new music (and if they do not want to be stuck in a time
warp they will turn to popular sites that offer them guidanceradio and
onlineabout new artists and new music).
High-denition radio presents the issue of whether the resultant further
fragmentation on the radio dial with the availability of digital subchannels
will serve the radio industry well in the long run. These subchannels, such
as pride radio and urban radio, might cater to diverse populations and underserved audiences, but only to a point. Only the top songs of a particular
genre are played by radio stations, simply because most listeners only listen
to radio a portion of the day. A multitude of choices online for any genre can
be overwhelming without any sort of guidance. The classic hits of yesterday
long determined through radio are now increasingly archived into music
libraries, which are available to traditional and Web broadcasters alike.
Radio has helped to dene what music will become popular, even in the
age of pay-for-play. Some public clamor has centered on how Clear Channel Radio and other large conglomerates have controlled music playlists in
189
collusion with record executives and in effect how these mega companies have
made it impossible for the entrance of other artists. Clear Channel has responded to such arguments with the addition of new music forums on its Web
site. With a dip in listening to some online services and as well as some declines in traditional radio listening, all that can be really said about the near
future is that consumers will continue to enjoy the ability to move between
listening mediaand as such will continue to divide their time between the
available options. As of 2008, traditional radio listening on the AM/FM dial
is still strong with most Americans tuned in daily or at least weekly. These
radio stations remain key to the launch of new music and to the preservation
of older tunes and lifestyles, although they are no longer the only means to
determine what songs will become part of American popular culture.
NOTES
1. Arbitron, Inc., Radio Today, April 19, 2007, http://www.arbitron.com/radio_
stations/arlt.asp (accessed December 14, 2007), 3.
2. Eric Boehlert, Pay for Play, Salon.com, March 14, 2001, http://archive.salon.
com/ent/ feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html (accessed December 19, 2007).
3. Disney Radio, Walt Disney Company, http://radio.disney.go.com/speak/request.
html (accessed December 20, 2007).
4. Michael C. Keith, Voices In the Purple Haze: Underground Radio and the Sixties
(Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood Publishing, 1997).
5. Kelly W. A. Huff, AM Stereo in the Marketplace: The Solution Still Eludes,
Journal of Radio Studies 1 (1992): 1520.
6. Cory Deitz, Is the Sound Quality of Satellite Radio: What Do They Promise,
About.com: Radio, http://radio.about.com/od/listeningtipstrivia/qt/blsatellitequal.
htm (accessed December 23, 2007); Eric Holdaway, Sounds from Space: An SQ Comparison of Satellite Radio, Car Audio and Electronics, http://www.caraudiomag.
com/specialfeatures/0310cae_satellite_radio_comparison/index.html (December 23,
2007).
7. Pickleberry Pie, radio show Web site, http://www.childrensmusic.org/pickle
berry.html (accessed December 24, 2007).
8. Jeff Silberman, Childrens Radio: Its a Small World, After All, Billboard 112,
no. 8 (2000): 67 69.
no. 8 (2000): 67 69.
10. P. Hodges, Radio AAHS Pulling the Plug, Channel 4000, November 3, 1997,
http://www.channel4000.com (accessed May 14, 2000).
11. Radio Business Report, Judge overturns $20M award, January 20, 1999 (Lake
Ridge, VA: Radio & Television Business Report).
12. Billboard, 91% of Children Listen to Radio, June 4, 1994: 125.
no. 8 (2000): 67 69.
14. Paul F. Gullifor, Family Communication Patterns and Adolescent Use of Radio,
190
Popular Music
17. Frank Palumbo, Testimony of the American Academy of Pediatrics on the Social
Impact of Music Violence. Presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), November 6, 1997.
no. 8 (2000): 67.
19. Arbitron, Inc., Radio Today, February 14, 2006, http://www.arbitron.com/
radio_stations/arlt.asp (accessed December 14, 2007), 16 79.
20. Megan Larson, MTV2s Youth Movement, MediaWeek 14, no. 35 (2004).
21. Megan Larson, MTV2s Youth Movement, MediaWeek 14, no. 35 (2004).
22. Ken Garner, The Radio Conference: A Transnational Forum, Radio Journal:
International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media 2, no. 1 (2004): 49 57.
23. Katy Bachman, Stations in the Stream, Media Week 17, no. 34 (2007): 14 15.
24. Katy Bachman, Stations in the Stream, MediaWeek 17, no. 34 (2007): 14 15.
25. Arbitron, Inc., The Innite Radio Dial 2007: Radios Digital Platforms, http://
www.arbitron.com/downloads/ digital_radio_study_2007.pdf (accessed December 12,
2007), 14.
26. Arbitron Inc., How Kids and Tweens Use and Respond to Radio 2001, http://
www.arbitron.com/study/kids_tweens_use_radio.asp (accessed December 1, 2007).
27. Arbitron, Inc., Bedroom Project Executive Summary 2007, http://www.arbi
tron.com/study/bedroom_project.asp (accessed December 12, 2007).
28. Bruce Gain, Is Satellite Video Coming to Your Car Soon? Wired Blog Network, February 6, 2007, http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/02/is_satellite_vi.html
(accessed December 18, 2007).
29. Bruce Gain, Is Satellite Video Coming to Your Car Soon? Wired Blog Network, February 6, 2007, http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/02/is_satellite_vi.html
2007), 3.
2007), 3.
32. Hasan Grkan Tekman and Nuran Hortasu, Aspects of Stylistic Knowledge:
What are Different Styles Like and Why Do We Listen to Them, Psychology of Music
30 (2002): 28 47; Hasan Grkan Tekman and Nuran Hortasu, Music and Social
Identity: Stylistic identication as Response to Musical Style, International Journal
of Psychology of Music 37, no. 5 (2002): 27785.
33. Dolf Zillman and Su-lin Gan, Musical taste in adolescence, in The Social Psychology of Music, ed. D. J. Hargreaves and A. C. North (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997); Adrian C. North, D. J. Hargreaves, and S. A. ONeill, The Importance
of Music to Adolescents, British Journal of Educational Psychology 70 (2000): 25572.
191
34. B. Simon, On the Symmetry in the Cognitive Construal of Ingroup and Outgroup: A Model of Egocentric Social Categorization, European Journal of Social Psychology 23 (1993): 131 47.
35. Steve McClure, Japan Market Continues to Decline in 2001, Billboard 114, no. 8
(2002): 40; Steve McClure, Japan Music Business, In Crisis, Seek a Turnaround,
Billboard 114, no. 36 (2000): 53.
36. IFPI, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (London: United
Kingdom), http://www.ifpi.org (accessed March 22, 2004). IFPI is the organization
representing the international recording industry. It comprises a membership of
1,500 record producers and distributors in 76 countries.
37. Winnie Chung, The Specialized Market of Chinese-American Music Buyers,
Billboard 114, no. 31 (2002): APQ2.
38. Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Consumer Prole, 2002
2006, http://www.riaa.com (accessed December 21, 2007).
39. Brian Ross, Richard Esposito, and Vic Walter, 100s of Radio Stations in Payola Probe, ABC News Online, February 9, 2006, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/
story?id=1600966&page=1 (accessed December 12, 2007).
40. Brian Ross, Richard Esposito, and Vic Walter, 100s of Radio Stations in Payola Probe, ABC News Online, February 9, 2006, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/
story?id=1600966&page=1 (accessed December 12, 2007).
41. Eric Boehlert, Pay for Play, Salon.com, March 14, 2001, http://archive.salon.
com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html (accessed December 19, 2007).
42. Chris Taylor, Web Radio Sites Go Silent in Protest, CNN Money.Com (Business 2.0) June 26, 2007, http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/magazines/business2/
internet_radio.biz2/ (December 20, 2007).
43. XM Satellite Radio, http://www.xmradio.com (accessed December 17, 2007).
44. Daniel McSwain, Arbitron Releases Online Ratings for September, October,
RAIN: Radio Audio Internet Newsletter, December 17, 2007, http://textpattern.kur
thanson.com/articles/128/arbitron-releases-online-ratings-for-september-october
45. Clear Channel Radio, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., http://www.clearch
annel.com/Radio (accessed December 17, 2007).
46. Arbitron, Inc., Radio Today, April 19, 2007, http://www.arbitron.com/radio_
stations/arlt.asp (accessed December 14, 2007), 710.
47. Last.fm, http://www.last.fm (accessed December 20, 2007); Wikipedia Online,
s.v. Last.fm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lastfm (accessed December 19, 2007).
48. Federal Communications Commission, Creation of a Low Power FM Radio
Service, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket 9925, FCC 07204, released December 11, 2007, http://www.fcc.
gov/mb/audio/lpfm/ (accessed December 20, 2007).
49. Second Life, Linden Research, Inc., http://secondlife.com (accessed December 24,
2007).
50. Kurt Hanson, Oft-Ignored Fad: Internet Radio is a Different Medium, Kurts
Blog, RAIN: Radio Audio Internet Newsletter, http://textpattern.kurthanson.com/
kurtsblog/130/often-ignored-fact-internet-radio-is-a-different-medium (accessed
December 12, 2007).
192
Popular Music
51. Radio Ink Convergence 08 Conference, San Jose, CA, http://www.radioink.

com/convergence/ (accessed December 20, 2007).
52. Big Sticks Broadcasting, http://www.bigsticksbroadcasting.com/press.htm (accessed December 1, 2007).
53. Radios Future Sounds a Lot Like the Past, Variety, August 14, 2005, available
http://www.bigsticksbroadcasting.com/press.htm (accessed December 20, 2007).
54. M. Spencer Green, Increasingly, Stations Move Toward Variety, Eclectic Mixes
Offered to Rival iPods, Satellite Radio. Associated Press/MSNBC, May 24, 2005,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7966705/ (accessed December 12, 2007).
55. Jack.FM, http://www.jack.fm/background.html (accessed December 11, 2007).
56. Lewis Grossberger, Jack Be Nimble, Ad Week, September 5, 2005, http://www.
adweek.com/aw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054449 (accessed
December 21, 2007).
chapter 12
The Great Globalization Swindle?

The Relationship Between the Global
Economy and Music Reconsidered
Franz Kasper Kroenig
If we think about the historical situation of music today, we can hardly avoid
taking the terms of globalization and economization into account. Music as a
form of art seems to be affected by the global condition. Critical observations concerning the homogenization, McDonaldization, and Americanization of culture do not just simply refer to the relation of art to economy
but also to art as such.1 This idea means to make the globalized economy
responsible for certain changes inside of the art system in general and music
in particular and not only for changes in the way music is brought to market,
promoted, and distributed. The common view sees an inuence of economy
on art in the shape of exploitation, adaptation, and standardization, which
poses the questions of an art/entertainment-distinction or the equally problematic low-art/high-art difference.2 In this point of view, the economization
of art is a problem of growing relevance because economy is conceived of as
a global, dominant, and uncontrollable societal force.3 The premise of this
view is that economy can inuence art in terms of instruction and dominance. However, I doubt the possibility of such an economic inuence that
makes art a passive object to a societal process driven by economy. On the
contrary, I want to show that art is in a special way sensitive to societal
evolution and that the current economization of art can be regarded as an
autonomous and art-internal reaction of art to the present state of society.
Thus, art is not a victim of a globalized economic system but rather an autonomous system that manages to adapt to its environment very well. From
194
Popular Music
a historical perspective, we can compare the relation between the globalized

economy to the art system with the relation between art and other formerly
dominant social systems. In this context, it seems that the role of globalization must be relativized.
GLOBALIZATION AS THE GENERAL
SOCIAL SITUATION
Globalization must of course be understood as a societal phenomenon
that affects the shape and meaning of the world-as-a-whole.4 But still, the
prevailing notion of globalization puts all emphasis on the role of economy,
politics, and law. The other social spheres such as art, religion, education,
science, and health care are not conceived of as the setting of globalization
but just as a cultural sphere that passively receives the collateral damages of
the globalization process. The reason for this situation is the common idea to
construct globalization in the medium of power: Global processes determine
local spheres, and local spheres cannot determine global processes.5 The
problemdue to this point of viewis that the balance of power between
the global market and the nation state is lost and must be reestablished.6
This seems to make sense when it comes to questions of politics and law.
The global/local problem is one that affects the political system with its nation states and to some degree the law system. Therefore, the problem with
globalization is that we have powerful global circumstances and no powerful
global politics and law. Opposed to the political and the law system, which
are strongly bound to nation states, there are the global systems of religion,
art, science, and economy. If we regard globalization in respect to power, the
problem must consequently be that these systems cannot be controlled by
national politics and national law. But we can clearly see that we do not suffer
from nationally uncontrolled art, religion, and science. The whole discourse
on globalization in terms of hegemony, imperialism, and dominance seems
to have a severe shortcoming in this point. Power is not the general medium of
globalization.
THE SPECIAL ROLE OF ECONOMY
IN THE GLOBALIZATION PROCESS
Whereas we do not object to the globality and uncontrollability of art,
religion, and science, we do so in the case of economy. Why is that? Nobody describes a scientication, aesthetication, or transcendentalization
of society, but an economization of society is oft noted. It is quite obvious that economy has a greater impact on art and religion than vice versa.
This has not always been the case. When we think of the Middle Ages, we
can describe religion as the dominant social system. Politics and law were
Global Economy and Music
195
legitimated transcendentally; art neededas Luhmann puts itto serve religion, and science was subordinate.7 The mercantilist economy was totally
under control of (transcendentialized) politics.8 So, it would make as much
sense to speak of a transcendentalization of art and other social spheres in
the Middle Ages as of an economization today. In the Renaissance we can
nd more and more examples of a scientication of society, which, of course,
does not imply that other x-ications could not also be observed. With regard to art, the idea of rational beauty comes to mind, and the fact that art
could resist the inuence of so much science could even be called the real
miracle of the Renaissance.9
Currently, it seems that economy is the most inuential social system with
the greatest impact on all other systems. If we see the comparability to the
historical developments, we cannot simply take it as a matter of course from
a Marxist point of view that economy is the societal base and art and religion
are just parts of the superstructure. The actual dominance of economy cannot
be based on any properties of structures of the economic system or of society
in general because it is just a contingent historical fact.
MUSIC AND THE MUSIC MARKET
Still, there seems to be much evidence for our everyday intuition that
global economy inuences music to an extent that has never been seen before.
In order to understand the relationship between music and the music market
it is helpful to dene music on the one hand and the market on the other.
Although this might be a difcult task for many theoretical approaches, it is
very easy for the systems theory. There is a music system with well-dened
borders and an environment outside of these borders that containsamong
othersthe economic system. This can be compared to an organism that
lives in its environment and maintains certain relations to this environment
but is nevertheless clearly separate from it. As much as an organism depends
on food from its environment, the music system needs things that it cannot produce itself, most of all money. The thesis of this systems theoretical
approach is that music or art in general cannot make money but only art.
If a work of art is sold or if a composer earns money, this theory speaks of
environmental relations. So nancial operations are economic wherever they
take place, and music stays music, whether or not it generates income. The
counter argument would be that there are some cases where it is not possible
to decide whether something is music or economy.
In this theoretical setting, the plausibility of the idea that economy inuences or dominates art cannot be held up so easily. How should the environment determine the system? When a work of art is bought, this is clearly just
an economic operation that does not cross the border to the system of art.
Economy observes works of art only as good or bad investments and not as
196
Popular Music
beautiful forms. Art cannot be instructed, dominated, or economized by payments for more than one reason. First, the economic environment remains
totally opaque for art. Artists can, of course, keep up the intention of making
economically promising art, but it will not succeed in most cases because
only economy can see and decide what is economically interesting. Anyway,
this would just be an example of a self-steering attempt and not of economization. Economy cannot inuence art intentionally due to the fact that
economy can only observe economically and can never see what is happening
inside the art system. But, does this theoretical framework really account for
the mutual relations of music and the music market?
When we accept these borders between music and economy, which imply
a certain autonomy of both systems, we can still question the effects and the
impact of the economic environment on music. Niklas Luhmann points out
that these so-called structural couplings are often overestimated because art
in general cannot commercialize itself without becoming suspect and, in the
end, even unrecognizable as art.10 We can imagine that Luhmann thinks of
claims such as originality and authenticity here, which are incompatible with
the attempt of art to produce for the market. One could argue that Luhmann
only takes the so-called high art into account and forgets pop culture phenomena, which could be said to have a much stronger connection to the market. This could be especially the case in the domain of pop music, where we
expect a very strong impact of economy. I want to argue that this is merely
an illusionary view on pop music, which can probably be traced back to the
fact that one only takes note of the commercially successful products of pop
music; so that one could strike on the idea that pop was qua pop already successful.11
First, the great majority of all pop cultural production is economically totally fruitless considering all the rock bands in their cellars who keep on rehearsing without even the slightest chance for economic success in the shape
of a major label CD release. Secondly, most of the really successful products
of pop culture are forced to be original and innovative at least to the same
extent as works of high culture. The way for a certain pop song or pop artist
to succeed could be compared to an evolutionary survival of the ttest
especially when we think of highly democratic and uncontrolled platforms
such as MySpace.com. British acts such as the Arctic Monkeys or Kate Nash
became very successful by just putting their songs on this free Web page,
whereas millions of other artists could not benet from the same opportunity. The factors that helped this success cannot be found anywhere other
than in idiosyncratic properties of these bands. In contrast to this, the success of so-called serious music can always be suspected of being grounded
in arbitrary decisions of public sponsorship, state funding, or organizationally supported inequality. A good example for the latter one is the German
GEMAbasically the same as the ASCAPwhich subsidizes serious music
197
with the money from entertainment music (these are the terms of the German
royalty system). For one minute of airplay by a national radio station, the
licensees (typically the composers and their publishers) of a string quartet
earn $63.33, whereas the licensees of a pop song get only $7.48. The success
of popular music, however, cannot be traced back to interventions of cultural
policy in such a way. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the politically
dened quote for French music in France. In general, I want to argue that
the success or failure of pop music cannot be determined by economical or
political decisions. Furthermore, the reasons and conditions for the economic
success of pop music are completely invisible for economy.
Cant the success of pop music be planned and designed by putting lots of
money into it? The artist and repertoire managers, who are responsible for
nding and signing new talent, have exactly this impossible job of anticipating and planning the market success of pop music. Obviously, these managers
cannot design hits and stars at home, but they have to go out and nd preexisting (human and musical) material that they have to assume is shapeable
for their purposes. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the music industry is
dependent on substantial properties that they cannot determine themselves.
The qualities of pop music may be quite different than the ones of classical
or avant-garde music, but they are denitely not arbitrary or obsolete. Are
singing competitions such as American Idol not an example proving the opposite? Is this not an instance of pop music that is controlled by the music
industry and whose success is programmed? On the contrary, these shows
demonstrate the impossibility of economic intervention into the aesthetic
domain. These televised competitions are an instrument to control all the parameters of success, which seem to be quite reliable. However, none of them
are music intrinsic. There are the looks, the charisma, and the technical ability of the candidates, which can to some extent be objectied and selected.
The problem for the music industry is that there is no link between these
factors and artistic qualities, which could provide for a long-term career of
these stars and thus to long-term protability for the companies. Nobody
really expects the successful contestants to contribute to the catalogs of the
record companies such as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones did, which makes
it essential to keep on producing new seasons.12 The contestants are purely
mass-media phenomena and no phenomena of the art system. If they make
the step from the mass media to art, this is exactly the step that cannot be
done by the mass media or the music industry. However, it is quite obvious that the music industrywhich can hardly survive with their catalogs
could in no way subsist on the expensively purchased short-term success of
these contestants. The global recorded music trade value trend has been almost consistently digressive for 10 years now (exception: very small gains in
1999 and in 2004), and the German music market (the fourth biggest of the
world) has even lost 35 percent volume in the 10 years from 1995 to 2005.13
198
Popular Music
This music industrys economic nightmare cannot just be traced back to the
damage caused by illegal downloading because it has decreased signicantly
between 2003 and 2006 as a result of the legal ght against music piracy.14
We can see that the steering attempts in the shape of talent shows have not
helped the music industry a lot. What is quite interesting in this regard is
to compare the two possible models of economical steering of pop music. On
the one hand, there is the model of singing contests such as American Idol,
and on the other hand, there is the model of formed bands that have their
members cast like actors for a movie. Obviously, the degree of steering is
higher in the case of the latter one. If one assembles a boy band, it is possible
to consider four or ve complementary characters in order to encompass the
taste of nearly everybody. A very successful example of such a formed group
was the British band Take That (19911996). In spite of this example, the
model of formed groups must be regarded as a failed attempt at economical
steering of pop music for two reasons. First, formed bands are simply too
expensive because they need a much greater staff including external songwriters, fashion advisors, and various coaches for the improvement of abilities, which are naturally expected from normal bands, not to mention the fact
that even performers who t the right look test often lack instrumental
skills and performance experience. The other reason is that a serious part of
the pop audience does not seem to accept the idea of a cast band. Especially
because in genres such as rock, alternative, and indie, or niches such as metal
and punk, authenticity has a high value for fans. That revered authenticity
is substantially compromised by the model of bands formed via TV show
competitions or by casting Svengalis.
No matter how hard the music industry tries to gain inuence on the
autonomous subsystem of music, it is in principle bound to fail. Economy can
neither see what is going on inside of the music systemand transparency is
the necessary condition for steeringnor can it make music itself, which is a
very banal statement with strong implications.
SELF-ECONOMIZATION OF MUSIC
My thesis is that there can be an economization of music without the assumption that the economic system invades the music system. Maybe it is
helpful to compare this situation to the system-environment-relation of an
organism again. The food an organism can nd in its environment cannot
determine the state of this organism. It does not force itself into the organism. Though the organism is dependent on food, it remains completely sovereign and active. This is the way we want to see the relation between music
as a system and economy as its environment. In order to survive, organisms
must adapt to their environment, and one of the most vital adaptations concerns the economic situation: the scarcity of food. Organisms will inevitably
199
develop internal stuctures that adjust to the specic environmental food situation. The point is that this adjustment is a specialization that increases the
organisms dependence on the selected food in the environment. The koala
is a good example of how intense this specialization can get. The benet of
being so extremely well-adapted to the leaves of the fever tree is that they
become a sufcient food. The cost is, of course, that the efciency of the adaptation is only possible when the koala gives up its ability to digest other
food. To come back to the analogy: Who would ever regard this over-adaptation
to the economic environment as a causal inuence of the environment on the
organism? Who would speak of the eucalyptization of the koala? I want to
argue that the relation between music and global economy, which is often described in terms of economization, dominance, and commercialization, can be
understood as an over-adaptation of music to economy. This concept allows
us to preserve the idea of an autonomous music system. Economization can
then be understood as the fact that the music system increases its adaptation
to the economic environment and decreases its adaptation to other systems
freely. In his famous essay on jazz, Theodor W. Adorno pointed out that
there are no evil business people in charge of the commercialization of jazz,
but jazz does it itself.15 The means of this self-economizationaccording to
Adornoare standardization, simplication, and the use of certain tricks,
formulae, and clichs. So, these are strictly musical devices that are not forced
into the music system from outside but accepted voluntarily. It is quite plausible to suppose that the motive for this development is the attempt of the
music system to strengthen its relation to economy. In our time it seems to
be a matter of course to do so because we regard the relation to economy as
the most important one imaginable. One of the greatest advantages of systems theory is that it can make things that seem to be obvious appear rather
improbable. Because the environment of the music consists not only of economy but also of religion, education, law, health care, science, and politics,
there are many other possible candidates of importance for music. From a
historical perspective we can see that economy has not always been the favorite environmental system for art. If we think of the Middle Ages, it is quite
obvious that religion played the role of the dominant system. Beauty was always at the same time transcendent. There was no difference between those
completely contradictory preferences (aesthetic vs. religious) for the art system. Every stroke of the brush was as much a matter of aesthetic decision as
of transcendental inspiration and service. A composer of that time would not
just invent melodies on the basis of his own creativity but would also listen
to what the Holy Ghost told him. Many medieval pictures show Pope Gregor
I (604)later centuries regarded him as the composer of the Gregorian
chantswith the Holy Ghost in the shape of a dove dictating the melodies
to his ear. So, one would have to speak of a transcendentalization of art in
the Middle Ages. An economization is out of sight. In the Renaissance one
200
Popular Music
can nd more and more evidence that art developed ways for better adapting to another system: science. The beautiful was now true and scientically
correct. And again, there was no conict between these incompatible preferences for the artist. The scientic view was not an external imposition but a
much more intrinsic condition for beauty: Forms, which are mathematically
correct or scientically exact, are beautiful. A good example for this is the
so-called pythagorizing architecture of the Renaissance, which resulted in the
construction of churches on the basis of complex but harmonic mathematical
calculus, even in cases when the effect of these computations were invisible or
hidden.16 At that time it was a matter of course that sculptures and pictures
should be anatomically correct and detailed. From Leonardo da Vinci we
know several studies of the human body and its organs that almost look like
they were taken from a modern atlas of anatomy.
If we may skip to the last century, we can nd an example where art
adapted to another system in its environment: the political system. In the
1960s and 1970s, it was suddenly necessary for an artist to be political. This
was not just a matter for left-wing intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre but
also for pop musicians who had formerly conned themselves to writing and
singing love songs, such as John Lennon. Of course there has been an attitude of protest in the earlier rock n roll era of the 1950s, but this protest
was not political in the same sense as in the late 1960s. Political protest in
the strict sense is no rebellion against the parental generation and especially not against ones own parents. The fact of youth and their ght for its
free expression as such is not political. Not until there is a concrete will to
change the societal structure with determination to gain the power to do so
can we speak of political protest. So, the moaning of the blues singers and
the rebellion of rock n roll both lack the political awareness of having the
actual power to change the political system. Therefore, there could be an
even deeper meaning behind the story that Elvis Presley asked President
Nixon to ban the Beatles from entering the United States than just his fear
of competition. Maybe Presley was really concerned that the Beatles could
spoil Americas youth. The rebellion of Elvis is compatible with supporting the Republican Party because it is an individual, sexual, and, to some
extent, cultural rebellion but no political protest. At least from 1967 on, the
Beatles, and especially John Lennon, had developed not only a political attitude (pacism) but also the idea that they could contribute to change the
world in this direction. It is quite obvious that music in the late 1960s had
strong tendencies to politicize itself in the same sense as it had tendencies
toward scientication in the Renaissance and transcendentalization in the
Middle Ages.
Against this historical background, economization of art is no extraordinary matter. It is simply the situation that art can focus on several different
systems in its environment, and now it seems to be economy. The reason
201
for this cannot be found in the globalization process or the dominance of

economy today. It is rather the other way round: The dominance of economy
is established by the other systems attempt to strengthen their environmental relation to economy. We can easily observe how this works in the
case of art. Walter Grasskamp describes the enormous amounts of money
that have gathered behind certain works of art as a kind of magical energy, a
unique power, making a strong impression on the observer of such a work
in a gallery.17 If a picture is highly expensive, it can somehow claim a right
for attention and admiration. If you watch a singerthink of Bob Dylanon
a huge stage with a great lighting system, every meaningless gesture and
every casual word is amplied and charged up by the attention of the audience around you. Also, the great blockbuster exhibitions can give us an
example of the intermingling of aesthetic and economic values. Whenever
there is a Van Gogh or Kandinsky exhibition, the number of visitors to the
museums explodes. The longer the people have to line up to get into such a
well-advertised exhibition, the greater is the probability that they will attend
it at all. About half of the people who went to the Museum of Modern Art
in Berlins showing of pieces from the New York MOMAs collection, 18for
which they literally stood in line for hourshad never, or very seldom, attended an exhibition before.19 There can be no doubt about the conclusion
that the economic success of art boosts its aesthetic success. This is possible
because art improved its adaptation to economy by neglecting its adaptations
to the other systems. Religion, science, and politics play a very minor role for
the art system today, especially when it comes to music. We nd the reason
for this development not in the objective dominance of economy but rather
in the autonomous over-adaptation of music to economy.
CONCLUSION
The difference between the common notion of the economization of music
in the course of globalization and the self-economization Ive described has
at least two major implications. First, it leads us away from the intuitive idea
that economy does something toor inside ofother systems. Grasskamp
calls this thinking in terms of the dirty market, which contaminates the pure
domain of art, more nave than nave painting can get.20 If artists are confronted with money or scarcity of money, they will react in their very special
aesthetic way, which cannot be traced back to this economic environment in
terms of linear causality. The example of talent shows makes clear that the
economy cannot instruct the art system, even if the artists yearn for being
instructed in the hope for commercial success.
Second, the matter of globalization does not help us to understand the
relation between music and the music market at all. The common notion of
globalization as a problem for the autonomy of art depends on a construction
202
Popular Music
of globalization in the medium of power, which we could not accept. The

relationship between music and economy is not one of control. The idea of
steering depends at least on the transparency of its object, and art remains
an opaque sphere for economy. The only thing economy gets to see when it
looks at art are objects of purchase and investment, and this iswe hope
not all there is about art.
NOTES
1. George Ritzer, The Globalization of Nothing (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge,
2004).
2. Theodor W. Adorno, Zeitlose Mode: Zum Jazz, in Theodor W. Adorno: Eine
Auswahl, ed. Rolf Tiedemann (Stuttgart: Deutscher Bcherbund, 1971), 131 45.
3. Thomas Hermsen, Die Kunst der Wirtschaft und die Wirtschaft der Kunst,
Soziale Systeme 7, no. 1 (2001): 156 76.
4. Roland Robertson, Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept, in Modernity: Critical Concepts, Volume IV, After Modernity, ed. Malcolm
Waters (London: Routledge, 1999), 399.
5. Helmut Wiesenthal, Globalisierung: Soziologische und politikwissenschaftliche Koordinaten im neuartigen Terrain, in Globalisierung und Demokratie: Wirtschaft, Recht, Medien, ed. Hauke Brunkhorst and Matthias Kettner (Frankfurt a.M.:
Suhrkamp, 2000), 2152.
6. Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its discontents (London: Penguin, 2002).
7. Niklas Luhmann, Die Religion der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2002),
275; Otto Gerhard Oexle, Luhmanns Mittelalter, Rechtshistorisches Journal 10 (1991):
53 66.
8. Niklas Luhmann, Die Politik der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2002), 419.
9. Robert Klein, Gestalt und Gedanke: Zur Kunst und Theorie der Renaissance (Berlin:
Wagenbach, 1996), 90; Bertrand Jestaz, Die Kunst der Renaissance (Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 1985).
10. Luhmann (2002), 391.
11. Don Cusic, Music in the Market (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Press, 1996), 10.
12. Matt Burton, Career Prole: Artist and Repertoire Representative, http://
www.entertainmentmanagementonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/02/20/
3c17ea272a6b9.
13. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), Recording Industry in Numbers 2007: The Denite Source of Global Music Market Information, 10;
Bundesverband der Phonographischen Wirtschaft e.V. Deutsche Landesgruppe der
IFPI e.V., Die Phonographische Wirtschaft: 2007 Jahrbuch.
14. Ibid.
15. Hermsen (2001).
16. Jestaz (1985), 91.
17. Walter Grasskamp, Die unsthetische Demokratie: Kunst in der Marktgesellschaft
(Mnchen: C. H. Beck, 1992), 26.
203
18. The Neue Nationalgalerie, Berlin showed the exhibition of the Museum of Modern
Artnormally located in New York Cityfrom February 20, 2004 to September 19,
2004.
19. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, http://www.faz.net/s/RubEBED639C476
B407798B1CE808F1F6632/Doc~E024B34ED1E040B8A6DD889EA30916A3~
ATpl~Ecommon~Sspezial.html.
20. Grasskamp, 26.
chapter 13
The Independent Record Store

as a Site of Cultural Resistance
and Anti-McDonaldizationA Case
Study of The House of Records
David Gracon
The House of Records is a place that focuses on everything outside of

the mainstream. We try to cover all the bases that are on the fringes
of society.
Fred, employee at the House of Records
Other stores are denitely directed more towards retail. Its a numbers
game. Were certainly not a number gameif it were a number game,
we wouldnt be open.
Gary, owner of the House of Records
During a recent visit to my hometown of Buffalo, New York, the local
independent record store Home of the Hits closed its doors after 25 years of
service. What might appear as a minor event in a city familiar with the disappearance of heavy industry and blue-collar employment, the stores closing
had repercussions on a comparatively minor, yet culturally signicant level.
A writer from the local alternative weekly paper Artvoice claimed, Retelling
the story (of Home of the Hits), from my journalistic standpoint, feels a lot
like what Id imagine it would be like to write the obituary of one of my best
friends.1
As a high school student, Home of the Hits was a place that drew me
out of the homogeneous suburbs, and it was here I discovered a variety of
206
Popular Music
political views with the aid of various punk and indie bands, independent
fanzines, and a store atmosphere critical of all things mainstream. The store
was more than a place of commodity exchange as it reinforced an independent spirit, and it taught me to look beyond the mainstream media outlets in
terms of music, culture, and politicswhich are ideals that continue to this
day. It was a store that provided cultural difference, and people could learn to
think differently about music and culture because the overall orientation of
the store was built around independence and independent thinking.
Home of the Hits disappeared, and I returned to Eugene, Oregon, where
I currently live. Eugenes version of Home of the Hits is a few blocks away
from the University of Oregon campus on 13th Ave, a street characterized
by a variety of coffee shops, vintage clothing stores, and other independent
businesses. The House of Records is a mom-and-pop shop situated in an old
house that has been in operation since 1971and the store has a deep historical and social relevance for those involved. Like most independent record
stores in the country, I was curious if this store is also facing a precarious
economic future and sought to gain a deeper understanding of what independent record store culture means to its employees and customers. If such
a store were to close, which is a distinct possibility, what would be the sociocultural implications of such a closure?
This topic is signicant because it is symbolic of independent businesses
in general, vis--vis the dynamics of cultural hegemony and corporate power;
whether it be a family grocery store, used bookstore, or an old house that
sells vintage vinyl records. Such places have a variety of complex meanings
for people, and when they vanish, something happens to the people and communities involved. If the independent record store were to close its doors, do
we have less cultural variety (availability of alternative and obscure media) as
a result? Do those involved in such cultural practice feel alienated or a sense
of anomie when such independent gathering and consumptive spaces disappear? Does the culture become more homogeneous without such specialty
stores?
In considering the role of The House and Records and its possible fate, a
number of questions, each of which has repercussions for thousands of similarly independent businesses around the country, come to mind: What is
the sociocultural signicance of an independent record store such as The
House of Records? Does this shop and their related communities reinforce oppositional thinking and an independent spirit? How does such a space
challenge or create cultural alternatives to processes of rationalization and
McDonaldization? In what way is the House of Records a form of antiMcDonaldization?
A variety of theoretical approaches are appropriate for an exploration of
independent record store culture. Perhaps the most important grounding
theoretical framework is Ritzers (1993) notion of cultural McDonaldization,
A Case Study of The House of Records
207
which uses contemporary examples to build upon Webers classical research

on rationalization.2 This will be followed by a brief exploration of hegemony
and notions of cultural resistance. First, let me briey discuss the nature of
my eldwork.
Fieldwork data was gathered through a series of in-depth interviews
(semistructured) with all the staff members (a total of 7) and a variety of
customers of the store (a total of 13). Ethnographic eldwork (between January and July 2007) was also utilized, where a written record of observations,
daily activities, and interactions were examinedas well as the atmosphere,
decoration, and design of The House of Records.
Two main research questions derived from the literature and eldwork
guided this research project. These questions are: What evidence suggests
that independent record store culture is a form of anti-McDonaldization?
What kind of interactions, relationships, and community within the store act
as evidence of anti-McDonaldization?
MCDONALDIZATION AND HEGEMONY
Ritzers (1993) concept of McDonaldization explores processes of cultural
standardization that occur when notions of rationalization, or the processes
of the fast food restaurant, have come to dominate more and more sectors
and practices of everyday society. Rationalization is the process whereby an
increasing number of social actions and interactions are based on considerations of efciency or calculation rather than on motivations derived from
custom, tradition, or emotion. This standardization is characterized by rationalized processes of efciency, calculability, predictability, and notions of
control, which Ritzer claims lead to irrational consequences. The negative
effects of rationalization are a sense of dehumanization and disenchantment,
and as Ritzer claims, A fully rational society would be a very bleak and uninteresting place.3
Here are a few concise examples to illustrate the concept of McDonaldization. For example, instead of eating a healthy home-cooked meal and
gathering with friends and family to consume it, people may substitute this
tradition by eating fast food alone, a practice that evokes isolation and the
consumption of unhealthy food. Likewise, instead of patronizing an independent record store, people are downloading music (usually alone), buying it online, or going to a rationalized chain store to obtain music, a place
with limited cultural variety and a rationalized atmosphere. While fast food
and the downloading of music are convenient and efcient, and the CDs at
a chain store are usually more inexpensive, such practices come at a social
cost. My observations at The House of Records highlights a series of social
practices that actively challenge processes of McDonaldization, as the store
is a space that constitutes custom, tradition, and emotion. Perhaps a culture
208
Popular Music
with little cultural variety and opportunity to nd or learn about music outside of corporate manufactured paradigms also contributes to a kind of social
disenchantment or a society characterized by sameness.
An example of McDonaldized culture is the strip mall. A strip mall is a
social space that is replicated in countless geographical locations throughout
the country, and the products for sale are uniform at all stores, while locality
is sometimes considered in terms of product availability. In terms of musical
product, a chain store such as Best Buy, or a big box store such as Target,
are McDonaldized in that they sell a specic musical product (usually top 40,
mainstream music) and exclusively only sell CDs, as opposed to vinyl records. The workers are less likely to have a deep knowledge of musical history
or know about the fringes of independent musicand they are less likely to
forge strong bonds with specic customers, unlike the possibilities of human
interaction that take place at an independent store. The workers wear uniforms and are trained to work in prescribed ways, and the stores share the
same aesthetic and lack a unique atmosphere. These aspects of corporate
music retail are suggestive of the homogenizing processes of McDonaldization, which, for those invested in independent music culture and consumption, is an undesirable place to be.
In the context of The House of Records, a polemic focal point is the corporatization of the landscape and the hegemonic power that corporate media
(i.e., powerful record labels, distribution, corporate synergy of musical products) and box stores maintain, while the independent record store actively
denes its own specialized niche within the fringes of musical culturevis-vis dominant culture. The independent record store struggles to exist
amongst a variety of social forces (mainly from digital downloading and the
corporate dominance of chain stores, major label pricing tactics), and many
stores have already closed or are closing. In the rst ve months of 2006
alone, 378 record stores closed nationally, against 106 closures in 2005, and
there are now 25 percent fewer music stores in America than there were in
2003.4
Building on Ritzers concept of McDonaldization, its clear that the independent spirit, noncorporate attitude, unique aesthetic and space, and
cultural variety within The House of Records promotes and reinforces a
different kind of human interaction and community based on shared belief
systems of independence (which entails corporate resistance and the support
of locality)which are ultimately active processes of anti-McDonaldization.
According to Gelder, modern subcultures are in opposition to the banalities
of mass cultural forms, and subcultural identity is juxtaposed against the
conformist pressures of mass society and massication.5 This sense of massication evokes an aura of alienationa symptom of McDonaldization.
Hegemony is the power or dominance that one social group holds over
others and dominance and subordination in the eld of relations structured
209
by power.6 Its effectiveness depends on subordinated peoples accepting the

dominant ideology as normal reality or common sense in active forms of
experience and consciousness. According to Gramscis theory of ideological hegemony, mass media are tools the ruling elites use to perpetuate their
power, wealth, and status by popularizing their own philosophy, culture, and
morality.7 To place this into a context of late-capitalism, the dominant music
industry, in all its forms of production, distribution, consumption, and general omnipresence in culture, constitutes a market reinforced by hegemonic
structuresand this market conceals the fact that other alternative musical
cultures exist. Thus, hegemony is an incomplete process as power is never
totalizing, and hegemonic structures can be countered and challenged. The
selling and purchasing of music, and the gathering of community that exists
outside the manufactured channels of corporate media and distribution, is
an oppositional act and form of counter-hegemony. An agent can actively
choose to reject or oppose mass-cultural music, even though its inuence permeates music videos, mainstream radio, soundtracks for lm, and it is widely
distributed and promoted throughout the culture.
Building on instances of counter-hegemony and the practice of antiMcDonaldization, Halls Deconstructing the Popular discusses the concept of
resistance in further detail:
The cultural industries do have the power constantly to rework and reshape what they represent; and, by repetition and selection, impose and
implant such denitions of ourselves as t more easily the descriptions of
the dominant or preferred culture. That is what the concentration of cultural powerthe means of culture-making in the heads of the fewactually
means. In our times, it goes on continuously, in the complex lines of resistance and acceptance, refusal and capitulation, which make the eld of culture a sort of constant battleeld.8
Accordingly, empirical evidence from The House of Records examines similar lines of resistance and refusal and views such spaces as a cultural battleeld. It is a place where anti-McDonaldization is an active cultural practice.
Anti-McDonaldization encourages a humanizing nature, cultural variety and
difference, unique and nonrationalized spaces, opportunities for critical thinking, and aspects of community and human interaction.
INDEPENDENT RECORD STORE CULTURE
AS ANTI-MCDONALDIZATION
During the turbulence of the counter-culture era, Gary, the owner of The
House of Records, began the store by selling vinyl records out of his garage
and later opened the store on 13th Ave. in 1971. While playing in bands and
engaging in drug culture, Gary claimed the rationale for starting the store
210
Popular Music
was, To survive, I needed to be my own businessman. I didnt want to work

for anyone else.
The House of Records is situated in an old house. It is blue with red trim,
and the appearance is almost carnivalesque, like a funhouse. The store is
located midway between the University of Oregon campus and downtown
Eugenea location characterized by heavy foot trafc and a steady ow of
bicyclists. The location suggests locality, as opposed to being located on the
periphery of town where the chain stores, strip malls, and shopping centers
are located (where a car is often required). Outside the entrance is a colorful
array of yers and posters, advertising everything from the hand-scrawled
basement punk show to a local lm festival seeking submissions.
What makes The House of Records an obvious example of antiMcDonaldization is the utter uniqueness of the space. The House of Records is
one of a kind. This is remarkable when considering the corporatization of the
landscape, where a chain store in one part of the country resembles countless
other stores with an identical or rationalized layout and design. One customer
enthusiastically commented on the inviting nature of the store and claimed,
Its like hanging out at somebodys house.
On a sunny day when the store tends to be crowded (as there tends to be
more foot trafc on the sidewalk), the narrow paths separating the rows of
records become impassable, or difcult to the point where its impossible to
not rub bodies with the other shoppers. During the more quiet hours, customers are sprawled out on the oor, sifting through records, or sitting on
one of the small blue chairs situated throughout the space. It was common to
hear customers, while holding up a record or CD, shout out from across the
store toward the counter while competing with the blaring music. One man
yelled, Is this any good? while holding up a vinyl record.
Inside the store, the ambiance was often described by the employees and
customers with vivid enthusiasm. Common responses included the phrases
upbeat, funky, inviting, really fun, warm, and most common of all,
comfortable. Other responses were poetic in description. Respondents
adored the musty smell of vinyl records, the warmth of the natural lighting,
and the sounds of the creaky old door and wooden oors. Its a place where
older customers relive the 70s and can take their nostalgia trips. Customers
sometimes would spend hours comfortably sprawled out on the oor leang
through vinyl records while engaging in an intimate kind of experience.
Such descriptions suggest the humanizing appeal of the store.
The inside of the store is characterized by wooden paneling and oors and
the remnants of a former house where an old replace can be spotted behind
the rows of used CDs; the vinyl section is housed in what used to be the
dining room. The arrangement of the handmade shelves and racks of music
are slightly off kilter, and navigating the space requires movement through
some narrow corridors. While rationalized shopping spaces are designed to
211
move a customer through the space in a highly calculated and controlling

manner, all with the intention to sell, this arrangement is reminiscent of a
ea market or an estate sale in someones home. While the aim is also to sell
merchandise at The House of Records, it does not appear to be so calculated.
Sam, a store customer claimed, It almost feels like somebodys bedroom,
with a lot of records in it, you know. Therere posters up, and kind of like
homey and laid back. Organized but not overly organized. Not too meticulous, so it has that kind of organic feel to it.
The wood oors evoke a cozy home feel as the racks of tightly packed vinyl
records nearly reach the ceiling. Several of the employees refer to the space as
a library, rather than a store, which implies a different relationship to the objects and spacea place that implies learning and congregation, as opposed
to sheer commodity exchange. The layout of the shelves and the handmade
racks of music are a touch off-kilter, and many of the signs and CD dividers are hand drawn. The space is not psychologically designed or manufactured to sell objects, and the space feels intuitive, organic, and unique. Greg,
a store employee for 21 years, said, Kids love it here, because they can run
around and hide in all the nooks and crannies.
The walls are covered with old LP records, from James Brown to Devo,
and promotional posters advertising dated mid-90s independent acts such
as Bikini Kill and Unwound. Virtually all the walls of the store feature some
form of visual stimulation in terms of album covers or posters. Little to no
attention is given to new promotional or major label advertising, and the
posters on the walls tend to advertise independent acts, which are sponsored
by independent record labels. This lack of advertising suggests a different
orientation toward the music industry, and the ideal that advertising in the
traditional respect is not important. Sarge, a store employee, claimed, We
dont have much in terms of promotional posters and that kind of stuff
because there is no room for it. Here a lot of our demographic are collectors,
and they just dont need that kind of enticement.
The music played in the store is not part of a marketing campaign or a
manufactured form of Muzak. The counter is like an ad hoc DJ booth, as the
employees have the choice to play music they believe in, actually like, and can
likely discuss in great detail. The music includes everything from classical
and free jazz to experimental post-rock and anything in-between. During one
observation an employee played The Cures Killing an Arab, a punchy track
that politicizes imperialist interventions in the Middle East, which suggests
this store is free to promote whatever it wants, even political material. Such
an atmosphere is unlikely to occur in a chain store with rationalized Muzak,
where the employees have no control over the music selection and hearing
music of a political nature is highly unlikely.
The actual structure is a former house that was nished in 1918, and
its one of the oldest houses on the block. Because the actual structure has
212
Popular Music
existed in Eugene for such a long time, the store acts as a historical continuum. Greg, a long-time store employee, suggested the architecture and space
itself plays an important role in dening not only the unique aura of the store
but a connection to and appreciation of history. Greg claimed:
One of the things about our society now, that is really troubling is that
old is out and new is in. And old buildings are imploded or destroyed,
and people are just so into new, and I think old things are important. But
as a place I think that this is very important that we do our best to keep
something like this alive, x it up and conserve. Were in the business of
conserving old things (in terms of records and the store), and making sure
that they still stay alive for as long as they possibly can.
This connection to history suggests a kind of resistance to social change

and the speed of McDonaldization, where old structures are destroyed in
favor of new buildings that may lack history or context, or the countrywide
pattern where inner cities and small towns are gutted in terms of local business in the midst of urban sprawl and strip mall culture. The House of Records evokes a sense of center within Eugene, and the store acts as a social
marker and a connection to local culture and continuity. Chico, a long time
customer commented,
Its been here for a long time, and I think sometimes in a really changing
world, we like some things that endure. Respect for the past and respect,
and openness to the new, I think theyre good concepts. And I dont think,
and I think House of Records has endured in, and ourished on its own
merit, and not because it was in a lucky place.
Greg later discussed the notion of conservation within the store, and by
this he meant stocking an eclectic variety of obscure musical product that
perpetuates historical and cultural continuation. The store is keeping certain
kinds of music in circulation (especially music that may only be available on
vinyl, is out of print, or is not available on CD), and this reinforces cultural
variety and difference that otherwise is difcult to nd.
The cultural variety and musical difference stocked at the House of Records provides an outlet where independent music can circulate that otherwise may not be available through other mainstream or commercial outlets.
The House of Records stocks a wide variety of genres ranging from punk,
indie, jazz, folk, reggae, world music, spoken word, and hip-hop that cannot
be found elsewhere in town. This also means selling music with politically
challenging or dangerous content that wouldnt be stocked at a corporate
store because the ideas may undermine the chains image and ideology of a
family atmosphere. Because the store does not necessarily focus on what is
new, there is a degree of spontaneity and a sense of unpredictability in terms
213
of what you could nd in the store. If the musical product is not predictable,
it is suggestive of a practice that counters McDonaldization.
The House of Records provides more cultural variety and adds diversity to
a world of increased media consolidation and cultural homogeneity brought
about by processes of McDonaldization. Independent music releases are assumed to be more creative, more political, and more diverse than those issued
by major labels, and to have access to such media is a form of resistance to
the dominant forms or homogenizing tendencies of chain stores.9 A customer
claimed, Most places are so immersed in the pop culture, that if you have
interests off the center stage, they can be hard to nd.
Another aspect of the anti-McDonaldization of the store is that employees
dont have to wear uniforms, nor must they perform their work in prescribed
wayswhereas a corporation has specic protocols and rules that are applied universally to its workers at each store location. While the store has a
looser sense of rules, the rather free and uninhibited nature of the employees
(for example, swearing, joking, and the ability to share their honest opinions)
sets it apart from traditional corporate structuring and renders the store
authentic in terms of subcultural capital. The grounding idea here is how
the anticorporate views of the employees are integrated into how the store
functions, which connects to an independent store atmosphere that appeals
to the customer of the store. Thorton claims that crowds generally congregate on the basis of their shared taste in music, their consumption of common
media, and most importantly, their preference for people with similar tastes
to themselves, and that vague opposition is certainly how many members of
youth subcultures characterize their own activities.10
RESISTING VALUES, NONCORPORATE ATTITUDES
The employees and customers at The House of Records overwhelmingly
disdain corporate culture, and this is evident with the harsh criticism given
to mall and big-box culture. The community of the store tends to share
an anticorporate value system, which is a form of resistance toward the McDonaldization of culture. Those interviewed actively compared corporate
culture (in terms of mall and chain-store culture) as being sterile, plastic, and homogeneous. Greg claimed, Were turning the entire culture
into mall culture, and thats just ridiculous. Martha, a store employee commented, This store is not at all corporate, which is great especially these
days where you have people working in cubicles. A long-time store customer
claimed, Everyone of those [chain] stores is the same, and they assume you as
a customer are all the same. That kind of anonymity and distance I can do
without.
Customers describe corporate music stores as being extremely limited in
terms of cultural variety and obscure items; it is assumed their employees
214
Popular Music
lack a specialized musical depth and knowledge of musical history. Corporate

culture is viewed as a homogenizing force and an unpleasant place to visit,
whereas an independent mom-and-pop store is unique, one of a kind, and
resonates on a more humanistic level. A customer claimed, I run into people
here, I visit people here, its a marketplace.
COMMUNITY AS ANTI-MCDONALDIZATION
The House of Records fosters community in a number of ways, although
community is not something actively sought out, it more or less happens organically within the space. It is a place where other like-minded artists, musicians, and audiophiles congregate and spend time leang through records
and discussing music. Customers form relationships with other customers
based on their shared interest in music culture. Martha, from the counter,
explained, People exchange phone numbers because theyre interested in
the same sort of music.
The clientele at The House of Records is relatively diverse. Its a mixture
of many different musical tastes and demographic backgrounds. Customers
have included university professors and students, high school kids skipping
school, a man with a tattooed face, older women seeking classical music, and
a baby-boomer who nostalgically recalled shopping at the store back in the
70s (back when the students were demonstrating in the streets).
Most of the customers interviewed noted the importance of getting
knowledgeable and informed information from staff as being very important. This gives the store a cultural edge, and customers want to create a
relationship with the store as opposed to engaging in anonymous consumption. Such face-to-face interactions can lead to more than customer service,
as several customers considered the workers to be friends, or familiar faces
within the community, or adding to ones subcultural capital. Customers who
frequent the store have commented how they enjoy seeing other customers
that they know within the store, or as one customer commented, Its like a
little community within the community.
Thus, the interactions associated with visiting a place where you are likely
to encounter people that you know contribute to a shared group identity and
sense of community, as it is a place that other like-minded people frequently
visit. Buck, a former store employee from the 1970s, recalls some memories
from that era: I mean it wasnt catering to radicals or anything in particular,
but you know, there were a lot of shades of philosophies and ideas at the time,
and people expressed themselves in a lot of different ways, and I think this
was kind of a home to them all.
Because customers place much trust into the taste and advice of the employees, much information is exchanged (sometimes the ow goes both ways,
from customer to employee and vice versa) within the store, and because
215
everyone involved is so passionate about music, such advice can lead to

breakthroughs in terms of nding something new.
The House of Records offers an alternative musical education through
face-to-face interaction. Russ, a University of Oregon freshman eager to
learn more about the history of independent music, stood at the counter as
Aaron, an employee, suggested a number of different artists to compliment
his recent purchase of the Wire box set. For about 30 minutes, Aaron rotated
a series of records with the attempt to introduce Russ to something new,
something he had never heard before. The student patiently stood there,
deep in concentration until a small grin formed on his face, almost blushingly. The explosive sounds of Mogwai blasted through the speakers. Russ
appeared impressed.
Russ clearly put his faith in the expert advice of Aaron and kept waiting
until he heard something he liked; he ended up special ordering a copy of
Mogwais Young Team. The counter at The House of Records is an exchange
of ideas and a place where people can be exposed to music they may otherwise not have the opportunity to hear. In a way, this counter is an informal
education in fringe culture. Its a place where customers receive a great deal
of personal attention, have the opportunity to listen and learn about new and
obscure music, and selectively make a purchase based on this education. The
customers trust the opinions and recommendations of the employees. Sam, a
regular customer commented,
Since I know people here, its nice to come in, and see whats new, and see
if they have any new recommendations. Theres a different sense of ideals
behind what theyre doing. Theyre like propagators of ne art, instead of
counter monkeys. I like coming down here and looking and doing, rather
than sitting in front of a computer.
For many customers, shopping at The House of Records is a weekly ritual.

Many browse through the used record bins looking for the latest trade-ins,
which are constantly circulating. On one particular Sunday, several customers
commented that this is what they do every weekend, and the space is valued
in terms of identity and ones relational community. Herman, a customer for
several decades, commented, If this were in other countries, this would be
called a marketplace. I dont mean a place of selling and buying, but a place of
social activities, and people mixing and meeting, and being friendly.
Chico, a long-time customer, discussed the store as a space beyond commodity exchange and music consumption. This could be framed as the social
relevance of the space or how the store acts as a subcultural marker of sorts,
where people congregate and a sense of community pervades. For example,
Chico claimed the store is kind of detox, or like stopping in for a beer after
work, as the environment is relaxing and is a place to unwind from the
216
Popular Music
stress of work and happily disappear into the shelves of old vinyl. This community feeling relates to his comments regarding The House of Records as
a family and home, citing an experience of the store in the early 90s akin
to Thanksgiving, a kind of family atmosphere. He referred to the store as
House of Recs, as if talking to a close friend with a special nickname. He
also described a situation where he will at times eld questions from other
customers (as recommended by the employees), which implies a more active
participation in the space.
Another customer commented on the social aspects of music collecting
and the social importance of the storeand what this revealed is the collective nature of record collecting and the importance of independent spaces.
This relates to what Maffesoli described as the social nature of group development and how group dynamics are learned: The ritual perpetuates itself,
and through the variety of routine or everyday gestures the community is
reminded that it is whole, or part of a tribes collective sentiment.11
For such a place to close would mean a lot, and this collective sentiment
was clearly evident. Jordan, a customer claimed,
Well its something that me and all of my friends relate to. My friend Joe
lives in an apartment just right across the street, and so wed come over
here and pick up records, so its a lot of what we talk about, and we share
records and sit around and listen to records. Its a collective part of me and
my friends lives. If this place were gone, it would be like part of our life
was displaced or gone.
Another customer commented that such independent stores give the community an important avor, and without such spaces, the city or town lacks
a particular spirit. Dan claimed: If you dont have a store like this a lot of
people would say, what is there to do in town? I mean there are a lot of social
things, you can go to a bar, but a music store, theres something about it. It
just gives you a feeling.
Gelder claims that subcultures are always in some way nonconforming or
dissenting. Through such views, the group gains cohesion and identity.12 The
idea of keeping local business aoat and part of the community as an alternative to big-box stores and shopping malls is also of priority for many associated
with the store. Many feel a sense of social responsibility and sense of cohesion
in terms of supporting local business. A customer named Buck claimed:
Im really involved in community, and involved in supporting local business, and Im a union leader where I live down in Medford, and I always try
to shop with local people and especially people who treat their employees
well. This place represents that to me. Im always glad to come here and
spend my few dollars that I have available, and I sometimes defer purchases
that I want to make in music until I get here, for that purpose.
217
Numerous customers commented that they like shopping at this store because they enjoy the interactions with the store employees and have, in some
situations, forged friendships with them. I observed several customers enter
the store and chat with the employees for a half hour or so without buying
anything. While researching this store, I was asked to be in a band, to play a
variety of records on my college radio show, and was invited to several concerts and events, all while being mistaken as a store employee. I also made a
few musical recommendations to customers.
In terms of a more general independent spirit, the respondents gave several examples that are evidence of opposition in a broader cultural sense. For
example, vinyl records can be construed as a form of cultural resistance to
new technologies, as it is often considered obsolete, where they have been
cited as keeping the store in business in the face of digital downloading, CD
copying, and iPod culture. A customer named Jeff discussed how vinyl records connect with notions of community and interaction:
There seems to be a lot of le sharing on the net, and I was into that for
a long time. Then I got to the point where I missed going to the record
store, leang through records, you know, actually having physical album
there, and the cover art, and talking to someone about the music. I think
all of that is part of a healthy experience in general, and much less isolating than being on your computer. I wanted to get back to a more human
experience. Something more positive comes out of it (by shopping here),
rather than sheer consumerism.
Customers take pride in shopping at the store because they are supporting local business, and they are willing to pay a few extra dollars for CDs
they could nd cheaper elsewhere or download for free. To shop in the store
and chat with the employees is part of the experience, which is the sort of
interaction that cant occur online via computer. Hebdige claims it is basically the way in which commodities are used in subculture that delineates
the subculture from more orthodox cultural formations.13 For example, vinyl
record collectors may have a different appreciation for the tangible musical object, whereas someone who downloads music may not have such an
interest, which is a common theme in the store. Or perhaps the music contains ideological or even political messages that strengthen group identity,
whereas mass-cultural music is generally apolitical and marketed to a mass
population, or radio-friendly.
It is also important to note that the store reinforces other fringe media
outlets such as independent music labels, independent bands, lm/video,
and magazines. Independent music labels such as Merge, Touch and Go, and
K Records share a similar do-it-yourself and mom-and-pop attitude as The
House of Records and seek to cultivate an alternative array of musical releases
on the fringes of society. Thus, we have independent bands being supported
218
Popular Music
by independent record labels. These labels then sell their records at independent records stores where a network of independent communities reinforce
each other.
According to Straw, in their reliance on small-scale infrastructures of
production and dissemination, these spaces are rooted deeply within local
circumstances, a feature commonly invoked in claims as to their political signicance.14 This relates to The House of Records as they stock music from independent artists and indie music labels, which are small-scale infrastructures,
as well as operate as an oppositional space in terms of dominant culture.
While much evidence suggests The House of Records fosters community,
it is important to note that it can also be viewed as exclusive and not inviting to some. Greg noted that the store could be too funky, that the very
nonuniform look of the store may keep some people away. While The House
of Records is relatively diverse in terms of customers, there tends to be an
overwhelming presence of males. One of the few female customers interviewed replied, Sometimes it can be a little bit intimidating because theres
all these male employees, and being the only female in there, and therere all
these guys, so you sometimes feel a bit excluded.
CONCLUSIONS
Independent record stores such as The House of Records are culturally important and representative of processes of anti-McDonaldization on several
levels. First, such stores provide an outlet in which independent and alternative music can circulate, which otherwise may not be easily available through
other mainstream or commercial outlets. Independent record stores provide
more cultural variety and add diversity to a world of increased media consolidation and cultural homogeneity. The unique aesthetic of the space is a form
of anti-McDonaldization because it symbolizes something unique and nonrationalized. To many, shopping at such stores is a form of corporate resistance
because it reinforces a sense of locality, community, and independence from
corporate culture. The store also signies a connection to history and acts as
a community marker of independence as it has been in existence since 1971.
Second, the type of social interaction that occurs at an independent record
store fosters an independent community, which for many of those involved
is a humanizing experience. In the eyes of the employees, the store is like a
library (or as Martha said, Its like a crazy, chaotic rock and roll library),
where customers can seek out information about music, and an informal
education on fringe music often occurs. Not only is it a place of commodity
consumption but also a place where people can learn new information, and
customers and employees forge friendships with each other. The employees
have a very specialized or even expert knowledge of music and often recommend releases to their customers. Yet, at the same time, it is important
219
to note the exclusive nature of such stores and that all people may not feel
comfortable in such an atmosphere.
For a small group of subcultures, music enthusiasts, and independently
minded people who prefer the cultural fringes of society, such store closures
signify the loss of authentic community space. While obscure records can
still be found and purchased on the Internet, such mediations and exchanges
do not have the same sense of human interaction and community. The resurgence in vinyl production and sales may be an indication that small groups
of people prefer picking through stacks of records in the hopes of discovering
something new or unique, while the space in which the records are bought is
just as important as the records themselves.
While it is estimated the prots at The House of Records are about half
what they were in the early 90s, Greg remained optimistic about the stores
future, especially with the obsolete medium of vinyl in many ways keeping
the store in existence. While the future of such shops is ominous, the culture
will likely adapt to new cultural practices by nding new spaces in which to
obtain a similar sense of culture. At the same time, as long as a niche market
exists and a core audience of consumers remains dedicated to supporting
such stores, the independent record store will continue to exist. On the other
hand, the closure of independent record stores leads to increased cultural homogeneity and the McDonaldization of society. It would be one less cultural
space in which to explore a subcultural paradigm of consumption and connect a like-minded community oriented around ideals of independent, or noncorporate, culture. The House of Records as a form of anti-McDonaldization
encourages a humanizing nature, cultural variety and difference, unique and
nonrationalized space, and opportunities for critical thinking and aspects of
human interaction.
These days, the employees at The House of Records view the future of the
store precariouslyyet, they see the struggle to stay in business as resisting
McDonaldized culture. In terms of the store possibly closing, Greg claimed,
I think for a customer, some of them would probably be driven to tears. I dont
want it to happen, and were going to make sure it doesnt. This statement
frames the store almost as an act of cultural deance, that to keep it going is
an on-going struggle on the cultural battleeld. Greg went on to claim,
If you eliminate a place like this, where people can go to nd out about
music, buy it if they want to, chat with other people who are into music,
you eliminate that, youre just alienating more people. You know, a lot of
people would get angry if this place went out of business. And were turning the whole culture into mall culture, and thats just ridiculous.
The depths to which these folks are invested in independent record

store culture signies an ardent interest in the vitality and sustainability
220
Popular Music
of businesses such as The House of Records. For such stores to close only
adds to an ever-increasing society characterized by processes of McDonaldization, and the struggle to keep it going is in many ways a labor of
love (as opposed to earning large prots and wages) and a social act of deance in terms of corporate culture. The employees of the store keep it going
because they truly believe in what they do, and the products they sell and
the way they sell them reinforces a vital and oppositional cultural space.
The hegemony of the culture industries limits not only cultural variety but
also vibrant and unique spaces in which a community of music consumers
can gather and share a sense of cultural togetherness and collectively resist
the dominant modes of consumer culture. As Greg mentioned previously,
the loss of such stores is not only alienating, which is symptomatic of
McDonaldization, but it further accelerates a culture predicated on predictability, sameness, and mall culture.
The overall social effect of closing an independent record store is difcult to accurately gauge. When asked what it would be like if The House
of Records were to close (along with the disappearance of its related culture), Fred, a store employee, touched upon the complexities of the human
condition and its precarious relationship within a McDonaldized world. He
claimed, Its suffocating. It would be like a whole organ of your body has
died. And I think everybody feels it in some way or another. They may not
know whats causing their discomfort, but they feel it.
NOTES
Many thanks to Leslie Steeves, Andre Sirois, and Jessalynn Strauss for their generous assistance and feedback. Also, a special thanks to the employees and customers at
the House of Records, especially Greg Sutherland, who embraces the trenches.
1. Donny Kutzbach, The Day the Music Died, Artvoice, Buffalo, NY, December
713, 2006, http://Artvoice.com.
2. George Ritzer, McDonaldization: The Reader, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks,
2006.
3. Ritzer, 2.
4. Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur: How Todays Internet Is Killing Our Culture,
Doubleday Press, New York City, 2007.
5. Ken Gelder, Subcultures: Cultural Histories and Social Practice, Routledge Press,
New York, 2007.
6. James Lull, Media, Communication, Culture: A Global Approach, Columbia University Press, New York, 1995.
7. C. Boggs, Gramscis Marxism, Pluto Press, London, 1976.
8. Stuart Hall, Notes on Deconstructing the Popular, Cultural Resistance Reader,
Steven Duncombe ed., Verso Press, New York, 2002.
9. Stephen Lee, Marketing the Margins: Wax Trax Records, Alternative Music
and Independent Record Labels, Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1993.
221
10. Sarah Thorton, The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital, The Subcultures Reader,
Ken Gelder ed., Routledge, New York, London, 2005, 184 92.
11. Michel Maffesoli, The Emotional Community: Research Arguments, The Subcultures Reader, Ken Gelder ed., Routledge, New York, London, 2005.
12. Ken Gelder, Subcultures: Cultural Histories and Social Practice, Routledge Press,
New York, 2007.
13. Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, The Subcultures Reader, Ken
Gelder ed., Routledge, New York, London, 2005, 12131.
14. Will Straw, Communities and Scenes in Popular Music, The Subcultures Reader,
Ken Gelder ed., Routledge, New York, London, 2005, 469 78.
About the Editor

and Contributors
EDITOR
Robert C. Sickels is Associate Professor of American Film and Popular Culture at
Whitman College. He has made several short lms that have played nationally at
festivals around the country. In addition to publishing numerous journal articles and
book chapters, he is also the author of American Popular Culture through History: The
1940s (Greenwood, 2004) and American Film in the Digital Age (Praeger, 2009).
CONTRIBUTORS
Amy M. Corey is a visiting assistant professor at Whitman College. She holds a
PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Denver. She conducts research in the area of culture and communication with a focus on representation and
identity as constructed and contested in media and culture industries.
Andrew deWaard is an MA candidate in Film Studies at the University of British
Columbia, writing his thesis titled The Intertextual Museum (and Gift Shop): Towards a Cultural Economy of Transmediality. He has published on Spike Lee and is
currently coauthoring a book on Steven Soderbergh.
Mike Emery has worked in corporate communications as a writer, editor, and public
relations professional since 1994. Currently, he teaches public relations at the University of Houston and oversees publicity for the universitys arts programs. Hes
contributed articles to several music and entertainment publications including Blues
224
Revue, Relix, Blues Access, The Guitar Magazine, Austin Chronicle, and Houston Press. He
lives in Houston with his wife, Sasha, and dogs, Cookie and Babs.
David Gracon is a doctoral candidate in the Community and Society program located in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon.
His research interests include cultural studies and the political economy of media
with a focus on media related subcultures and cultural resistance.
John Allen Hendricks (PhD, University of Southern Mississippi) is a professor of
communication and former chair of the Department of Communication & Theater
at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. His research interests include media
policy/regulation, media history, and political communication. His research has been
published in numerous journals, books, and encyclopedias on these topics.
Phylis Johnson is an associate professor of radio, sound, and new media studies in
the Department of Radio-Television at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. She
has published numerous articles in leading journals, such as Journal of Radio Studies,
Convergence, Journal for the Study of British Cultures, and Political Communication. She is
leading coauthor of Queer Airwaves: The Story of Gay and Lesbian Broadcasting (2001).
She was a radio contributor to the Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution (Greenwood Press) and The Museum of Broadcast Communications Encyclopedia of Radio.
Marjorie D. Kibby is a senior lecturer in communication and culture at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Her current research is on an Australian Research
Council funded investigation of the impact of the Internet on the way young people
acquire and consume music. Previous publication areas include Internet culture and
popular music.
Franz Kasper Kroenig (Dr.phil) is a lecturer at the Universities of Flensburg and
Cologne (Germany) for sociology, philosophy and musicology with specialization in
systems theory of society. He is also a singer/songwriter with ve album releases
(day-glo) under the name of Franz Kasper.
Phillip McIntyre is currently the Head of Discipline of Communication and Media
in the School of Design, Communication, and IT at the University of Newcastle in
New South Wales, Australia. His academic interest is in communication, creativity,
and cultural production, and he sits on the editorial board of Perfect Beat: The Pacic
Journal of Research into Contemporary Music and Popular Culture. Additionally, he has
been a songwriter, instrumentalist, musical director, and manager for various groups
dealing with promoters, record companies, and distribution labels.
Robert McParland is an assistant professor of English at Felician College in New
Jersey. He is the author of Charles Dickenss American Audience (2009) and Music and
Literary Modernism (2006). A composer and lyricist who has written many songs and
225
has been involved with the development of two musicals, he is a member of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP).
Guy Morrow is a lecturer in the Department of Contemporary Music Studies at
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. He teaches music business, music theory,
and arts management and has recently completed a PhD that concerns contemporary artist management practices in Australia. He has published articles on a range
of music-related topics and currently manages a rock band and plays live percussion
with a number of DJs.
Richard Strasser is an assistant professor of music industry at Northeastern University, where he was the recipient of the 2008 Excellence in Teaching Award. He is
author of The Savvy Studio Owner, and the forthcoming book Music Business: The Key
Concepts.
Stephanie Vie is an assistant professor of composition and rhetoric at Fort Lewis
College in Durango, Colorado, where she teaches technical writing and science ction courses. Her current research in music and popular culture examines the music
videos of Gwen Stefani through a neo-Orientalist lens.
Index
AC/DC, 75, 84, 89

Ace of Spades (Motorhead), 79, 87, 88
Adorno, Theodor W., 94, 199
Advances, songwriting, 8
A la carte model, 25 26, 65 66
Amazingtunes.com, 146
American Idol, 197, 198
American Society of Composers, Authors,
and Publishers (ASCAP), 8, 68 69,
70, 176
Anderson, Chris, 128
Anderson, Tom, 114, 115. See also
MySpace
Another Perfect Day (Motorhead), 87
Apple, Inc., 37, 149. See also iPhone; iTunes
Arctic Monkeys, 11, 35, 196
Armour, Jennifer, 67
Arrangers, music, 70
Artistic personnel changes, in rock
brands, 8588, 89
ASCAP (American Society of Composers,
Authors, and Publishers), 8, 68 69,
70, 176
Asian radio, 182
ATO Records, 140
Attali, Jacques: collective production/
play of music, 144 45; monopoly in
music, 146; music as prophetic, 135,

142 43; musicians and labor, 138;
noise, 133; violent role of music, 136,
150 51
Audience interactions, with rock brands,
7781
Audio Home Recording Act (1992), 61
Australian music business, 43 44, 46,
47 48, 56. See also Eleven (company);
Engine Room
Baby Boy (Knowles), 67
Bachman, Katy, 180 81
Baker, Matt, 124, 126
Baker, Peter C., 136
Bands, formed, 198
Barlow, Lou, 2
Barratt, Bob, 5
Beatles, 78, 200. See also Lennon, John;
McCartney, Paul
Becker, Howard, 8
Becket, Thomas, 110
Benjamin, Walter, 101
Berne Convention, 60, 61, 63, 72
Berne Convention Implementation Act
(1988), 72
Best Buy, 138
228
Index
Beyonc, 67
Big Music (Big Four): adaptations to
Celestial Jukebox, 14650; challenges
to, 13334, 136, 139 42; le sharing
and digital music, 13537, 142, 143;
music distribution, 13839
Billboard Magazine, 175
Bishop, Jack, 148
BitTorrent, 142
Blackout (Spears), 110 11
Black/urban radio, 180, 186
Blogs, 3637
BMG, 146. See also Sony BMG
BMG Classics, 101
BMI (Broadcast Musicians Incorporated),
8, 68, 69, 70, 176
BMW, 181
Boden, Margaret, 14
Boehlert, Eric, 183
Bolton, Michael, 67
Bourdieu, Pierre, 3, 4, 8 9, 15, 16
Bowie, David, 7879, 88
boyd, danah, 123
Bragg, Billy, 107 9, 112, 115, 11617, 118
Braheny, John, 3, 4, 9
Branding, 7677. See also Rock brands
British copyright law, 110, 111
Broadcast Musicians Incorporated (BMI),
8, 68, 69, 70, 176
Bueno, Bolivar, 76, 77
Burkart, Patrick, 147, 148 49, 150
Buzz, power of, 110 11
Campbell, Phil, 87, 88
CBC (Childrens Broadcasting
Corporation), 178
CDs: recordable, 23; sales, 21 22, 26,
13738; suggested list prices, 148
Celestial Jukebox, 14650
Chancellor Broadcasting Company, 157
Charlatans (musical group), 141
Charter Communications, 32
Childrens Broadcasting Corporation
(CBC), 178
Childrens radio, 17779, 181, 185
Christian radio, 179, 180
Chuck D, 141, 143
Clarke, Eddie, 87, 88
Clear Channel Communications:
consolidation, 138; deregulation and,
163; Dixie Chicks music ban, 161; live

entertainment venues, 160; pay-forplay system, 158, 159; radio station
ownership, 157, 158
Clear Channel Music Group, 18384
Clear Channel Radio, 174, 181, 18384,
18889
Communications, Promotion, and
Enhancement Act (2006), 31
Communications Act (1934), 155
Community as anti-McDonaldization,
214 18
Community radio, 164 66, 185
Competition in Radio and Concert
Industries Act, 159 60
Constitution (U.S.), 61
Consumers as creators of music content, 34
Copyright, 59 72; Constitution and,
61; digital music, 59 60, 64 67, 134;
extensions, 60, 61, 62 64, 11112,
147; fair use and public domain, 69 71;
historical overview, 109 10, 11112;
Internet Service Providers and, 32; as
protection from infringement, 67 68;
radio and, 163; royalties and, 68 69;
songs, 7172; songwriters and, 8
Copyright Act (1909), 62
Copyright Act (1976), 62, 68, 70, 71, 72
Copyrights Highway (Goldstein), 147
Copyright Term Extension Act.
See Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act
Costco, 138
Craft and Business of Song Writing, The
(Braheny), 3
Creativity, in songwriting, 1316
Creedence Clearwater Revival, 5
Criss, Peter, 85
CRM (customer relationship
management), 148 49
Crystal Ball (Prince), 141
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 9, 15
Culture industry, 94
Cumulus Media, 161
Curry, Adam, 166
Customer relationship management
(CRM), 148 49
Dahl, Christopher T., 178
Dancing in the Dark (Springsteen), 10
Index
Darknet, 143
DAT (Digital Audio Tape), 23
Death cigarettes, 77
Deconstructing the Popular (Hall), 209
Dee, Mikkey, 82, 8788
Deregulation, 155 61, 163, 18283
DeWolf, Chris, 114. See also MySpace
Dick James Music, 67
DiCola, Peter, 15758
Digital Audio Tape (DAT), 23
Digital marketing, 127 29
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(1998), 32, 61, 64 65, 117, 147, 183
Digital music: CD sales versus, 21 22,
26; copyright and, 59 60, 64 67, 134;
distribution, 142 46
Digital Music Wars (Burkart and
McCourt), 147
Digital Performance Act, 159
Digital rights management (DRM): Big
Music and, 148, 149; Internet Service
Providers, 31; Microsoft, 29, 30;
recorded music, 24, 25, 26; Yahoo!, 32
Disney Corporation, 62, 63, 77, 11112.
See also Radio Disney
Dixie Chicks, 161
DMCA. See Digital Millennium
Copyright Act
Donaldson, Andrew, 110
Donaldson v. Becket (Britain, 1774), 110
Donovan, Gregg, 50 51, 54 55
Doyle, Mike, 165
DRM. See Digital rights management
Eagles (musical group), 141
Earvolution, 3637
Economy, in globalization, 194 95
Eleven (company), 46, 47, 4850, 51, 55, 56
EMI: Eleven (company) and, 47, 49, 51;
as major record label, 22, 135; world
music, 97. See also Big Music (Big Four)
Engine Room, 46 47, 5153, 54 55, 56
European copyright law, 60, 61 62, 63
Evans, Morgan, 126, 129
Evora, Cesaria, 95, 100 101
Eyes on the Prize, 117
FairPlay DRM technology, 25, 149
Fair use, 69 71
Fall Out Boy, 145
229
Faster Pussycat, 81
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC): community radio, 161;
deregulation, 161, 18283; low power
FM radio stations, 164 65, 166,
185; national radio ownership cap,
156; pay-for-play system, 159; radio
consolidation and programming,
160; as regulatory agency for
communications industry, 155
Feingold, Russell, 159 60
File sharing, 25 26, 65 66, 136, 142, 143
Fogerty, John, 5
Folk music, 93 94. See also World music
Formed bands, 198
Four bar rule, 70
Four-point test, 70
Fox Broadcasting Network, 179
Fox Kids Countdown, 179
France: copyright law, 62; popular
music, 197
Frehley, Ace, 84, 89
Future of Music, The (Kusek and
Leonhard), 144
Future of Music Coalition, 159, 165
Futurists, The (Tofer), 34
Garden, James, 8384, 85
Garza, Janiss, 88
GBox, 37
German performance royalties, 196
Gershwin, George, 4
Gladwell, Malcolm, 111
Global Chinese Pop Chart, 182
Globalization, 193 202; economy in,
194 95; as general social situation,
194; music and the music market,
195 98; radio culture and, 182;
self-economization of music, 198 201;
world music and, 95 97
Gobe, Marc, 76
Gofn, Gerry, 1
Goffman, Erving, 123, 124
Goldmark, Andy, 67
Goldstein, Paul, 147
Goodman, David, 181
Got a Little Bit of Love for You
(Armour), 67
Grasskamp, Walter, 201
Grateful Dead, 141
230
Index
Green, Nick, 124, 126, 129

Greenwell, Trent, 129
Greenwood, Johnny, 133, 134. See also
Radiohead
Gregor I (pope), 199
Grokster, 146
Grow Your Logo into a Brand (Smith),
8182
Guthrie, Woody, 109, 112
Habitus, 3 4
Hall, Stuart, 209
Hanson, Kurt, 186
Happy Birthday to You, 64, 11112, 117
Hardware manufacturers, 3334
Harris, Emmylou, 68
Harrison, George, 67, 68
Harris v. Emus Records (1984), 68
Harry Fox Agency, 8, 70
Hear Music, 141
Hegemony, 208 9
Hes So Fine (Mack), 67
Hirschhorn, Joel, 9
Holden, Mark, 129
Holt, Douglas B., 77
Home of the Hits, 205 6
House of Records, The: community,
214 18; customers, 21317, 218;
employees, 21315, 217, 218; founding,
209 10; location, 206, 210; music
stock, 21213, 218; physical space,
210 12; resisting values, noncorporate
attitudes, 21314; viability, 219 20
Huerta, Gerard, 84, 89
Iconic brands, 77
IFPI (International Federation of the
Phonographic Industry), 147 48
I Love This Bar (McCloud), 67
Impression management, 122 25
Independent musicians, 123 27, 12830,
159, 176
Independent record stores, 208, 21719.
See also Home of the Hits; House of
Records, The
Innity Broadcasting Corporation, 157
In Our Bedroom After the War (Stars), 142
In Rainbows (Radiohead), 13334, 136,
139 40, 145, 150
Intermix Media Inc., 115

International Federation of the
Phonographic Industry (IFPI),
147 48
International music business, 43 44,
46, 47 48, 5657. See also Eleven
(company); Engine Room
Internet: copyright and, 65 66; music
industry and, 121, 122, 144 45; radio
and, 163, 167, 17576, 17879, 18384,
18586; rock brands and, 81, 8283;
search engines, 3233; songwriting
and, 10 13; viral marketing and,
127 28; world music and, 95. See also
MySpace; Social networking sites
Internet Service Providers, 30 32
iPhone, 28 29
Isley, Marvin, 67
Isley, Ronald, 67
iTunes: a la carte model, 25, 65 66;
digital rights management, 149;
Earvolution and, 36; In Rainbows
(Radiohead), 140; sales, 25;
songwriting and, 12; visitors to site,
26. See also Apple, Inc.
Jack FM, 187
Jackson, Daniel M., 76, 77
James, Dick, 67
Jamiroquai, 141
Jaszi, Peter, 60
Jazz, 199
Jefferson, Thomas, 61
Jobs, Steve, 149
John, Elton, 67
Journey (musical group), 86, 87, 89
Kasha, Al, 9
KEDU-LP (radio station), 166
Keith, Toby, 67
Kilmister, Lemmy, 79, 82, 8788, 89
King, Carole, 1, 2
KISS: artistic personnel changes, 8586,
87; brand-audience interactions, 77,
80; consistency, 89; logo, 84 85, 89; as
rock brand, 7576; Web site, 81
Klein, Naomi, 48, 53
Klippel, Andrew, 46, 47, 52
Kotarba, Joe, 78, 79, 86
Index
Krangle, Jodi, 12
Kruger, Debbie, 1 2
Kulick, Bruce, 86
Kusek, David, 144, 147, 150, 168
L.A. Guns, 81
Landau, Jon, 10
Last DJ, The (Petty), 161
Last.fm, 184 85
Led Zeppelin, 75
Lehman, Bruce A., 64 65
Lennon, John, 6, 200. See also Beatles
Leonhard, Gerd, 144, 147, 150, 168
Lessig, Lawrence, 60, 63, 11314
License renewals, radio, 15657
Lips/Tongue logo, 81, 83, 89. See also
Rolling Stones
Lloyd Webber, Andrew, 68
Local Community Radio Act (2007), 164
Locomotion, The (Gofn and King), 1
Logos, 76, 80, 8185, 8889
Loudeye/OD2, 31
Love Is A Wonderful Thing (Bolton
and Goldmark), 67
Low power FM (LPFM) radio stations,
164 66, 185
Luhmann, Niklas, 196
Mack, Ronald, 67
Madonna, 141
Maines, Natalie, 161
Marketing, digital/viral, 127 29
Mashups, 32
Mays, Lowry, 138, 160
McCartney, Paul: James, Dick, and, 6; as
rock brand, 78, 79, 80; Starbucks and,
141; Web-based media and, 1112;
writing of Yesterday, 4. See also Beatles
McCloud, Michael, 67
McCourt, Tom, 147, 148 49, 150
McDaniel, Darryl, 122
McDonaldization: community versus,
214 18; described, 207; examples,
2078; independent record store
culture versus, 209 13
McDonalds, 76
MC Lars, 125, 126, 129
McMullen, Lauren, 83, 85
MGM v. Grokster, 146
231
Michaelson, Ingrid, 123

Microsoft, 29 30, 33
Middle Ages, 194 95, 199, 200
Mitchell, Joni, 141
Mobile commerce, 28 29
Money, Eddie, 81
Morna, 95, 100 101
Motorhead, 79, 8283, 8788, 89
mp3 les, 3334, 134, 177, 181
MSN Music Store, 29 30
MTV Network Radio, 180
Murdoch, Rupert, 114, 11516
Muses News, The, 12
Music arrangers, 70
Music education, 70 71
Music Genome Project, 167
Music Like Water model, 144, 147, 150
MusicMatch, 32
MusicNet, 24, 31
Music producing, 5, 46
Music publishing, 68, 62, 66
Music Unlimited, 3233
Music writers, 71
Mypurchase, 36
MySpace: Bragg, Billy, and, 107 9, 112,
115, 11617, 118; buzz and, 111;
copyright and, 66; as democratic
and uncontrolled platform, 196;
digital marketing and, 128 29;
impression management and, 122 25;
independent musicians use of, 123 27,
12830; ownership issues, 107 9, 112,
115, 11617, 118; recorded music and,
3536; as social networking site, 113,
114 15, 122 23, 125 27; songwriting
and, 10
My Sweet Lord (Harrison), 67
NAB (National Association of
Broadcasters), 163, 164, 165
Napster: Earvolution and, 36; as paid
online music service, 26, 32, 33; piracy
of recorded music, 24, 65
National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB), 163, 164, 165
National Public Radio (NPR), 165, 178
Negus, Keith, 9 10, 11, 16
News Corporation, 114, 115
Nike, 53
232
Index
Nine Inch Nails, 140

Noggin Radio, 178
Noise (Attali), 135, 150 51
Northern Songs, 6
NPR (National Public Radio), 165, 178
Nude (Radiohead), 145
Public Law 105-304. See Digital

Millennium Copyright Act
Publishing, music, 68, 62, 66
Putumayo World Music, 95, 102
Pyramid Communications, 157
Quirk, Paul, 21
Oasis (musical group), 141

Oligopolies, 160, 161
Ownership issues: MySpace, 107 9,
112, 115, 11617, 118; radio stations,
15558, 160, 161
Packer, James, 47, 52, 54
Palumbo, Frank, 179
Pandora technology, 167
Pay-for-play system (payola), 15859,
176, 183
Pay-what-you-want experiment,
13334, 136, 139 40, 145, 150
Peer-to-peer (P2P) le sharing,
23 27, 65
Performance rights agencies, 68 69,
176. See also American Society of
Composers, Authors, and Publishers;
Broadcast Musicians Incorporated
Perry, Bob, 187
Petagno, Joe, 82
Petty, Tom, 161
Phantom of the Opera (Lloyd Webber), 68
Phillips, 23
Pickering, Michael, 11
PickleBerry, 178
Pink Floyd, 75
Pipes (Yahoo! service), 32
Piracy, 23 24, 38, 144. See also Copyright
Planet Earth (Prince), 21, 141
Podcasting, 163 64, 166, 168
Porter, Eduardo, 136
Powell, Michael, 162
Presley, Elvis, 200
PressPlay, 24
Prince, 5, 21, 38, 141
Producing, music, 5, 46
Programming, radio, 15859, 160
Public domain, 69 71
Public Enemy, 141
Public Law 105-298. See Sonny Bono
Copyright Term Extension Act
Radio, 15589; black/urban, 180, 186;

Christian, 179, 180; community,
164 66, 185; deregulation of
communications industry, 155 61,
18283; future of, 166 68, 184 86;
global culture, 182; hit radio concept,
17476; Internet and, 163, 167, 17576,
17879, 18384, 18586; license
renewals, 15657; low power FM
stations, 16466, 185; overview, 17374,
18284; ownership, 15558, 160, 161;
pay-for-play system, 15859, 176, 183;
as personal medium, 176, 180 82, 185;
podcasting and, 163 64, 166, 168;
programming, 15859, 160; recording
industry and, 175; satellite, 162 63,
181; streaming, 26; urban, 180, 186;
younger listeners, 17779, 181, 185
Radio AAHS, 178
Radio Disney, 177, 179. See also Disney
Corporation
Radiohead, 13334, 136, 139 40, 145, 150
Radio & Records, 175
Ragas, Matthew W., 76, 77
Rationalization, 207
RealNetwork, 29, 30
Recordable CD-ROMs, 23
Recorded music, 2138, 13351;
alternative business models and
actors, 27 28; CD versus digital
sales, 21 22, 26; Celestial Jukebox,
14650; consumers as creators of
music content, 34; digital distribution,
142 46; hardware manufacturers and,
3334; Internet Service Providers and,
30 32; mobile commerce, 28 29;
pay-what-you-want experiment,
13334, 136, 139 40, 145, 150;
peer-to-peer le sharing, 23 27, 65;
radio and, 175; search engines and,
3233; social networks as content
Index
creators, 34 37; software companies
and, 29 30; traditional recording
business model, 22 23
Recording Academy, The, 95
Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA): copyright, 65, 66;
le sharing, 136; Internet Service
Providers and, 32; as lobbyist, 135;
suggested CD list prices, 148
Renaissance, 195, 199 200
Repp, Ray, 68
Reznor, Trent, 140 41
Rhapsody (company): catalog size, 128;
digital rights management, 149;
Earvolution and, 36; recorded music
and, 30, 31, 3233
RIAA. See Recording Industry
Association of America
Ritzer, George, 2067
Robertson, Brian, 87, 89
Rock brands, 75 90; artistic personnel
changes, 8588, 89; audience
interactions, 7781; brand anatomy,
7677; consistency, 88 90; dened, 75;
logos, 80, 8185, 8889
Rock the Nation Live (KISS), 80
Rodman, Gilbert B., 137
Rolling Stones: brand-audience
interactions, 7778, 79 80;
consistency, 88, 89, 90; logo, 80, 83, 89;
as rock brand, 7576; Web site, 81, 83
Royalties, 8, 68 69, 176, 183, 196 97
Rubenstein, Helena, 80, 81
Saint-Amour, Paul K., 60
Sampling, 64
Samuels, Edward, 8
Satellite radio, 162 63, 181. See also Radio
Schon, Donald, 3 4
Search engines, 3233
Second Life, 18586
Seeger, Pete, 78
SellaBand.com, 146
SESAC, 68, 69
Simmons, Gene, 86, 87, 89
Singer, Eric, 8586
Sirius Satellite Radio, 162, 181, 184
Slicethepie.com, 146
Smashing Pumpkins, 141
233
Smith, Jerome D., 8182, 83, 85

Smith, Steve, 86
Snaggletooth logo, 8283. See also
Motorhead
Snape, Anthony, 124, 127, 128 29
Social networking sites, 34 37, 108 9,
11314, 11617. See also Internet;
MySpace
Software companies, 29 30
Sohn, Gigi, 158
Solver (musical group), 126, 129
Songwriting, 116; common song
elements, 23; copyright, 62, 66, 70,
7172; creativity, 1316; importance
of, 1 2; Internet and, 10 13; process,
810; producing and, 5; publishing
and, 68; romantic/inspirational view
of, 1314; skill acquisition, 3 4
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act (1998), 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 11112.
See also Copyright
Sony BMG: Digital Audio Tape, 23;
GBox and, 37; as major record label,
22, 135; Prince and, 38; Recordable
CD-ROM, 23; vertical integration, 37;
world music divisions, 97, 101, 102.
See also Big Music (Big Four)
Soto, Jeff Scott, 86
Spears, Britney, 110 11
Springsteen, Bruce, 10, 78, 88
Stanley, Paul, 80, 86, 89
Starbucks Entertainment Company, 95,
101, 141
Stars (musical group), 142
Stern, Howard, 181
Streaming music, 25 26
Strip malls, 208
Structural couplings, 196
Styx, 86, 87
Subscription le sharing, 25 26, 65 66
Supersonic (musical group), 1213
Systems theory, 195, 199
Take That, 198
Telecommunications Act (1996), 15558,
159 60, 162
Tequila, Tila, 114
Terry, Lee, 165
Thayer, Tommy, 8586
234
Index
Third world music. See World music

Thirsty Merc, 124, 126
This Land Is Your Land (Guthrie),
11112
Thom, Sandi, 10 11
Thomas, Jammie, 66
Thomas, Kim, 49
Thoughts on Music (Jobs), 149
Throsby, David, 45
Till You (Repp), 68
Tipping Point, The (Gladwell), 111
Tofer, Alvin, 34
Total Music subscription service, 149
Travis, Daryl, 76
Universal Music Group: copyright
and, 66, 69; GBox and, 37; as major
record label, 22, 135; Total Music
subscription service, 149; world music,
97; XM Satellite Radio and, 183.
See also Big Music (Big Four)
Urban radio, 180, 186
U.S. Constitution, 61
U.S. Copyright Ofce, 71, 72
Valance, Holly, 52, 53, 55
Valenti, Jack, 64
Vanderdonckt, Cheyanne, 137
Vasan, Sonia, 83
Verizon Communications, 31, 32
Viacom, 157
Videotape (Radiohead), 145, 150
Vines, The, 52, 53
Vinyl records, 217, 219. See also House
of Records, The
Viral marketing, 127 29
Waggstaff, Todd, 46 47, 5152, 53
Wal-Mart, 37, 128, 138, 149
Warner Music Group: blogs and, 36;
copyright and, 66; as major record
label, 22, 135; Wilco and, 141 42;
world music division, 96 97, 103. See
also Big Music (Big Four)
Warner Music International, 96 97, 103
W.A.S.T.E., 139, 145. See also Radiohead

Watson, John, 47, 4850, 51, 55
Web sites. See Internet
Wells, Mark, 1213, 126
WELL (Whole Earth Lectronic Link), 113
Welsh, Keith, 45
Wentz, Pete, 145 46
White Line Fever (Kilmister and Garza),
79, 87, 88
Who Are the Pirates? (Bishop), 148
Whole Earth Lectronic Link (WELL), 113
Who Owns the Music, MTV or Me?
(Bragg), 108
Wilco, 141 42
Williams, Saul, 140 41
Windows Media Player 10 jukebox, 2930
WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization), 147 48
Withers, W. Russell, 162, 163, 164, 165
WOMEX conference, 102
World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO), 147 48
World music, 93105; availability, 95;
as big business, 96 97; commercial
categories, 97 99; dened, 93 94;
globalization and, 95 97; ideological
categories, 99 101; making music and
marketing authenticity, 1013;
non-Western emphasis, 98 99
WQBH-AM (radio station), 160 61
Wright, Jeb, 8687
Writers, music, 71
XM Satellite Radio, 162, 183, 184
Yahoo!, 3233
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (Wilco), 141 42
Yesterday (Lennon and McCartney), 4
Yorke, Thom, 139 40, 145. See also
Radiohead
Youth radio, 17779, 181, 185
YouTube, 66, 145
YouTunes, 32
Zune Marketplace, 33
The Business of
Entertainment
VOLUME 3
Television

PN1584.B87 2009
790.2dc22
2008030435
ISBN: 9780275998387 (set)
9780275998400 (vol. 1)
9780275998424 (vol. 2)
9780275998448 (vol. 3)
www.greenwood.com

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Walt Whitman
Contents

Acknowledgments
ix
xiii
The Business of Entertainment: Television Fans

Patricia Ventura and Beth Mauldin
A Joint (Ad)Venture: The CW Network

and the Youth Market
Caryn Murphy
17
U Know U Love Me: New Media, Gossip Girl,

and the (Un)Changing Discourses of Girlhood
Anne H. Petersen
35
Why I Love The Office . . . and Hate NBC

Sue J. Kim
61
Who Wins with NASCAR on ESPN?

Wanda Little Fenimore
83
Show Time: Sundance Meets Corporate America

K. Alex Ilyasova
Temporary Resistance: Strategies of Freelance

Workers in American Network Television News
Kathleen M. Ryan
101
125
viii
8
9
Contents
The Economic and Business Realities

of Reality Television
Richard Crew
143
Reality Television: The Business of Mediating

(Extra)Ordinary Life
Valerie Palmer-Mehta and Alina Haliliuc
159
10 The Way of the Gay: Bravo TV,

Lifestyle Consumption, and Promotional Culture
Amy M. Corey
179
11 The Real O.C.: Laguna Beach, MTV,

and the Business of Reality Star Production
Anne H. Petersen
197
213
Index
217
Preface
present moment the speed at which change is occurring is singularly unprecedented. As the entertainment industry seeks to evolve and adapt in light
of the ascendance of all things digital, 100 years worth of structures and
systems appear to be falling away like so much dross. The concomitantly
nascent era of new media, so the assumption goes, must also by denition
mean the death of old media. And in some ways this is true, at least as it concerns the various physical forms of older media such as records and cassettes,
VHS tapes, analog television broadcasts, and newspapers actually made of
paper. These sorts of things are either already long dead or at best replicating the experience of Homo habilis laying eyes on Homo erectus for the rst
time; the new era most certainly will not go well for them. In place of the
old totems come the new onesiTunes, HDTV, TiVo, Digital Cinema, and
so onseemingly disparate but unied by their digital make-ups. And this
digital nature and the accompanying ease with which music, lms, and TV
shows can be accessed and made portable allows the new media to be free.
But free in what sense of the word? Certainly free as concerns the unfettering of the former corporeal state of media. While we need something
tangible on which to view itmade unbelievably simple by the proliferation
of iPods and like devicesmedia can be converted into digital ones and zeroes and delivered via the ether almost anywhere in the world at any time.
New media is portable and near innitely accessible, and only becoming
more so as technology improves, just as the devices upon which we store
Preface
our information grow increasingly innitesimal (e.g., the iPod Nano). But of
greater concern, at least to the giant international media conglomerates that
own the rights to so much of what the entertainment industry produces, is
the perception that media is actually free that payment is neither required
nor necessary, that the natural state of entertainment is that it should be
wholly accessible entirely without cost. This way of thinking is increasingly
prevalent in younger consumers, who bristle at paying 99 on iTunes for a
song or $4 to their cable provider for a movie. Why bother paying for things
when you can download them for nothing online with any number of free,
very user-friendly, and increasingly hard to trace technologies? And this line
of thinking rightfully scares the bejeezus out of the media congloms whose
nancial lifeblood emanates from their stranglehold on the distribution of
their subsidiaries products. If, as Michael Wolff claims, [t]he age of mediadistribution monopolies is over,1 then what comes next?
struggling to hit upon new ones that will be equally protable.This is especially true as concerns just how the Internet will earn income for content
The ubiquitously adopted concept of media convergence when a company
play on a Sony MP3 Walkman, or converted into ring tones for use on a Sony
companys bottom line something is working out as planned. So, its no
Preface
xi
so-called big six contemporary media conglomeratesFox, Disney, General
Electric, Viacom, Time Warner, and Sonywhich control upwards of 90 percent of the U.S. entertainment industry. The creation of entertainment media
is the provenance of the artistically minded, whereas the widespread dissemination of their work is the bailiwick of so many Ivy Leaguetrained
incarnations? And how will artists trying to maintain their integrity and beliefs reconcile their visions with those of the corporate entities for which they
must almost certainly work should they want their creations ever to be seen
by a larger audience? Its the answers to these questions with which the various authors contributing to The Business of Entertainment: Television grapple.
In the opening chapter, Patricia Ventura and Beth Mauldins The Business of Entertainment: Television Fans, they discuss the effect that the digital revolution and Web 2.0 are having on television fandom. This is followed
by Caryn Murphys A Joint (Ad)Venture: The CW Network and the Youth
Market, in which she argues that in an attempt to negotiate the realities
of a changing marketplace, formerly rival corporations are moving toward
cooperation. Next, in U Know U Love Me: New Media, Gossip Girl, and the
(Un)Changing Discourses of Girlhood, Anne H. Petersen looks at the ways
girl spectatorship is being reshaped in the era of new media. In Why I Love
xii
Preface
The Ofce . . . And Hate NBC, Sue J. Kim details how in both its content (the
episodes) and its form (its production and distribution), the show explores the
small and large negotiations we make as mere human beings trying to survive in the age of late capitalism. Wanda Little Fenimores Who Wins with
NASCAR on ESPN? considers what the purchase of NASCARs rights by
Disneys ESPN/ABC will likely mean for consumers. Subsequently, in Show
Time: Sundance Meets Corporate America, K. Alex Ilyasova examines if
there are places on television beyond the major networks where viewers can
see the lives of gays and lesbians represented in more complex ways. Next,
Kathleen Ryan, in Temporary Resistance: Strategies of Freelance Workers
in American Network Television News, posits, somewhat surprisingly, that
in many instances people working in TV news prefer freelancing to working
under contract. In the remaining essays, Richard Crews The Economic and
Business Realities of Reality Television, Valerie Palmer-Mehta and Alina
Haliliucs Reality Television: The Business of Mediating (Extra)Ordinary
Life, Amy M. Coreys The Way of the Gay: Bravo TV, Lifestyle Consumption, and Promotional Culture, and Petersens The Real O.C.: Laguna
Beach, MTV, and the Business of Reality Star Production, the respective
authors analyze the rise and cultural meaning of reality TV as a dominant
staple of the contemporary television industry.
Ultimately, it is our hope that these chapters will serve to introduce their
readers to the rich and myriad array of issues facing the television industry
and how they might play out on a worldwide cultural stage. And perhaps
they will also contribute to new ways of thinking about and researching the
business of entertainment as it applies to television and what it continues to
mean in a rapidly changing industry and world.
Robert C. Sickels
NOTE
Acknowledgments
fan. Thanks are also due to Praegers Nick Philipson and Lindsay Claire,
who helped immensely in getting this project off the ground and seeing it
through to completion. Special thanks are also due to all the authors who
contributed their pieces to these collections; I am very grateful and appreciative. Id also like to thank Professor Michael Branch of the University of
Nevada, Reno, for his tireless guidance, inspiration, and friendship over the
years; he showed me a sterling path that Ive tried my best to follow. Thanks
to Whitman College and the support of my colleagues and friends here, especially Robert Withycombe and Jana Byars. And thanks to my dad, who
taught me to always do your work and dont make excuses, and to my mom,
who always had time to take me to a movie or buy me a book. Lastly, thanks
to my kids, Dutch and Tallulah, who put up with me throughout what was a
long and arduous process.
chapter 1
The Business of Entertainment:

Television Fans
Patricia Ventura and Beth Mauldin
In the spring of 2006, as both the May sweeps and the season nale neared,
ABCs hit television drama Lost went interactive, joining the wave of Internettelevision tie-ins with the Lost Experience.1 Lost had already taken
tentative steps in this direction, with its ctional Oceanic Airlines Web site
(the airline whose plane crash near a mysterious island in the Pacic established the series premise). It was followed by another site, purporting to belong to the shadowy black-ops research organization, the Hanso Foundation,
which used the island as its base of operations for carrying out its vaguely
sinister experiments. These Web sites offered tantalizing extras to fans, but
it was not until the launch of the online game Lost Experience that one of
televisions highest rated shows explored a variety of channelsthe Internet, mobile phones, video-on-demand, e-mail, blogs, podcasts, and ARGsto
create buzz and excite interest from nonviewers but, more importantly, to
solidify and further captivate the already obsessedand often obsessive
fan base. Lost is one of countless television shows that, by interfacing with
Web 2.0 and utilizing the rapid expansion and diversication of media and
communication technology, has redened the relationship between fans and
television and, in so doing, redened the nature of fandom itself. Neither
entirely passive nor unidirectional, fandom has undergone a cultural shift
thanks to new digital technologies that enable fans to participate actively in
the production, consumption, and distribution of their favorite shows.
To understand television today, it helps to be familiar with the combination of marketing buzzwords and academic neologisms that add up to a
Television
deeply useful terminology for understanding the priorities of content providers and fans. Indeed, one of those very terms important to consider is
content providers, especially as we explore the changing television landscape and what that means for fan cultures. So, to begin our exploration, we
have to bear in mind the technological foundation that has enabled much of
the changed mediascape, that is, the World Wide Web, especially in its latest
incarnation.
WEB 2.0
Coined by Tim OReilly, computer theorist and publisher, the term Web 2.0
indicates a change that occurred when the 1990s dot.com bubble burst and
ended what might be called the irrationally exuberant phase of the Internet. For OReilly, the bursting of the dot.com bubble was really a shake
out of the ideas and approaches that did not best utilize the possibilities of
the Internet or offer the kinds of approaches users have found most worth
their time. What remained after the shakeout were approaches, platforms,
and content that are community focused and collaboratively generated; in
OReillys terms, these embraced the power of the web to harness collective
intelligence.2
To understand how Web 2.0 connects to fandom, we need only turn to a
few of the oppositions OReilly offers between Web 1.0 and 2.0:
Britannica Online v. Wikipedia
publishing v. participation
personal Web sites v. blogging3
Such contrasts illustrate the key areas in which the participatory cultures
of fandom are not only facilitated by the Web but are re-created by it. But
perhaps a more telling opposition is one created by New York University
journalism professor Jay Rosen between the people formerly known as the
audience and the traditional media companies to whom he addresses the following manifesto-like statement:
You dont own the eyeballs. You dont own the press, which is now divided
into pro and amateur zones. You dont control production on the new platform, which isnt one-way. Theres a new balance of power between you
and us. The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public
made realer, less ctional, more able, less predictable.4
This public is now freed to become what enthusiasts call prosumers, who not
only consume programming but have been unleashed by Web 2.0 to produce
their own independent media. It is the public that provides much of the content for and serves as a measure of Web 2.0 through the likes of peer-to-peer
le sharing via BitTorrentwhich enable large amounts of data, such as a

television show, to be distributed widely, if illegally, outside of the intended
distribution methods. It is also this public that creates and maintains the
blogs and social networking sites that do not merely accommodate the public
but whose content is the public communication and participation.
For fan culture the implications of such media are profound. As one researcher found in an ethnographic study of online fan cultures, the Internet
has absolutely changed the landscape. She cites the discussion of two subjects, Carrie-Ann and Raven, who explained,
the Internet has made fandom more acceptable. . . . Its made fandom more
obsessive but also less antisocial and geeky, in that you dont have to devote
time and money to . . . the extent of going to conventions and stuff. Raven,
again, replied that the Internet has made fandom a tighter knit community and much more accessible than it used to be.5
In Web 2.0 these communities are often found in two key sites: the blog
and the social networking sphere.
Blogs (originally web logs) have largely replaced Web 1.0 personal communication platforms such as home pages or Usenet groups because they
possess many advantages. First, they are easy to create: No particular design
knowledge is required to make one; no particular Web capability is required
to host one. But importantly, they offer features such as the permalink (permanent link), which enables any blog entry to be easily accessible no matter when
it was published, and RSS (Really Simple Syndication), which enables viewers to essentially subscribe to their favorite sites and be notied of changes
immediately. Both of these abilities empower user participation and have
enabled the blogosphere to become what OReilly calls the voice we hear
in all of our heads and a reection of conscious thought and attention.6
The ability to easily share this voice opens up all manner of possibilities for
collective creative endeavor. Fan ction, for example, has largely moved to
the Web with FanLib being a key blogging service.
FanLib is a marketing company that provides a platform for fans to meet
online to share the stories, or fanc, they produce related to their favorite
shows. This self-proclaimed People Powered Entertainment company
also cosponsors online events with producers and publishers designed to
produce audience-driven content within a professionally controlled environment.7 In 2007, the producers of Showtimes The L-Word teamed up with
FanLib to solicit script ideas. According to the ofcial Web site, Fans worked
with a writer and coproducer of the show to collectively and democratically
write an original scene that aired in the third episode of season ve. Showtime paid the winner $1,000, ew her to Vancouver to watch the scene being
lmed, and gave her a credit on screen in the end titles. Fans who voted for
Television
their favorite submission on the blog won BuzzPoints, a reward for using the
Web site that helps them attain status and earn a reputation within [the]
fanisode community.8 The collaboration was extremely successful, producing over 150,000 site visits for FanLib as well as a 51 percent boost in the
ratings for The L-Word over the previous season.9
Social networking services such as MySpace and Facebook allow blogging as well as chatting, messaging, e-mail, video, chat, and le sharing
within groups that individuals can easily locate. Here fans can join groups
that allow them to communicate with each other about a particular show and,
importantly, to view each others proles and see what other groups their
fellow fans are a part of. This display of preferences becomes a way to create an online identityjust as clothing style, neighborhood, clubs, and the
like are ways to create and display identity in the physical world. In the virtual world, ones identity is often encapsulated through the use of an image,
known as an avatar, that stands in for the person or group being connected
to. These avatars are what new-media scholar danah boyd calls cultural artifacts that allow fans to both create and perform their identities online.10
They also serve to promote trends, characters, causes, and shows to an audience of people who already have at least one afnity in commonwithout
the expense of traditional advertising; after all, it is the fans who do the work
of marketing without even being aware that they are working. And while
these same fans act as de facto marketers and content providers, their demographic informationthat is their proles and afliationsare sold by the
site to marketers looking for new ways to target precise audiences. Thus, the
business model of Web 2.0 is paradoxically both libratory and utterly surveillance focused: It invites participation so it can measure and sell it. Users
thereby not only provide the product being presentedthat is, the proles
and activity that form the content of the site they also provide the product
being soldthat is, their very online selves.
When the new television network The CW was launched in the fall of
2006, executives decided to use Internet social networking to attract new
viewers, generate buzz, and get the audience more personally and emotionally invested in its shows.11 The CW arose from the ashes of two networks,
The WB and UPN, which had operated since the mid-1990s. The network
focused on the site that was at the time the most popular for social networking on the Web, especially among adolescents and teenagersMySpace. By
establishing its presence there, The CW became the rst network to create an interactive, Web-based experience for viewers, encouraging them not
only to watch the shows but also to buy from its advertisers.
The CW in effect became a member of MySpace, creating a prole that
echoed the networks tagline: The CW Free to Be Community Hub. It included video from CW shows, interviews with performers, and other special
features. There were also options for downloads, music, and episode guides,
updates, and discussion groups. But in some cases it went even further. For
Supernatural, the Free to Be Community Hub enabled members to write their
own songs, have other members vote for their favorite, and compete for an
opportunity to have the winning song appear in the show.12
The relationship between the Web site and the edgling network began
with a splash. For its mid-September debut, The CW commandeered the MySpace home page, using the homepage-takeover option in which ubiquitous banner ads cover the page and allow users to enter CW sites. It was
a natural t and an astute decision because The CWs target audience was
identical to the main demographic that was devoted to MySpace. Signature
shows such as Americas Next Top Model and Beauty and the Geek received intensive promotion on the networking site and saw their ratings rise. Given
that MySpace draws more than 60 million visitors each month, including approximately 5 million teens, the trend of television networks and programs
interfacing with the Internet is likely to continue expanding and evolving.
As one insider told Broadcasting and Cable in 2007, Its about getting people
more involved with the content, and MySpace allows characters to come to
life in a way that wasnt possible before.13
While The CW was the rst television network to utilize Web 2.0 through
its presence on MySpace, NBC went a step further by creating its own social networking Web site to connect to its audience and target advertising
more effectively. Users of myNBC can create their own prole pages, upload videos and photos, chat, participate in fan groups, and get reviews and
recommendations from other users with similar interests.14 The site was created in time for the 2007 fall television season, and preliminary observations
indicated a certain amount of wariness about the advantages of starting an
entirely new networking site instead of using well-established and already
wildly popular ones. Jack Myers, editor of the Jack Myers Media Business Report, told New York Times writer Louise Story that he believed fans of NBC
shows would be receptive to ideas like myNBC, even if they belong to other
social networking sites. I do think theyll do both, Myers said. Its not so
much about NBC. Itll be Heroes, it will be Friday Night Lights and Bionic
Woman fans. Not NBC fans.15
In addition to entire networks taking advantage of the enormous popularity of social networking sites, individual shows have devised new ways
of engaging viewers in a more hands-on, personalized relationship. Several
cast members and creators from Showtimes lesbian drama, The L Word, for
example, started a site in 2007 called OurChart.com. It is based on a chart
begun by one of the characters, Alice, who uses it to keep track of the sexual
encounters within her actual social network. The idea for the Web site was
to transform the ctional chart into a Web-based social network, allowing
users to create prole pages and maintain their own charts. In some ways,
OurChart.com may be better positioned to attract visitors than myNBC.com
Television
because it is aimed at a niche audience, and it has a strong base of users who
seek to identify, and do identify, with the glamour and drama of a group of
beautiful, wealthy West Hollywood lesbians.16
As the creators explain on the site itself, OurChart is a place where
women can connect, share and hang out with friends of all shapes, stripes,
genders and orientations. It provides unreleased gems from the show,
along with exclusive original editorial and multimedia content from some
of the most excellent creative folks out there. OurChart will also let folks
create their own chart of friends, lovers, and everyone else in their own L
worlds.17 This focus on audience identication with the show is not surprising given the dearth of television programming by, for, and about lesbians (notwithstanding the emergence of the all-gay cable network Logo,
which includes in its regular lineup lesbian-specic reality shows, dramas,
and lms). Women who are fans of the show may feel as though they have
a greater stake in how lesbians are represented or how true or authentic the scenarios and relationships appear. It is precisely this personalized
response that makes social networking Web sites so popular and such a
promising tool for television executives as well as advertisers and marketing companies.
In 2006, Islandoo was created as a site devoted entirely to nding participants and creating a fanbase for a British television show called Shipwrecked.18
The show appears on BBC America and Channel 4. In addition to all of the
features provided by social networking sites, users can become a fan of
other members. Those who garner the largest number of fans can then audition to appear on the show. Another British network, Channel 4, has also
begun combining social networking with competition-themed shows. Big
Brother, the reality television show that has become a global phenomenon,
utilizes a site called E4.com. It differs from Islandoo only in it that is not the
means by which all people, but only a small number, are chosen for an audition to appear on the television show.19 This mixture of reality television and
Internet-based social networks, in which one medium is inextricably linked
to anotherfor purposes of content rather than merely fan interest or peripheral involvementhas not been replicated in the United States, but the
opportunities for generating ratings and advertising dollars will likely not
be overlooked as American and other media corporations continue to expand
the boundaries of the medium.
Such Web 2.0 phenomena, for good and for ill, form what OReilly calls an
architecture of participation in which users do a large share of the work of
growing and developing a site, program, or platform.20 In terms of television
fans, the impact of this architecture of participation can only be understood
if we rst deal with another phenomenon enabled by current technology: the
development of engagement television.
ENGAGEMENT TELEVISION
In the Broadcast Era, audiences had to plan to be in front of a television
when one of the Big Three networks aired a show; current technologies,
however, enable viewers to watch a variety of programs whenever and wherever they want. Unlike the Broadcast Eras so-called appointment television,
viewers today can access programs at any time (after the show has rst aired)
with technologies such as DVD, le sharing, on-demand from the networks
Web site or by purchasing episodes from the iTunes Store, and video recording (through old analog media such as VHS and, since 1999, through digital
video recorders such as TiVo). This elimination of the time constraint is
accentuated with the elimination of the space constraint as portable media
players such as mobile phones, iPods, notebook computers, and the like give
viewers real exibility in where they watch programs. In April 2007, CBS established its Interactive Audience Network, distributing television shows
for free across a variety of online platforms such as Joost, Bebo, Veoh, Netvibes, and Brightcove.21
From the creative perspective, these technologies allow complex and involved storylines that the Broadcast Eras limited viewing possibilities could
not support. With this greater exibility, the possibilities to reach viewers in
deeply intimate and involved ways open up. Certainly serialization takes on
new possibilities as fans can easily revisit old episodes to make meaningful
connections to developments in newer episodes or simply to watch the show
repeatedly.
From the marketing perspective, however, the developments have presented a challenge for the television industry. Certainly the changes have
profoundly impacted televisions business model because consumers can
watch with little or no commercial interruptions. In the Broadcast Era, the
scheduled commercials created the revenue stream; the engagement model
requires companies to nd new ways to advertise. These include integrating
the advertisements into the storylines and scenery of the programs themselves. Famously, for example, the judges of American Idol prominently display Coke cups on the table in front of them. But this only solves one problem
brought on by new models of television.
While the Broadcast Era had only three major networks, today there are
hundreds of channels. This means that audiences for nearly every program
are much smaller than they would have been in the pastif a given program
would have even aired. But if the audience is smaller, it is also likely to be
more engaged and more homogeneous because it has presumably hundreds
of other programming choices and the choice to not watch at all. It is this last
option of giving up on the whole medium of television that some media experts claim will increasingly be selected because alternatives such as highly
Television
involving (and quickly evolving) Internet-based virtual worlds, such as Second Life, continue to proliferate.
This is why many television executives are now using virtual worlds to
cater to a niche fanbase. A popular virtual community has emerged at MTV,
once considered the standard-bearer for cutting-edge teenage culture. Executives there took note that Kids were watching Laguna Beach, but then they
were going everyplace else on the Web to talk about what theyd just seen.22
In response, they started the Leapfrog initiative, which is exploring the possibilities of virtual 3-D environments on the Internet. Virtual Laguna Beach
was the rst of several television series-based sitesincluding The Virtual
Real World, The Virtual Hills, and Virtual Pimp My Ride that bring together all of the features now considered baseline requirements for any Web
2.0 content with new technology, such as real-time conversation with other
people and three-dimensional animation. As Matt Bostwick, vice president
of franchise development for MTV Networks Music Group, told Wired, Its
like the moment you went from listening to music to watching it. Now were
taking it from watching the show to actually becoming the show.23 It is this
brand-new kind of media that envisions a seamless web of television and
computers, viewers and consumers, and participants and shapers of content.
Some media experts see the increasing entertainment options such as virtual worlds less as competition than as new ways to make prots and new
venues on which to advertise. Thus, today, the television program is only one
offering among many that media companies produce. For if media developments absolutely require television companies to nd new revenue streams,
they have found that extending the experiences they provide beyond television is key. Thus, to understand this development we need to rethink the
basic unit of the television industry from television program to content.
CONTENT
For media theorist Ivan Askwith, the term content is a unit of information or entertainment product that can be sold or sponsored and distributed
through a diverse range of channels and platforms.24 In this way, television
companies deal in more than television and compete with more than other
television networks. The term mindshare arises here to reect increased competition among content providers and advertisers, who in todays vast mediascape enjoy more opportunities to circulate their messages but who also
have to ght harder than ever to get the attention of already over-stimulated
viewers/consumers. Content providers have found both new properties to
market and new ways to market older properties. We have seen some of the
ways in which Web 2.0 enables new marketing techniques, but we have not
seriously looked at the ways in which the media companies themselves create
what at one-time would have been considered ancillary content such as Web
sites, books, toys, trading cards, video games, digital comics, clothing lines,
and more. Beyond watching the actual show, then, the current model centers
on an enlarged and prolonged viewing experience that can itself be marketed
and that is itself content. And this brings us to our next term.
TRANSMEDIA
Transmedia is the content available across platforms and well beyond the
television material. For some viewers, watching the television show will
certainly be enough exposure to the narrative, the action, or the characters,
but the more committed fans want more. In marketing speak, this more is
an opportunity to extend the brand through such media as Web sites, comics, books, games, movies, music, and magazines.
From a storytelling perspective, transmedia enables back-story to be introduced in much more detailed ways than possible on a broadcast show, say
through Webisodes that are only available online. Here, too, minor characters
can take on fully realized lives of their own. From a fan perspective, transmedia allows a more immersive experience and a heightened intimacy with
the program and its characters or personalities. But this experience is only
possible through the development of the larger process of improved viewer
literacy, which has developed as a result of the great variety of fan activities
possible.25 The more viewers participate in or consume these transmedia, the
more literate they become in the possibilities and the more content they
may themselves create because transmedia content takes advantage of what
has been dubbed hypersociability, in which fans interact with each other.
Another example of this interfacing is CSI: NY, whose fans can experience the show in an entirely new way, by actually playing the role of a virtual crime scene investigator in Second Life and participating in a plotline
of a popular network television series. What happens in Second Life is connected to events on the show; the intention is to increase fan engagement
with the series but also to get viewers involved in a medium that they may
otherwise not even be aware of. And for both, it spells increased advertising revenue and new marketing opportunities. In the episode that launched
this joint venture, which aired in October 2007, Mac Taylor, played by Gary
Sinise, entered Second Life to track down the person who has murdered a
Second Life user. Viewers could then sign up for Second Life (via a link on
the CBS Web site) if they were not already members and begin assisting in
the investigation. In addition to watching for clues in subsequent episodes
of the television show, participants had other entertainment options on the
Internet: to play forensics-related games in a virtual crime lab and to participate in a game called Murder by Zuiker, which is unrelated to events in
the show but involves nding clues and solving a crime (and even, for the
top 100 detectives, virtual prizes). Fans of the show, then, not only imagine
10
Television
themselves in the shoes of their favorite characters, they can now join them,
speak in their streetwise syntax, use the same eld kit and tools, and feel as
if they are literally a part of the show.26
At the same time that virtual role-playing emerged as a new component
of television content and programming, producers and writers also began
using game-based Web sites as a form of transmedia promotion. Alternate
Reality Games (ARGs) engage viewers/users in a variety of media, from
the Internet to the telephone, text messaging to e-mail. They involve elaborate show-related puzzles, mysteries, and other games, and they offer hidden
plotlines, more in-depth character development, and in some cases simply
material that does not t into the strict connes of television. In 2007, Wired
examined the ARGs tied to two of the most popular network television
shows, Heroes and Lost. The site Heroes 360 engaged users in a job application and interview process, including emailed applications, text messages
from fellow employees, and various puzzles to solve on the Web in order to
learn vital new information about one of the major characters. During the
nal episodes of season two, Lost creators ran ads for the Hanso Foundation.
Viewers who called the onscreen number were routed to a Web site to nd a
possible Hanso conspiracy. Those who solved the puzzle learned the origin
of the Dharma Initiative and other secrets.27
From the network side, transmedia has signicant potential. Here it is
important to understand that networks are not isolated corporations but are
part of communications multinationals whose holdings stretch into most
aspects of mass entertainmentmusic, publishing, theme parks, motion
pictures, video and other kinds of gaming, sports teams, and the like. This diverse and global reach provides avenues to exploit one product across many
platforms and media. For their part, companies advertising their products
with these media corporations want their products advertised across these
many platforms because they too see the possibilities of transmedia. What
these advertisers see is not that they should abandon the more traditional
media but that they can maximize their visibility by appearing on both the
older and the newer platforms, and this brings us to our next terms.
CONVERGENCE CULTURE AND FAN LABOR
Convergence culture is Henry Jenkinss term for the territory where old
and new media collide. In the culture of convergence, consumers can access content across a widening mediascape, a place not where new technologies displace old media but where old and new forms converge.28 Jenkins
argues that the talk of media revolutions where old forms are killed off by
the new-and-improved is more hyperbole than reality. Certainly, the history
of technology is cluttered with abandoned innovations, such as the Betamax
home video cassette or the 8-track tape, but these are only delivery systems;
11
media are the content and the cultural systems that the various technologies and delivery systems enable. From this perspective, DVDs and CDs, for
instance, are delivery systems; recorded sound is a medium. These varying
delivery systems may well affect a mediums social status, content, and audience, but they do not erase its existence: [M]edia persist as layers within
an ever more complicated information and entertainment stratum where
each old medium was forced to coexist with the emerging media.29 Indeed,
the culture of convergence covers the territories of fandom. On this territory the viewer or consumer develops into someone who does not simply
passively accept content but who actively seeks it out and, more importantly,
creates it.
This media convergence has paved the way for fan labora key aspect
of televisions architectures of participation.30 Fan labor is built into the
structures of transmedia and is increasingly essential to the business of television. The fan today is expected not simply to consume programming (and,
of course, to purchase the products advertised on TV commercials) but to act
as a participant and a producer as well. For example, in 2007, Nicktoons Network launched the cartoon Edgar & Ellen, based on the popular childrens
book published by Simon and Schuster. Kids are encouraged to make shortform cartoons of their own and submit them on the shows Web site; the
best user-generated content is then featured in an episode that airs on Nicktoons.31 Whether it is in actually creating bits for shows; helping to promote
the brand through linking, blogging, and tagging; or by extending the brand
in new ways through creating fan ction, games, and virtual spaces, fans are
engaged in a kind of labor. Here it is critical to note, however, that if this
work is exploited because it is unpaid, it is simultaneously unalienated labor
for the very same reasonthis is because it is voluntary and unpaid.
The rst part of that formulationthat the labor is exploitedis easy
to understand. Television companies save considerable time and money by
encouraging the fans to do the work of extending the brand. In this process,
the providers have to relinquish total control of their content, which they
have not always been eager to do because the brand may be used in ways the
providers would not always approve of, as in the case of slash ction in which
fans create homosexual romances between a shows characters. Some providers aggressively guard its signature characters use and resist fan labor, but
most contemporary providers understand that the benets of fan labor are
signicant. Indeed, protability comes in this farming out of work without
payment.
At the same time, the value of the fan labor depends on the uncommodied status of the laborer. Generally speaking, in fandom remuneration takes
value away from the product. Payment would signal that the work was not
sincere and that the feelings expressed were suspect. But it is for this same
reason that fan labor is generally speaking, unalienated, for even though
12
Television
there is a form of exploitation happening here the fans are doing work
without being paidthis labor is their own creative expressions, which they
share for any number of nondirectly nancial reasons: the joy of community,
the satisfaction of creativity, the geeky desire to be seen as the most committed fan, and any number of other reasons. In some cases, fan labor is an outlet
for professionals to advertise their skills in the hopes of getting paid work
in another forum. Other times, for instance, professional writers and artists
use their fan activity as an opportunity to create expressly noncommercial
work. Now, we could say there is a form of compensation in being seen as an
expert on a subject or in getting recognition, but this is not payment in the
strict sense, and it is not labor that is required in order to subsist. Indeed, it
is labor as leisure.
Of course, there are workers who do get paid for fan laborthese are the
professionals who maintain show Web sites, create the transmedia content,
and create these other formerly ancillary platforms. What is interesting here
is that these media professionals often make a point of explaining that even
if they do get paid, they too are fans. In an interview with Henry Jenkins,
Jesse Alexander, a writer and producer on Heroes, addressed the question of
building a devoted fanbase:
Being a superfan myself, I approach it from a very authentic place. I think
about what I would want for myself. In marketing, its important to go
after early adopters, inuencers. Its a great strategy for something like
Heroes. Its a problem with servicing this small group and the broad audience as well. But you have to build afnity for both these groups; authenticity for both audiences.32
This status anxiety is quite revelatory and indicates the continued presence
of traditional authenticity models that a cynic might expect to have disappeared by now in the wake of the uber-commodication of seemingly all
aspects of contemporary life. But, perhaps, it is because of that sheer excess
and incomprehensible extensity of commodication that this kind of unpaid
labor gets its power. Instead of only being another case of corporations nding ways to generate prots by exploiting workers, which of course it is, fan
labor is also activity that gains meaning because it simultaneously operates
outside the structures of capitalist production in which workers only produce
for a wage, in which products only are valuable in as much as a monetary
value can be placed on them. Thus, here we see convergence that is typical
of much of the content of Web 2.0: It is both thoroughly commodied and a
product of the participatory cultures of the electronic global commons that
all can share.
In a January 2008 article titled Art in the Age of Franchising, New York
Times television critic Virginia Heffernan lamented the low ratings for NBCs
13
acclaimed Friday Night Lights.33 Against all odds, the network renewed the
show for a second season despite its consistently poor showing in the Nielsen
ratings. According to Heffernan, Friday Night Lights suffers from the fact
that the show refuses to become a franchise. The creators rely on creative
dialog, solid character development, and interesting plot lines to create and
maintain a fanbase, not video games, fan ction sites, or ringtones:
This may sound like a blessing, but in a digital age a show cannot succeed
without franchising. An authors work can no longer exist in a vacuum,
independent of hardy online extensions; indeed, a vascular system that
pervades the Internet. Artists must now embrace the cultural theorists
beloved model of the rhizome and think of their work as a horizontal stem
for numberless roots and shootsas many entry and exit points as fans
can devise.34
While televisions utilization of the Internet, and specically the social networking, interactive, and communication-focused Web 2.0, is becoming increasingly commonplace, it remains to be seen whenor whetherit will
replace commercial television as we know it. One effect of this new interactive model, however, is clearly the eradication of old boundaries and the
redrawing of new ones between fans and their showsa redening of the
term fan itself.
NOTES
1. Lost Game Lets Fans Hunt for Clues, April 24, 2006, http://abcnews.go.com/
Entertainment/story?id=1881142.
2. Tim OReilly, What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software, OReilly Net, September 30, 2005, http://www.oreil
lynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
3. Ibid.
4. Jay Rosen, The People Formerly Known as the Audience, Hufngton Post, June
30, 2006, http://www.hufngtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-people-formerly-known_
b_24113.html.
5. Bertha Chin, New Media Technologies: New Ways of Viewing Television?
Television in Transition Conference, Cambridge, MA, May 24, 2003. http://web.
mit.edu/cms/mit3/subs/works.html#chin.
6. OReilly, What Is Web 2.0?
7. Fanlib, http://www.fanlib.com/aboutUs.do.
8. Ibid.
9. David B. Williams, Case Study: The Script Hits the Fans, March 28, 2006,
iMedia Connection, http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/8799.asp.
10. danah boyd, Fan Cultures. Talk presented at Futures of Entertainment 2 Conference, Cambridge, MA, November 1617, 2007, http://www.convergenceculture.
org/futuresofentertainment/2006/program/.
14
Television
11. Paul La Monica, Can the CW Make TV a Five Horse Race? May 18, 2006,
CNNMoney.com, http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/18/news/companies/tv_cw/.
12. Cynthia Brumeld, Broadcast Networks Take Marketing to the Edge, IP
Democracy: Media, Technology, Competition, Policy, September 5, 2006, http://www.
ipdemocracy.com/archives/001913broadcast_networks_take_marketing_to_the_
ede.php.
13. David Goetzl, Using MySpace To Get the Message, Broadcasting & Cable,
April 16, 2007, http://www1.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6433702.html.
14. Pete Cashmore, NBC.com Social Network, Mashable: Social Networking News,
March 22, 2007, http://mashable.com/2007/03/22/nbccom-social-network/.
15. Louise Story, NBC Introduces a Social Network, New York Times, July 16, 2007,
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/nbc-introduces-a-social-network/.
16. Pete Cashmore, OurChart.comThe L-Word Launching Lesbian Social Network, Mashable: Social Networking News, December 18, 2006, http://mashable.
com/2006/12/18/ourchartcom-the-l-word-launching-lesbian-social-network/.
17. OurChart.com, http://www.ourchart.com/about.
18. Pete Cashmore, Big Brother Meets Social Networking, Mashable: Social Networking News, November 22, 2006, http://mashable.com/2006/11/22/big-brothermeets-social-networking/.
19. Ibid.
20. OReilly, What Is Web 2.0?
21. Mark Sweney, CBS backs Joost with a host of new web deals for its TV shows,
organgrinder, Guardian Unlimited, April 13, 2007, http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organ
grinder/2007/04/cbs_backs_joost_with_a_host_of.html.
22. Mark Wallace, A Second Life for MTV, Wired, February 2007, http://www.
wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/mtv.html?pg=1&topic=mtv&topic_set.
23. Ibid.
24. Ivan Askworth, Television 2.0: Reconceptualizing TV as an Engagement Medium (Masters thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007), 17, http://cms.
mit.edu/research/theses/IvanAskwith2007.pdf.
25. John Caldwell, Convergence Television; Aggregating Form and Repurposing
Content in the Culture of Conglomeration, in Television after TV: Essays on a Medium
in Transition, ed. Lynn Spiegel and Jan Olsson (Durham: Duke UP, 2004), 39.
26. Producing the CSI:NY/Second Life Crossover: An Interview with Electric
Sheeps Taylor and Krueger, Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Ofcal Weblog of Henry
Jenkins, October 24, 2007, http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/10/producing_the_
csinysecond_life.html.
27. Mary Jane Irwin, Unlock Hidden TV Show Plots with Alternate Reality
Games, Wired, May 17, 2007, http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/mag
azine/1506/st_clue.
28. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New
York: New York UP, 2006).
29. Ibid., 14.
30. Fan Labor, Convergence Culture Consortium, http://convergenceculture.org/
futuresofentertainment/2007/program/index.html.
15
31. Ramin Zahed, Edgar & Ellen Scare Up Viewers on Nicktoons, Animation Magazine, September 20, 2007, http://www.animationmagazine.net/article/7375.
32. Sam Ford, FoE2: Cult Media, Convergence Culture Consortium, November 18,
2007, http://www.convergenceculture.org/weblog/2007/11/foe2_cult_media.php.
33. Virginia Heffernan, Art in the Age of Franchising, New York Times, January 20, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-mediumt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
34. Ibid.
chapter 2
A Joint (Ad)Venture: The CW Network

and the Youth Market
Caryn Murphy
This new network will serve the public with high-quality programming and maintain our ongoing commitment to our diverse audience.
It will clearly be greater than the sum of its parts, delivering excellent
demographics to advertisers, and building a strong new afliate body.
Additionally, The CW will be able to draw from the creative talent and
production resources from the top two television production studios in
the business, while also seeking programming from all sourcesindependent producers or other studios. With this move, we will be creating a viable entity, one well-equipped to compete, thrive and serve all
our many publics in this multi-channel media universe.
Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS Corporation,
January 2006
In a move that seemed to signal the decline of conglomeration, Sumner
Redstone, founder of media giant Viacom, split his company into two entities at the end of 2005. The division was an effort to improve stock prices by
separating the more stable CBS Corporation, with its emphasis on broadcasting, from the more uid Viacom, specializing in cable programming and lm
production. Redstone remains a controlling shareholder in both companies,
which are operated and traded separately. Although industry analysts speculated that this move was a rst step in a plan to divest one of the companies,
this has not come to pass.1 Analysts also argued that the split was part of
a trend of media conglomerates responding to the failures of synergy, but
this was negated within a month by the announcement of The CW network,
18
Television
a joint broadcasting venture between CBS Corporation and Time Warner.2

Leslie Moonves even uses the key synergy phrase greater than the sum of
its parts in his press announcement about The CW, quoted previously.
In January 2006, CBS Corporation and Time Warner declared their plans
to shut down their competing broadcast networks, UPN and the WB, and
combine their resources in The CW, targeting an audience of 18 to 34 year
olds. The venture was designed to complement the media holdings of each
conglomerate while addressing a market inefciency that resulted when
their networks increasingly targeted the same specic audience. Among
its many holdings, CBS Corporation controls the CBS network, syndicator
King World, television production units CBS Paramount TV and Spelling,
cable networks under the Showtime banner, CBS Records, publisher Simon
& Schuster, CBS Radio, and CBS Outdoor Advertising. The assets of Time
Warner, the largest media conglomerate in the world, include Warner Bros.
Television production, HBO, CNN, Time Warner cable, a host of magazine
and publishing interests, and America Online.
The CW demonstrates a tendency toward cooperation rather than competition within the culture industries in an economic era characterized by
both globalization and fragmentation. According to media scholar Michael
Curtin, media conglomerates are responding to the threat of competition and
decreased productivity by shifting their business practices toward exibility
in production and distribution.3 He argues that the culture industries employ
two major strategies to maximize performance within these economic conditions; they offer mass media for global or national markets and they target
niche audiences with media designed to encourage intense identication and
devotion.4 CBS Corporation and Time Warner maintain a competitive position within a global capitalist economy by simultaneously distributing media
to mass audiences and targeting specic demographic groups. In Todd Gitlins recent update of Inside Prime Time, his classic study of the broadcast industry, he writes, Broadcast networks today are like networks a generation
ago because they adhere to a single unswerving imperative: create, within the
demographic target, the largest possible audience.5 The CW has positioned
itself to target a portion of the broadcast audience, viewers aged 1834, by
creating its network as an immersive experience that holds appeal for as
many people within this segment as possible. For each of its corporate parents, The CW represents a small part of a larger strategy to dominate the
distribution of global media. The network seeks to establish intense identication among its target audience in order to benet each of its partner
conglomerates as a whole.
In a critique of conglomeration, Rich Media, Poor Democracy, Robert
McChesney argues that, Ironically, in the eyes of investors, the main problem with the existing media system is that there is too much competition.6
The competition among these media giants is not typical, however; it is
A Joint (Ad)Venture
19
characterized by cooperative practices that serve to protect the interests of

the market oligopoly. On the practice of joint ventures, McChesney explains,
They are ideal because they spread the risk of a venture and eliminate the
threat of competition by teaming up with potential adversaries.7 The CW
eliminated the competition between UPN and the WB over the youth market
demographic, turning each networks strengths toward succeeding with that
same audience.
The CW planned its launch strategically to capitalize on the strengths of
its partner companies but also on the lessons learned during the early years
of UPN and the WB about the importance of network branding and target
marketing. The new network has also focused on innovation in advertising,
luring sponsors with content wraps and commercial-free sponsored programming (a strategy that recalls network radio and early television, when
advertising agencies produced programming for major sponsors). Barry
Meyer, CEO of Warner Bros. Entertainment, predicted early on that The
CW would be protable from the start because of its ability to utilize the
strengths of its parentpartner conglomerates.8 However, the rst-year results did not come close to meeting early expectations in terms of viewership,
and advertising sales executives have quickly moved toward major changes
in programming, rededicating the vision of the network to its targeted youth
audience. The launch of The CW provides an instructive case study about
the uses of media convergence, exible/innovative advertising strategies,
and targeted viewership within the current broadcast environment.
LEARNING FROM THE PAST: UPN AND THE WB
As far back as 1977, Paramount sought to exploit its production capabilities by starting a television network.9 Initial efforts failed, and by the mid1980s, Rupert Murdochs Fox had supplanted Paramounts startup attempts.
The idea of launching a broadcast network hung on, however, because it
made good business sense for television production companies to also be in
the business of distribution (a business that was expanding during the 1980s
and 1990s as the broadcast and cable universe continued to grow). During
the 1980s, Paramount produced popular television programming including
Cheers and the syndicated hits Star Trek: The Next Generation and Entertainment Tonight. When the expiration of the nancial interest and syndication
rules was announced in 1993, Paramount saw an opportunity to use their
successful programming to build their own network rather than face dealing with existing broadcasters who were now free to produce the majority
of their own content. Since the 1970s, the nancial interest and syndication
rules had limited the amount of programming that broadcast networks could
produce themselves, forcing the nets to deal with independent producers.
The expiration of the rules was seen in the industry as an opportunity for
20
Television
networks to regain control of production, leaving independent producers

such as Paramount Network Television and Warner Bros. Television without dependable outlets for their content. Paramount and Warner Bros. made
the announcements of their intentions to build broadcast networks in 1993
with near simultaneity, and both recruited personnel from the Fox network
to guide their startups.10
UPN and the WB launched within days of each other in January 1995,
both having access to far fewer homes than the big four networks: NBC,
CBS, ABC, and Fox. In order to win viewers, programmers at UPN and
the WB attempted to reach more specic target audiences than the big four
networks; they strategically sought out audiences who were underserved by
major broadcasters but who were also potentially valuable targets for advertisers. These netlets closely followed the example set by Fox in its early
years, through the calculated development of programming and cultivation
of viewership among specic audience segments. Lucie Salhany, a former Fox
network head, served as the rst president and CEO at UPN, and former
Fox president Jamie Kellner became the WBs rst president, developments
which were the rst point of comparison between the netlets and the Fox network. Fox was well established by 1993, and the strategies that Murdochs
network had employed to gain viewers, advertisers, and afliates were put
to use at both UPN and the WB. During its early years, Fox rolled out programming slowly; when it went on air in 1986, the network only offered
programming three nights a week. This limited production liability, and it
also offered afliates a certain amount of freedom with primetime during the
rest of the week. Fox also built its audience by targeting specic segments
that were ignored or underserved by the big three broadcasters during the
1980s.11 Early programming targeted African Americans (In Living Color,
Martin), young men (The Simpsons, 21 Jump Street), and young women (Beverly
Hills, 90210).12 Salhany and Kellner brought these strategies to UPN and the
WB, respectively, attempting to use the lessons learned at Fox as a model
for success. Both went on air with three nights of primetime programming
per week, with differentiated programming aimed at nding viable audience
targets.
By 1998, the WB had established itself as the network for young viewers,
with primetime programming geared toward teen audiences (including Buffy
the Vampire Slayer and Dawsons Creek) on each of its on-air nights. Although
UPN was the early favorite in the race between the netlets, it failed to quickly
establish a relationship with its multiple audience targets and fell behind the
WB in the race to roll out programming and gain afliates.13 In 1999, UPN
stumbled onto a protable target audience: young males. The netlet aired
WWF Smackdown in primetime, drawing its highest non-Star Trek ratings
ever and climbing into potential viability for the rst time. Historian Michele
Hilmes writes, By spring 1999 UPN had improved its ratings by 35 percent
A Joint (Ad)Venture
21
and was the number-one network among African- American households.14

UPN attempted to capitalize on its appeal for the young male audience by
maintaining its African American sitcoms and adding science ction dramas.
This strategy did not nd long-term success, and the network continued to
ail without a clear target audience.
Dawn Ostroff was installed as UPNs president in 2002 and immediately
focused her efforts on brand identity and targeted programming. She streamlined UPN toward a focus on young female viewers, just as the WBs focus
on this audience was in decline with the loss of series including Buffy, Felicity,
Dawsons Creek, and Popular. Ostroff previously worked in programming at
Lifetime, the cable channel that advertises itself as Television for Women.
Of her new position, Ostroff stated, The rst step was to nd out who our
viewers were, then come up with a strategic plan to create a more cohesive,
quality-driven schedule.15 Her strategies included the development of series
with racially mixed casts and a heavy reliance on star power to speed up the
development of series/network identity. The rst successful example of this
strategy at work on UPN is Americas Next Top Model, a reality show helmed
by African American supermodel Tyra Banks.16 The shows popularity translated into success on The CW, and the season seven premiere provided the
ofcial primetime launch of the new network.
The CW was structured to incorporate successful elements of both the
WB and UPN. Ostroff, who had established a clear target market for UPN,
was rewarded with the presidency of The CW. Rick Haskins, responsible for
successful network branding at the WB, became the executive vice president
of marketing and brand strategy at The CW. The WBs 6-night, 13-hour
primetime schedule was adopted, as well as its schedule of weekday afternoon
and Saturday morning childrens programming. When the WB launched, it
innovated an afliate pay model called reverse compensation, in which afliate stations paid the network one-fourth of the prots generated through
their network association.17 This upended the traditional broadcast network
model, in which the network paid afliate stations to air programming. The
WBs experiment with this model was considered successful, and The CW
adopted this approach in establishing its national network.18 The revenue
stream generated from afliates is intended to foster the networks longterm nancial stability.
At the time of The CWs launch, network heads announced that they
had already secured coverage in nearly 50 percent of the country through a
10-year deal with Tribune Company (an investor in the WB network) and
the owned and operated stations of CBS Corporation.19 After the launch announcement, there was a race among other stations to afliate with the new
network. UPN had less of a market reach than the WB, and in some areas
of the country, although UPN was available via cable, it had no broadcast
stations at all. In markets areas that had previously had a broadcast afliate
22
Television
for both UPN and the WB, typically The CW afliated the station with a
stronger signal.
FREE TO BE BRANDED
I dont look at us as launching a new network. I look at us as launching
a new entertainment brand.
Rick Haskins, CW executive vice president of marketing
and brand strategy, September 2006
The CW undertook a major branding campaign in the relatively short
period of time between its announcement and launch. This marketing effort
was particularly challenging because it involved getting the attention of current UPN and WB viewers but also potential viewers that might be drawn
into the new network. The campaign worked to appeal to the youth market
across lines of demographic difference including race, gender, and ethnicity.
Market research undertaken by the network estimated that their ideal target
audience included 60 million people from Generations X and Y and that one
of the dening characteristics of this group is that they make no distinction
between old and new media.20 The networks branding campaign utilized
aspects of both old and new media in order to reach potential viewers, emphasizing that The CW would not maintain the same boundaries as other
broadcasters.
The CWs Free to Be promotion served as its national branding campaign and was circulated heavily in print media and on billboards. Advertisements employed a bright green background along with the networks logo,
rather than a mascot. Each ad featured a different CW series and associated it with the Free to Be slogan. Wise-cracking dramedy Gilmore Girls
was promoted as Free to Be Witty, Chris Rocks family sitcom Everybody
Hates Chris as Free to Be Funny, and teen Superman adventure Smallville
as Free to Be Super. The campaign emphasized the youthful and energetic
outlook of the new network but also attempted to brand The CW specically as a broadcaster. The free quality referenced in these ads emphasizes
the networks youthful attitude but also refers to its status as an over-the-air
broadcaster, entering a television landscape increasingly populated by pay
channels transmitted via cable. The campaign worked to create awareness
that familiar programming from the former netlets would be moving to a
new location (in some cases, a literal channel change) but would still be available via free broadcast.
The Free to Be campaign was employed during a mall tour in August
2006, working to target young people specically. The mall domination tour,
as CW executives referred to it, visited 35 malls in major markets.21 The tour
met with a surprising level of interest. In Los Angeles, several thousand
A Joint (Ad)Venture
23
young fans showed up to meet the stars of Smallville and Supernatural. The
tour also featured major recording artists including Jewel, whose albums are
released by a Warner Music Group label, and promotional giveaways with
the network logo.22 Visitors to the CW Lounge areas found televisions and
computers available and were invited to incorporate their own photos with
footage from network series to create promotional ads. The winning entries
in this user-driven campaign, Free to Be Famous, aired during The CWs
rst few weeks.23 The strategy was designed to make young viewers see
the network as technologically innovative and to see themselves as creative
participants in the network. CW Lounges sought to engage young viewers
in the digital world in order to draw them into the audience for broadcast
television.
The CW also reached out to young computer users through advertising on the search engine Yahoo! and the social networking site MySpace
(owned by News Corporation), where it was the rst network to employ
a homepage-takeover option that directed all users to The CWs page.24
The MySpace page promoted the network and its programming and was
designed to help get the word out on the new networks identity through
viral communication. The networks interest in MySpace, a site mainly populated and trafcked by people under 30 years old, was a strategic attempt
to appeal to potential viewers within the youth market. MySpace is also a
major networking source for amateur musicians, and The CW used their
homepage-takeover to promote a contest offering a chance for a band to play
on the primetime series Supernatural.25 As with Free to Be Famous, this was
designed to make young people see the television network as interactive, offering unique opportunities for viewers to participate in its content.
The CW has continued to emphasize convergence, interactivity, and social networking in its branding strategy, indicating that this has been a successful way to connect with viewers and establish itself as an entertainment
source for the target demographic. In February 2007, the network promoted
a contest called Making the Cut that allowed entrants access to Supernatural footage that they could fashion into their own preview for the series.26
The winning advertisement aired during primetime.
The industry trade paper Variety uses the Green net as a shorthand reference to the network in acknowledgement of the association that The CW
has built between its identity and its signature color.27 In its second year,
The CW is taking this link in a new direction with its campaign Free 2 B
Green, which focuses on environmental issues. The campaign, which partners the network with Stop Global Warming Virtual March and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, was spurred by market research indicating that
environmental issues are of particular importance to the youth audience that
The CW is targeting.28 It will include environmentally themed public service announcements (featuring CW stars), national advertising, and in an
24
Television
ambitious move, related themes will be incorporated into one episode of each
series airing on the network during its second year.29 This branding effort
utilizes the green association of environmental awareness to cement the
association between the network and this color. It builds on the brand identity already established by the network, continuing the Free to Be theme,
but further promotes The CW as socially conscious and responsive to the
concerns of its target market.
PROGRAMMING CHALLENGES
We want to be the entertainment destination for young adults.
Dawn Ostroff, May 2007
In 2006, Ostroff announced The CWs rst program schedule at the television industry upfront presentation in New York City. She told the gathering of advertisers and afliates, By bringing together established hit series
with innovative new shows, we were able to create a stellar schedule for our
premiere season.30 In fact, the network premiered only two new shows in
fall 2006, African American sitcom The Game and family drama Runaway.
The latter was cancelled after only a few airings, leaving the new network
with a schedule of veteran series that no longer garnered peak ratings. Prior
to the networks launch, executives anticipated that shows from the WB and
UPN might nd new audiences and improve their ratings as part of The CW
lineup. The pairing of WBs Gilmore Girls with UPNs low-rated but critically beloved teen detective series Veronica Mars was frequently referenced
as an ideal programming benet of the new network. Analysts speculated
that viewers who enjoyed one of these series would certainly enjoy the other
and that airing them on the same night, on the same network would build
the ratings for both series. Veronica Mars creator Rob Thomas summed up
the situation, saying, Finally, a lead-in (Gilmore Girls) that makes sense
for us. Were not opposite Lost and not competing with the WB that had
the audience Veronica Mars is trying to get.31 In an unusual programming
move, The CW negotiated with the family drama 7th Heaven to return for an
eleventh season in September 2006, even though the show had celebrated its
series nale on the WB in May.32 None of these series improved their ratings
on The CW, and all three were cancelled at the close of the networks rst
season in May 2007.
One of the early controversies resulting from The CWs announcement
revolved around the status of African American programming on broadcast television. By 2006, UPN was the only broadcaster offering series with
predominantly black casts and production teams, and estimates showed
that African Americans made up about 65 percent of the networks audience.33 When the new network announced that they would select the most
A Joint (Ad)Venture
25
successful programs from UPN and the WB in line with targeting a specic
audience segment, there was an outcry over the implied fate of UPN sitcoms
that were popular with African American viewers but did not crossover with
white audiences.34 In the end, however, The CW retained Everybody Hates
Chris, Girlfriends, and All of Us from UPN, and added The Game, which has
been successful enough to continue for a second season.
Average ratings for the networks rst year were estimated at 3.14 million
viewers, lower than either the WB or UPN had earned on their own the previous year.35 Critics argue that the network did not live up to industry predictions because the programming schedule was too diversied; although the
branding strategy focused on the youth market, programming was all over
the map.36 To address these problems, The CW has intensied its efforts to
program for its target audience during its second season. Recognizing that
the networks programming was failing to contribute to the youth-oriented
brand identity, Ostroff approved 15 pilots for the 20072008 season, more
than had ever been produced for UPN or the WB. Older series that are still
popular with young viewers, including Smallville, Supernatural, and network
stalwart Friday Night Smackdown! were renewed, but many shows from the
networks rst year are gone.
The new series appearing on the fall schedule manipulate what Michael
Curtin refers to as edge, a quality designed to engender controversy and
inspire intense loyalty among the target audience. Aliens in America, a sitcom about a Muslim exchange student, has already drawn critical re due to
online previews that depict negative stereotypes of religion and ethnicity.37
Life Is Wild also engages with culture clash; the comedy follows a family who
leave New York City for rural South Africa. Gossip Girl, a teen drama based
on a series of popular young adult novels, raised questions at The CWs upfront presentation for advertisers and afliates because it portrays teen sex,
drug use, and drinking.38 Reaper, a horror-comedy series about a young man
whose parents sell his soul to the devil, is one of the most anticipated shows
of the fall season. Kevin Smith, whose talk-heavy, profanity-laden lms have
a major following among young viewers, directed the pilot.39 The edgy subject matter and young casts of these series are intended to appeal to a larger
portion of the target audience and help The CWs programming contribute
to establishing its brand identity as the youth market network.
The rst breakout hit for The CW emerged midway through its premiere
season when the reality series The Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the
Next Doll generated solid ratings and renewed attention. The show features
hip-hop star Lil Kim as a judge in a contest to nd a new member for the
successful recording group, demonstrating Ostroff s continued commitment
to using star power to build audience appeal. The success of Pussycat Dolls,
along with continuing strong ratings for Top Model, led to renewed fervor
for youth-oriented reality programming at the network. These shows will
26
Television
return in the 20072008 season, along with the WB-originated Beauty and
the Geek and two new series: Farmer Wants a Wife, a reality competition in
which women who live in the city vie for the attention of a rural man who
wants to get married, and Crowned: The Mother of All Pageants, which follows a motherdaughter beauty contest. A commitment to reality-based programming serves two major purposes for the network. The genre has proven
popular with the youth audience that the network is seeking, and short runs
of reality shows (8 to 12 weeks) help the network to air year-round programming rather than relying heavily on reruns of scripted series. In a related
strategic move, teen drama One Tree Hill will not premiere its fth season
until January, with the storyline advanced four years past the characters
high school graduation.40 All of the major networks have recently moved
toward year-round programming as a way to combat the loss of viewers to
cable channels. The theory holds that viewers are more likely to tune in for
new episodes of a cheaply produced reality series than for reruns of an expensive scripted show.
In one of the more experimental changes planned for its second year,
The CW will produce two of its own programs. On Sunday nights, the
network will air Online Nation, a showcase for user-generated video clips,
and CW Now, a news/entertainment series. These shows are considered
low risk because they are inexpensive to produce. Online Nation attempts to
further the interactivity that The CW is building into its brand identity by
bringing viewer-created content into the networks regular schedule. CW
Now is designed to exploit young viewers interest in popular culture and
celebrity trends and may follow the lead of Online Nation by incorporating
information from tabloid-style Web sites. The show will also attempt to
differentiate itself from similar entertainment-themed programs by capitalizing on the success that The CW has found with innovative advertising
strategies.
APPEALING TO ADVERTISERS
In Breaking Up America, Joseph Turows study of target marketing and audience fragmentation, he argues that media executives in the new landscape
offer two things to advertisers: claim of efcient separation and claim of
a special relationship.41 Ideally, executives want to deliver the exact demographic that the advertiser seeks to reach and promise that viewers will be
invested enough in the media format to consume all of the content and advertising that it provides. The CW has made a concerted effort to help advertisers reach viewers and to innovate advertising strategies that encourage a
special relationship with the networks content. Executives at the network
have cultivated close relationships with sponsors and advertisers and have
been willing to experiment with product placement, integrated advertising,
A Joint (Ad)Venture
27
and other new strategies designed to bring viewer attention to advertising

messages.
When the network announced CW Now, they stipulated that the show
will be commercial-free; three or more sponsors will underwrite each episode, but the show will not feature traditional commercial breaks.42 This
requires a balance between content and information about sponsors, and it
is still unclear how the show will bring these elements together. However,
the series design reects an awareness of one of the biggest concerns in the
industry; increasingly, time-shifting devices such as digital video recorders
allow viewers to fast forward through commercial breaks. Advertisers have
increasingly asked television networks to be accountable for the loss of these
viewers because they dont want to pay to place advertisements that viewers
are not watching. Commercial-free sponsored programming is just one of
the strategies that The CW has experimented with to address this concern.
Content Wraps is a phrase coined by the network to describe brief programming that leads out from a show to commercial break or completely
takes the place of the break. Wraps are typically related to the content of
the program in which they are placed, but they feature sponsored product
information along with information or entertaining content.43 They utilize
connections with program content in order to hold viewer attention. Procter
& Gamble sponsored one of the rst successful content wraps, a mini-story
featuring Herbal Essences shampoo that offered hairstyling tips, which aired
during an episode of Top Model. Ratings data for the segment indicated that
it held nearly 100 percent of the key demographic sought by the advertiser
(women aged 1834).44 Content wraps not only address the concerns of advertisers seeking more effective ways to get viewers attention, but they are
also part of The CWs strategy to target the needs and desires of a youth demographic familiar with both old and new media. The mini-stories typically
ask viewers to go online to get more information, enter contests, or qualify
for promotional giveaways.45 They attempt to blur the boundaries between
television and the Internet by introducing more direct participation into the
television viewing experience.
In recent years, particularly with the surge of reality programming on
all of the broadcast networks, product placement and integrated advertising
have played a major role in advertisers strategies to catch viewers attention.
Product placement, in which an advertiser pays to have their product shown
during a program, is more common. The CW has increasingly experimented
with integrated advertising, in which a product is woven into a programs
storyline in such a way that it is not only shown but also discussed. Keds
sneakers were featured in a storyline of an April 2007 episode of Top Model,
in which contestants posed in a photo shoot designed to draw attention to
the footwear. The model whose photo was judged the best was then featured
in an ad for Keds in Seventeen magazine. A spokeswoman for Keds commented
28
Television
that although the shoes are placed a lot in lm and television, the storyline
integration offered by Top Model was a more rare opportunity for the company.46 This strategy brought the viewers of the show together with the
target market for the shoes and the demographic targeted by Seventeen, a
lifestyle magazine for young adult women.
Integrated advertising was taken a step further by The CWs summer
reality show Schooled. The program, about students at a New Jersey high
school trying to raise money for their schools music department, not only
integrated products from sponsor OfceMax but was actually directed and
produced by The Escape Pod, the companys advertising agency.47 The arrangement hearkens back to the early years of broadcast television in which
the majority of network programming was produced by advertising agencies. OfceMax not only developed the show but also featured their products
as rewards for the students who participated. In a further effort at cross
promotion, OfceMax offered a free DVD of the show in their stores, giving
it to customers who spent a certain amount of money on school supplies. OfceMax helped to promote The CW to its customers with the DVD, and the
show itself promoted OfceMax to the networks viewers.
In early 2007, The CW began streaming episodes of many of its primetime shows through the networks Web site, www.cwtv.com. Although ABC
has been the real pioneer among broadcasters in this effort, even making full
seasons of series available online, The CW adopted it as a strategy to reach
young viewers who do not access television through the old media format. A
single advertiser typically sponsors each streamed episode, and the content is
interspersed with advertisements that cannot be skipped. The network is able
to track how many times their online episodes are accessed and offer this information to advertisers. Streamed episodes offer a way to reach viewers that
may prefer to watch episodes online (the youth audience that The CW targets)
and to generate additional revenue from effective ad placement.
CONCLUSIONS: CORPORATE SYNERGY
AND YOUNG VIEWERS
The words we use to describe CW, besides the young demographic, are
innovation, participation, connection and community.
Dawn Ostroff
Although The CW has attracted positive attention from advertisers because of their willingness to experiment with new ways to reach viewers,
the networks innovation hasnt proven completely effective. The rst years
disappointing ratings dictated low advertising rates for year two and also
drew industry criticism about the networks failure to capitalize on its synergistic potential.48 The CWs initial attempts to utilize the strengths of its
A Joint (Ad)Venture
29
predecessors in creating a new network failed to result in a larger audience

and have made the network the butt of industry jokes. When Kevin Smith introduced the pilot episode of Reaper at 2007s Comic-Con in San Diego, he told
the gathered crowd, It airs on The CW. Dont leave.49 Although the changes
in programming planned for year two are attempts to address low ratings by
attracting new, loyal viewers, it is worth taking a look at how the network has
employed synergy thus far and how it plans to do so in the future.
One of the major advantages of The CW is that it can draw on the television production resources of its corporate partners. Outside of reality-based
programming, virtually all of the networks primetime lineup has been produced by CBS Paramount Television and Warner Bros. Television. This
strategy helps to limit nancial risk for the network and gives it more control over production costs than it would have through contracts with outside
production companies. Reaper is the only scripted show on the fall schedule
produced by an outside company (Mark Gordon/Touchstone), and the rest
represent a fairly even split between CBS and Warner Bros. Aliens in America
was originally set up as a pilot for NBC, but they declined to pick it up because they felt it was too young for their viewers.50 The CW expressed interest in the series, but the network was initially unable to come to a nancial
agreement with NBC regarding the series production costs. When NBC relented and sold the rights, it became a coproduction between CBS Paramount
and Warner Bros, who now share the burden of its production costs and will
benet equally from its potential success.51 The CW plays a signicant role
as a distribution arm for CBS Paramount and Warner Bros. programming.
Since the expiration of the nancial interest and syndication rules, networks
are much less likely to buy programming from outside producers; without
their own network, these production facilities would have to produce less
programming and assume more nancial risk.
The CW was not initially characterized by synergistic opportunism. In
fact, one of the highest-prole industry stories surrounding the networks
launch emerged when Time Warner Cable refused to carry some smallmarket CW afliates. The new network depended on cable to help it reach
nationwide coverage, especially in small markets that only have a few broadcast stations that are already afliated with other networks. Time Warner
Cable, the second-largest cable operator in the United States, demanded
payment from The CW in return for carriage. Negotiations with individual
afliates were protracted, with 20 CW stations receiving minimal or nonexistent carriage during the networks rst few weeks.52 Individual stations did
negotiate with the cable operator to pay for carriage, an arrangement that
seems to negate the assumption of cooperation between The CW and other
companies under the umbrella of its corporate parents.
In many ways, however, the network has clearly beneted from the resources at its disposal and acted as a resource for CBS Corporation and Time
30
Television
Warner. The national advertising campaign that preceded its launch utilized
the billboards of CBS Outdoor Advertising and the ad space available in Time
Warner magazines. CBS Records was revived in late 2006 with the primary
goal of sales through digital distribution and television program placement.
The company relies on revenues from music downloads, which it advertises
by placing music in television programs and offering artist and sales information at the end of the show, rather than physical product distributed through
retailers.53 During the late 1990s, the WB was a pioneer in using its series to
promote music; the network saved money on licensing fees by calling viewer
attention to the songs and artists that were featured in particular programs.
Recording artists from Warner Music Group were successfully promoted on
WB shows including Dawsons Creek, Buffy, and Charmed. Although Warner
Music Group spun off from Time Warner in 2004, becoming a stand-alone
company, music from its labels continues to be heavily promoted on CW
programming (including One Tree Hill, which has released three soundtracks
through the postspin-off company).54 Time Warners lm production arm,
Warner Bros., regularly advertises its upcoming lms during CW programming, and many afliates air CBS news broadcasts.55
The CWs synergistic vision came full circle with a series of content wraps
that aired during Smallville episodes in April and May of 2007. The wraps
were created by DC Comics, a Time Warner company, to promote Toyota
Yaris, a subcompact car targeted toward the 1834 demographic. As part of
the Smallville: Justice and Doom campaign, these comic bookthemed wraps
directed Smallville viewers to log on to The CWs Web site to play a game
that tested their knowledge of the series. The game continued for ve weeks,
and the grand prize winner received a Yaris. This campaign operated on several levels; it brought a product together with its target market, rewarded
loyal series fans, and promoted Superman as a Time Warner brand with associated products in a variety of forms. In a key move, it brought television
viewers to the networks Web site and further immersed them in an online
game; The CW proted from the advertising revenues but also from the opportunity to promote itself as an entertainment experience rather than a
typical broadcast network.
The CWs strategy has thus far gambled that courting a youth audience
is the best way to capitalize on the strengths of the conglomerates partnered
in the joint venture. Attempts to utilize branding and interactivity to reach
this audience have yielded mediocre results in terms of ratings numbers but
may yet pay off in terms of intense identication and viewer loyalty that
translates beyond broadcast programming and into the ancillary business
interests of CBS Corporation and Time Warner. As of January 2008, Gossip
Girl has emerged as a hit by the networks denition; although the series
ranking is low when compared to major network hits, it is the number one
new show among teen viewers in the 20072008 season.56 In addition, the
A Joint (Ad)Venture
31
shows ratings improve by approximately 20 percent when DVR usage is included (and this data has also boosted the ratings of Reaper and Smallville). In
October 2007, Gossip Girl was the rst network television series to be picked
up for a full season; this mark of distinction indicates that the shows success
with young viewers, which has translated into Internet trafc and iTunes
downloads, serves the strategic vision of The CW.57 Recent programming
failures include Online Nation, which was cancelled after just a few airings,
and the low-rated Life Is Wild. While overall ratings have not yet reached
the levels initially predicted for the network, in its second year The CW
has created notable successes by catering to the needs of the target youth
demographic.
NOTES
1. Geraldine Fabrikant, Viacom Split Could Signal Bigger Changes to Come,
International Herald Tribune (December 26, 2005), http://www.iht.com.
2. Ronald Grover, In Media, Size Does Matter, Business Week (April 13, 2005),
http://www.businessweek.com.
3. Michael Curtin, On Edge: Culture Industries in the Neo-Network Era, in
Making & Selling Culture, ed. Richard Ohmann, p. 186 (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1996).
4. Ibid., 197. See also: Michael Curtin, From Network to Neo-Network Audiences,
in The Television History Book, ed. Michele Hilmes, p. 124 (London: BFI, 2003).
5. Todd Gitlin, Inside Prime Time (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,
2000), xii.
6. Robert McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 27.
7. Ibid., 28.
8. Walt Belcher, The WB, UPN Fold, Form Joint Venture, Tampa Tribune (January 25, 2006), retrieved from Lexis-Nexis.
9. Brian Lowry, The Whims of War, Los Angeles Times (December 26, 1999), 6.
10. Michele Hilmes, Only Connect: A Cultural History of Broadcasting in the United
States (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002), 305.
11. Alex Ben Block discusses these strategies, as well as the Fox networks cultivation of a halo effect with advertisers in Twenty-First Century Fox, Channels
(January 1990), 36 40.
12. Kristal Brent Zook has examined the extent to which Fox developed programming for the African American audience in Color By Fox: The Fox Network and the
Revolution in Black Television (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
13. Larry Collette and Barry R. Litman, The Peculiar Economics of New Broadcast Network Entry: The Case of United Paramount and Warner Bros., Journal of
Media Economics 10, no. 4 (1997), 322.
14. Hilmes, Only Connect, 357.
15. Quoted in Mr. Television: UPNs New Dawn, Mediaweek (August 23, 2004),
http://www.mediaweek.com.
32
Television
16. The Chris Rockproduced sitcom, Everybody Hates Chris, is another example of
this commitment to star power.
17. Collette and Litman, Peculiar Economics, 14.
18. UPN did not pay afliates either; the stations derived prot from advertising
revenues, according to Collette and Litman, Peculiar Economics.
19. CBS Corporation and Warner Bros., http://www.prnewswire.com.
20. Ibid.
21. Allison Enright, CW Targets Mallrats, Marketing News (August 15, 2006), 3.
22. Elber, CW Network.
23. Ibid.
24. David Goetzl, Using MySpace to Get the Message: Networks from the CW to
NBC Reaching Teens by Linking to the Sites Huge Numbers, Broadcasting & Cable
(April 16, 2007), http://www.broadcastingcable.com.
26. John Consoli, Promax/BDA, CW, BLINK Pact for Promo, Mediaweek (February 26, 2007), http://www.mediaweek.com.
27. See Michael Schneider, CW Channels Future After Rocky Start, Daily Variety
(July 23, 2007), 8.
28. Meg James, Earth the New Star as Green Fills Screen, Los Angeles Times
(April 23, 2007), C1.
29. Ibid.
30. Time Warner, Inc., The CW Unveils its First Primetime Schedule, Time Warner press release (May 18, 2006), http://www.timewarner.com.
31. Quoted in Elber, CW Network.
32. The cast members who returned for the eleventh season took pay cuts in order
to cut the high production costs of the series.
33. John Consoli, Buyers Praise Merger of Two Weaker Nets, Adweek (January 30,
2006), 6.
34. A. J. Frutkin, For Diversitys Sake, Mediaweek (January 30, 2006), 6.
35. Ramin Setoodah, Channeling Angst, Newsweek (May 7, 2007), 50; Belcher reports ratings numbers of 3.7 million for UPN and 3.5 million for the WB during
November sweeps in 2005 in The WB, UPN Fold.
36. Setoodah, Channeling, 50.
37. Edward Wyatt, Did You Order a Muslim? (Yuk Yuk), New York Times (July 1,
2007), Section 2, 24, retrieved from ProQuest Newspapers.
38. Schneider, CW Channels, 8.
39. Bill Carter, The Early Outlook for Reaper: Not Grim at All, New York Times
(July 26, 2007), E1, retrieved from ProQuest Newspapers.
40. This storyline advancement strategy was also suggested for a fourth season of
Veronica Mars, but The CW declined to renew the series.
41. Joseph Turow, Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 55.
42. CW Now Seeks to be Commercial-Free, United Press International (May 18,
2007), retrieved from Lexis-Nexis.
A Joint (Ad)Venture
33
44. John Consoli, CW Content Wraps Draw Strong Retention Ratings, Mediaweek
(October 2, 2006), http://www.mediaweek.com.
45. Suzanne Ryan, The CW Rethinks the Commercial, Boston Globe (July 18,
2006), C1, retrieved from Lexis-Nexis.
46. Donna Goodison, Keds a Model of Brand Placement, Boston Herald (April 7,
2007), 18, retrieved from Lexis-Nexis.
47. Video: Multi-Platinum Recording Artists, The All-American Rejects, Perform
in Schooled Reality TV show Airing on the CW Network, PR Newswire (July 30,
2007), http://www.prnewswire.com.
48. Setoodah, Channeling, 50.
49. Kevin Smith quoted in Jeff Jensen, It Came from Comic-Con! Entertainment
Weekly (August 10, 2007), 36.
50. Shelly McCrory, former senior vice president for comedy series at NBC comments on this in Wyatt, Did You Order, 24.
51. Wyatt, Did You Order, 24.
52. John M. Higgins, Time Warner Cable Squeezes CW Stations, Broadcasting &
Cable (October 2, 2006), http://www.broadcastingcable.com.
53. Ed Christman, CBS Records Relaunching with Eye on Synergy, Billboard
(December 15, 2006), http://www.billboard.com.
54. Warner Music Group not only releases these soundtracks, but they also feature
many of the companys recording artists. For example, the One Tree Hill soundtracks
include songs from the Constantines and Band of Horses (bands who record on the
label Sub Pop, which is partnered with Warner through a joint venture), Tyler Hilton and The Wreckers (who record on Warner label Maverick), and Warner Records
act Gym Class Heroes.
55. License to Wed (2007) and The Brave One (2007) are examples of Warner Bros.
lms with a high level of ad placement during The CWs rst year.
56. Michael Schneider and Josef Adalian, Can CW Spread Gossip Mojo? Variety
(November 26December 2, 2007), 21.
57. Josef Adalian, CW Spreads Gossip Run, Daily Variety (October 10, 2007), 5.
chapter 3
U Know U Love Me: New Media,

Gossip Girl, and the (Un)Changing
Discourses of Girlhood
Anne H. Petersen
On November 5, 2007, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) went on strike.

The writers demands were straightforward: They wished to be compensated
based on all viewings of the shows their words produce, whether viewed traditionally (on television) or alternatively (streaming, downloaded, on DVD).
I mention the writers strike because the teen melodrama Gossip Girl has been
used, in publications as various as Entertainment Weekly and The New Yorker,
as a rallying cry for the writers cause. Gossip Girl, which debuted in the fall
of 2007 on The CW, is the brainchild of Josh Schwartz, best known as creator of The O.C. Both shows detail the lives of the very wealthy and the very
beautifulThe O.C. in Southern California, Gossip Girl in New Yorks Upper
East Side. Importantly, both also focus on the lives of high school students,
tracking their relations with each other, their parents, and their futures. The
settings are sumptuous, the wardrobes spectacular, and the drama high.
Unlike The O.C., which became a surprise hit for Fox as a summer ll-in,
Gossip Girl has enjoyed only moderate success in the ratings. Yet, in the fall
of 2007, Gossip Girl was the most downloaded show on Apple iTunes and
the most watched streaming show on Yahoo!a statistic that speaks to the
recent rise of streaming television and alternative viewing devices.1 Whats
more, CW offered full episodes, absolutely free, on the Gossip Girl Web site,
potentially inspiring new viewing practices: A fan may watch the show
piecemeal, chatting with friends, while posting on her blog. While it seems
doubtful that the television will disappear from our lives, it will certainly be
36
Television
complemented by alternative means of acquiring and viewing content. Such

a shift requires scholars to reconsider television reception in the age of New
Media, a task already undertaken by several within the eld. Yet, the specic area of girl spectatorshipthe next generation of adult spectators and
consumersremains unexplored. It is this lack in contemporary reception
scholarship that demands redress.
Exploring posts in the Gossip Girl VIP Lounge, one perceives the ways
that girls seek out, view, share, relate to, and appropriate Gossip Girl for their
own use. The ndings have been divided into ve discourse categories, borrowing from previous scholarship on girls media and reception: romantic individualism, fashion/beauty, community, identication, and escapism.2 Each
of the aforementioned discourses function to structure and dene girlhood.
The manner in which each discourse manifests through the Gossip Girl bulletin board thus illuminates how girlhood, writ large, has been constructed
in the contemporary, New Medialled, imagination. While new viewing practices may indeed be visible within these discursive categories, one must
also acknowledge the possibility that much of the excitement (and anxiety)
surrounding New Media viewing may be overblown.3 In exploring these
discourses, however, our conception of contemporary reception practices,
specic to both girls and to New Media, is at stake.
GIRLS AND FANDOM
While the study of spectatorship, reception, and fandom took the academy
by storm in the early 1980s, relatively little has been theorized concerning girls reception, particularly girls television reception.4 As such, girls
studies scholars have been forced to either borrow from feminist reception
studies or forge new ground themselves. Feminist reception proclaims no
longer do we assume an unproblematic relationship between image and audience, one in which the text clearly transmits meaning and the viewer easily
decodes it.5 Meaning resides not with the text, nor with the viewer, but in
a dynamic space in between. In Wolfgang Isers words, the viewer sets the
text in motion, and so sets [her]self in motion too.6 Reception theory has
proven a useful tool for third-wave feminist scholars because its denial of the
ideal viewer clears the path for a diversity of viewing practices, including
redemptive readings of traditionally patriarchal texts.
Girls reception practices possess similar subversive and liberating potential. Nevertheless, we need to be wary of paralleling womans reception
practices to those of girls. As Mary Kearney explains, girlhood, similar to
womanhood, has emerged in scholarly writing as a uid discursive construct which female youth variously negotiate alongside a range of other
socially produced subjectivities, rather than a xed identity that is biologically determined.7 But girlhood is not womanhood, nor necessarily little
U Know U Love Me
37
womanhood. American society privileges youthfrom our ideal bodies to

our ideal consumers, youth are the target. In this way, girlhood has become
both a coming-of-age and an age of privilege: As one mother on Gossip Girl
wistfully informs her teenage daughter, Youll never again be as thin or as
beautiful or as happy as you are now.
As a result, I would argue that girls have, to some extent, internalized this
notion of themselves as the privileged audience. Like female fans of Valentino
or the slew of mid-century melodramas, their spectatorship and fandom is a
coveted commodity. This sense of agencyindeed, a form of girl power
inuences the interaction between girl and text. Of course, other factsage,
level of maturity, real life experience, social and familial relationshipsalso
inuence girls reception. Yet, I am most interested in this sense of power
and agency, especially in the context of Gossip Girl and its reception. How has
the rise of girls independence through New Media contributed to this sense
of control? In turn, how have producers altered their content to better meet
this coveted demographic where they reside, for example, the Internet?
GIRLWIDEWEB
While relatively little has been published on the subject of girls spectatorship, societal and parental anxiety over girls and their presence on the
Internet has produced a rich, albeit nascent, eld of study. In one of the rst
examinations of girl and Internet participation and production,8 Susan Murray explores the relationship between girls, the safe space of the bulletin
board, and their relationship to My So-Called Life, nding that girl MSCL
fans were enmeshed in uid states of identity play in relation to their spectatorship and the text, and that the online computer chat facilitated that development.9 Murray claimed that this second level of rereading, the meshing
of individual viewing experience with others, result in an encrustation of
meaning surrounding the original television text, arguing that the self is
continually intertwined with these poached meanings, as the text prompts
self-reection, and that girl fans are particularly adept at mastering this process.10 Her conclusion, circa 1995, is notably optimistic, reecting both the
celebratory attitude toward the Internet and the burgeoning spirit of Girl
Power, pre-Spice Girls, that characterized the historical moment.
More recently, Sharon Mazzarellas collection GirlWideWeb explores the
manifestation of ethnicity on the Internet, girl cyber-jammers, gURLculture,
girl Internet crimes, and social networking, while Shayla Marie Thiels Instant Identity: Adolescent Girls and the World of Instant Messaging grapples with
girls digital communication. Whether through Web sites, bulletin boards,
social networking sites, or instant messaging, it is clear that adolescent girls
are speaking on the webspeaking in ways and words that are infrequently
heard.11 While girls may indeed feel safer and less inhibited in expressing
38
Television
themselves amidst the relative anonymity of the Web, several scholars caution against too quickly celebrating such behavior. As Christine Scodari
emphasizes,
Computer-mediated communication, including its mechanisms of net presence, appears to enhance and capacitate otherwise existing proclivities
rather than impeding or redirecting them. Teen girls may be encouraged
by online anonymity to assert ideas and opinions when they are not in
a position to negatively impact their face-to-face relationships or to be
judged based on physical appearance, but this does not guarantee that the
ideas they expound will be more likely than in unmediated contexts to
challenge the status quo.12
In other words, despite the freedom of the Internet and including potential
for identity play, girls are likely to reproduce hegemonic notions of femininity, girlhood, adolescence, and social politics. Mazzarella echoes this claim in
her study of girl-produced Web sites, through which girls reproduce[d] the
content of mass-produced teen idol magazines.13 Stern likewise concludes
that girls predominantly use IM as a means of policing and reproducing
normative discourses of girlhood.
Nevertheless, bulletin boards, as uid, mutable, readily accessible sites, are
consummate loci of fan expression. Bulletin boards, along with Multi-UserDomains (MUDs), were amongst the rst widespread and interactive uses
of the Internet.14 One might speculate that such sites would have died out
in favor of more immediate means of fan discourseIM, chat rooms, and so
on. Yet, they remain vital centers of fandom, as well as rich sites for fan and
reception analysis; perhaps most notably in the work of Henry Jenkins but
also with recent scholarship on fan activism and engaged spectatorship.15
This scholarship positions bulletin board as sites of net presence, in which
the user becomes metonymically present through activities, such as a bulletin board posting, which constitute subjectivity and identity.16 In light of
this work, I view bulletin board production as facilitating, inuencing, and
presenting the development of subjectivity.
METHODOLOGY
To gain a better sense of how girls are responding to and articulating
their fandom of Gossip Girl, I went to the source: The CW Gossip Girl Web
site.17 Television shows have long had informal, fan-produced Web sites and
bulletin boards; in recent years, networks have expanded their online components, developing full-edged, ofcial sites for individual shows. Starting
with the 20052006 season, several networks also began streaming online
versions of their shows on a time-delay basis. Such is the case with Gossip
U Know U Love Me
39
Girl: An episode airs on the CW on Monday evening; it becomes available

via the Web site on Saturday. Trafc to such sites skyrocketed with the offer
of streaming video, resulting in the networks diversication of online offerings. For example, the Gossip Girl homepage offers links and ads for its two
main online sponsors (Verizon Wireless and Victoria Secret), previews for
the next episode, a special on the music of Gossip Girl, the Gossip Girl Second
Life component, Gossip Girl fashions, and the Gossip Girl VIP Lounge,
a fan-based bulletin board and blog community.
As is standard with online bulletin boards, comments are divided into
threads. One user starts a thread; others respond to the thread. Sometimes
threads never get off the ground (such as Nothing Like One Tree Hill );
sometimes a thread garners hundreds of responses (The Ofcial Chuck and
Blair Thread, Who Do You Hate the Most). Moderators from the CW
maintain four threads that lord over the top of the bulletin board, regardless of where the user navigates. For the last month, three of the threads
have remained constantPost Your Questions for the Cast of Gossip Girl,
Announcing the Gossip Girl VIP Lounge, and Create a Photo Gallery.
A fourth thread changes with the introduction of a new episode, encouraging
feedback: November 28th EpisodeTell Us What You Think!
The bulletin board posts, while passionate and numbering in the thousands, remain readily accessible. A handle and avatar accompanies each post.
The handle, or nickname, is also linked to a prole that discloses age, location,
interests, number of posts, and so forth. Some girls kept their information
private, but the vast majority at least disclosed their age, making it possible
to limit research to girls who claimed to be between the ages of 12 and 19.18
The sex of the author was ascertained through use of pronouns, post content, prole information, and, in rare cases, handle and avatar gender.19 With
the aforementioned discourses as a loose structure, one may observe how
discourses of girlhood have changed (or have not) with the growing ubiquity
of New Media. Has digitization, the new millennium, and increasing girl
autonomy dramatically altered the way that girls perceive themselves, their
peers, their potential, and the world around them? Or do girls continue to
reproduce the same discourses that characterized the attitudes of their traditional, analog-based sisters, mothers, and grandmothers? Put differently,
is all the hype over new ways of viewing and consuming in fact little more
than a mask for regression and the persistent propagation of the postfeminist
ethos? Hopefully, the answers to these questions will add to and sophisticate
the way that society and scholars conceive of girls and girlhood today.
ROMANTIC INDIVIDUALISM
Gossip Girl focuses on the attendees of an Upper East Side high school. The
high school, real or dramatic, is traditionally fraught with conictstudents
40
Television
versus teachers, students versus society, students versus themselves. But

we never see the characters of GG in the classroom or doing homework,
a narrative elision that creates space for the dominant theme of the show:
hetero-normative romance. In her study of Jackie magazine, McRobbie pinpointed the code of romantic individualism that pervaded the text. Articles, representations, cartoons, advertisements, and stories all conveyed the
selfsame notion: a man can adore, love, cherish and be sexually attracted
to his girlfriend and simultaneously be aroused by other girls.20 Realizing
this truth, girls are thus set against each other in competition for men.21
McRobbie goes on to bluntly articulate the themes of such romantic individualism: 1) the girl has to ght to get and keep her man; 2) she can never
trust another woman unless she is old and hideous in which case she does
not appear in these stories anyway; 3) despite this, romance, and being a girl,
are fun.22
In other words, the individual girl must eschew the bonds of sisterhood
and friendship because all other girls are merely competition for her greater
goal: coupledom. Whats more, male indelity is naturalized. If there is any
blame, it is on the girl, who was not attentive enough to her man or to the
temptations that surrounded him. And yet, despite the rejection of ones friend
and the constant paranoia and insecurity about ones ability to attract, please,
and maintain a relationship, there is no greater pleasure. Dating, romance,
love, and couplehood are thus constructed as the primary concerns of a teenage girl. Achieve those, and achieve happiness.
This discourse of romantic individualism is echoed profoundly throughout
the Gossip Girl Bulletin Board. First, a bit of background on the show itself:
Gossip Girl follows the lives of six high school students: Serena, Blair, Nate,
Chuck, Dan, and Jenny. Serena and Blair are age-old best friends, but Serena
mysteriously disappeared to boarding school sometime last year. Blair and
Nate have been dating since kindergarten, but as ashbacks reveal, Serena
drunkenly slept with Nate after a wedding, prompting her departure. Hoping
for a new start, Serena has recently become interested in Dan, a quasi-hipster
from a middle-class Brooklyn family. But Blair quickly learns of Serenas
betrayal, and the sparks y.
Reactions to Serenas actions are nuanced: As Angels58 points out,
The issue that I am having trouble with is a lot of people are blaming just
Serena [for] what a bad, bad friend she is. Last time I checked Nate was
there. I think the lad should carry some shame as well. He has been a bad,
bad boyfriend. Blair either has very low to no self-esteem or is completely
acceptable to a cheating boyfriend or a glutton for punishment.
As the author references, many posts have slammed Serenas transgressions

while ignoring Nates. In this way, the unfaithful girl is portrayed as a slut,
while the male becomes a player.23 Blair and Serena are also pitted against
U Know U Love Me
41
one anotherSerena may not desire Nate in return, but Blair nevertheless
views her as competition. Interestingly, Serena manifests the same romantic
individualism when confronted with her new boyfriends ex-love, Vanessa.
The competition between the two girls is made manifest in a bout of Guitar
Hero, a virtual reality video game in which each girl plays a song. On the
boards, Idealeyez87 put a ne point on the anxiety and competition:
Serena and Dan [Serenas boyfriend] are so hot together its not even
funny but I was a little scared at rst with the whole Vanessa thing. But
she totatly [sic] kicked her butt in Guitar Hero! You KEEP your man!
The poster thus afrms both the competition and the win as necessarya
girl must kick butt in order to keep her relationship safe.
Posters also engage in a fascinating form of behavior forgiveness surrounding the shows bad boy, Chuck Bass. In the rst few episodes, Chuck
is portrayed as lecherous and manipulative. He attempts to blackmail Serena into sexual activity with him; he corners a freshman girl on a rooftop
(Jenny, who happens to be Dans sister) and attempts to rape her. Yet, halfway
through the season, his eyes turn to Blair (recently broken up with Nate). As
numerous comments proclaim, the romance and sexiness of their relationship elides all past behavior. Girls confess to fetishizing the clip of Blair and
Chuck rst hooking up, set to pop music in the back of a limo, reveling in its
sexiness. As ChuckBassLoves07 explains, I so forgot about him wanting
to rape Jenny lol and the whole problem with Dan . . . plus I have seen the
clip over and over its crazy. For a thread titled You Know Youre Obsessed
with Gossip Girl When . . ., mlwestie replied, you keep watching B and Cs
(Blair and Chucks) scenes over and over and over and over again on YouTube, and you suddenly forget what Chuck was like with women pre Blair
in the limo.
Much is made of the fact that Blair has allowed Chuck to have feelings,
and now that he has feelings, his past self has departed. In this way, Chuck
is constructed as the ideal romantic hero, a type Mazzarella found in her
examination of Chad Michael Murray fan sites.24 Within her study, girls xated on a construction of Murray as a nice, respectful, sweet guy, one with
whom they could safely imagine themselves. Similarly, in reference to Chuck,
Iceprincess explains, he actually cares about her, in his own way, but who
cares they are a match made in heaven! I mean the boy couldnt sleep, was
freaking out . . . and had the butteries! Hes never felt like that before! [. . .]
They should get married and have babies! Iceprincess, like several others
on the board, favors a romantic rather than sexual interpretation of their
heated make-out session in the back of the limo. Retelling sexual advances
as romance, the girls retroactively construct sexual aggression as forgivable.
As liveitloveit explains, because Chuck asked Blair if she was sure before
42
Television
kissing her, he cares about her: i LOVE that chuck has pretty much disrespected serena and jenny by forcing himself on them (like theyre nothing
but just objects) but with blair he even stopped to ASK if she was ok with
it . . . argh LOVE THEM SO MUCH!
What is remarkable is the way in which the girls acknowledge the contradiction of their devotion to Chuckhe was a rapist, he was a pigas they
negotiate their affection for him. Yet, the affection is not so much for Chuck
himself as much as it is for Chuck and Blair. In bulletin board speak, the names
Chuck and Blair have been morphed into Chair, spawning uber-popular
threads titled CHAIR Forever, and so on. Thus, as McRobbie points out,
boys and men, then, are not sexual objects but romantic objects . . . Romance
is about the public and social effects of implications of love relationships.25
While girls do fetishize the clip of their hook-up, the subsequent acts of
romance and emotionhe gives her a beautiful necklace, he admits he has
butteriesform the discourse concerning their relationship. Accordingly,
the most popular fanc on the boards imagines continued romance between
Chuck and Blair: Chuck buying an engagement ring, declarations of love,
Blair trying on wedding dresses.
Across the boards, romance, hetero-normative coupling (to the exclusion
of other girls), and even eventual marriage and babies are privileged as the
culmination of fantasy. In conclusion, while the sexiness of Gossip Girl is
much more overt than, say, that produced by McRobbies Jackie magazine, the
codes reproduced in response remain static. From a marketing standpoint,
hetero-normative, romantic individualism facilitates the marketing of traditionally feminine products: the elaborate bras, panties, and negligee of major
Gossip Girl sponsor Victorias Secret, for example. The more the narrative
pushes the idea of out-doing and out-dressing other girls (to attract a boy or
otherwise), the more girls are encouraged to purchase the products necessary
to do so themselves. In the end, what appears to be a bit of nasty cat-ghting
reveals itself as yet another means of channeling girls consumption.
FASHION/BEAUTY
The codes of fashion, beauty, and the consumption they entail pervade
both Gossip Girl and girls bulletin board reactions. McRobbie recognizes
the codes of fashion and beauty as the care, protection, improvement, and
embellishment of the body with the use of clothing and cosmetics.26 Images
in Jackie magazine, similar to those on the screen, provoke the envy and
admiration of the viewer, offer[ing] her the possibility of achieving such
beauty by following the instructions.27 The instructions may be more explicit in a magazinecurl your hair this way; line your lips in this stylebut
as the Gossip Girl boards display, girls may readily emulate the beauty of
main characters through consumption. Stacey positions consumption as a
U Know U Love Me
43
practice of identity creation: Through the use of cosmetic products, then, as

well as through the purchasing and the use of clothing, spectators take on a
part of the stars identity and make it a part of their own. The self and the
ideal combine to produce another feminine identity, closer to the ideal.28
The purchase of clothes and lip gloss, then, allows girls to quilt alternate
subjectivities with those of the self.
The Gossip Girl Web site facilitates the consumption of fashion and beauty
products through Gossip Girl Fashions, an easy click away from the front
page. Here, GG costume designer Eric Daman hosts taped walk-throughs of
each characters style. Interestingly, many of his suggestions, especially for
the girls styles, focus on Do-It-Yourself style: You can make a necklace like
Serenas through a trip to the hardware store; you can do the same at home.
These videos seem to open space for girls as cultural producersa practice
Mary Kearney has positioned as a valuable component to girl adolescent
development.29 Yet, the page also links to Victorias Secret Suggests: Gossip Girl Character Looks, a consumer site that fragments each characters
style into easily purchasable items from the Victorias Secret online store.
Of course, the relationship between stars, commodities, and tie-ins have a
long lineage that dates to early Hollywood, and Gossip Girl engages in an
established tradition of media-encouraged consumption. In other words, this
is nothing new.30
Several contemporary scholars have attempted to recover the power in
shopping, even for young tween girls: Farah Malik proposes that the triangulated acts of magazine reading, internalization of the messages of consumption
and shopping experience, can be seen to offer girls a rite of passage through
which they can enter an unfamiliar and exciting world, leaving behind a familiar and mundane one.31 Gossip Girl presents just such an unfamiliar and exciting world, lled with designer gowns, elaborate balls, and opulent designs.
Accordingly, the discourse on the boards is of brand recognition and desire.
In a discussion of the delity of the show to the books on which it is based,
gossip101 writes:
I kind of wonder if anything they use in it is based on the books, like Blairs
many pairs of Manolos, Marc Jacobs clothing, Kate Spade bags, and everything else Bendels and Barneys sells. Basically, all the things I dream of
being able to buy sometimes. But being over $500 things and $1000 shoes,
its not happening. They go into a lot of detail in the book over fashion,
naming basically everything they wear or change into. I do have a pair of
Seven jeans, and they have a lot of those, but thats about the only thing
thats the same thing in their million dollar wardrobe that I have too. Ah,
to be rich.
Granted, this particular girls brand recognition is rooted in her reading

experience, but other posters demonstrate similar skills in high-fashion
44
Television
identication: As katriinuh asks Blake Lively (Serena), where did u get that
dress u wore when u went on a date with Dan in the pilot episode? Its sooo
cute! Is it Chanel? Other girls create threads to specically ask for information on how to locate a specic style: I was wondering where the long black
and white coat Blair wore during the pilot is from (MeggiMo); I would love
to know what the reddish color lip gloss Blair was wearing in the modeling
episode is called? What is the brand and color, I love it! (candy 9929).
Unlike the discourse of the costume designer, who encourages girls to
create a style in the vein of the characters, the girls themselves aim for verisimilitude: the exact dress, or as close as they can come to it at their (or their
parents) scal level. The **OFFICIAL gossip girl FASHION thread**
proclaims, Now, I know they have a style section on the cwtv.com website
dedicated to this, but so many items are MISSING!! Like that adorable black
dress Blair was wearing at the party . . ? [. .] So this thread is to post EXACTLY where you nd all the unlisted style items. In response, mjlove22
posted links to items very similar to those on the show, such as Serenas
over-the-knee brown boots (worn on the train/Blairs moms party/in the
morning at the hospital). In response to the You Know Youre Obssessed
with Gossip Girl When . . . thread, several girls mention their compulsive
replication of a single character: You start wearing headbands just like blair,
your new favorite color is red, you start curling your hair, you buy an enV
just because Blair has one (lorenevy), or you look for the clothes and shoes
Blair wears in department stores . . . [you] search apartments on the Upper
East Side (Tori 013).
It seems that the freedoms for identity negotiation often associated with
the Internet have, in this case, reied the notion of consumption as a necessary means to ideal beauty. The Web site and bulletin boards offer clear
digital pathways to online commerce, facilitating the duplication of anothers
style rather than creating a hybrid, individual style of ones own. As Thiel
Stern points out in her examination of instant messaging, the IMvironment
tells girls that they have the power literally at their ngertips to consume
the ideal culturally dened female identity.32 This perverted form of girl
power is thus the power to conform and reproduce socially inscribed gender
roles. The girls on the Gossip Girl bulletin board revel in this power, but as
the rst quote of the section acknowledges, they also bemoan their inability
to conspicuously consume at the level of the Upper East Side. As a result, the
girl power to consume is repeatedly tinged with insecurity and lack.
Yet, this lack, and the desire to ll it, drives audience devotion to the
show. Girls seem to tune in just as much to watch the fashion as the familial
and romantic narrative progression. Similar to Sex and the City, only aimed
at a slightly younger demographic and with less crisp writing, the purpose
of Gossip Girl is to sell: not only a lifestyle, but a network. Along with The
Sopranos, Sex and the City established HBO as a certain type of network, with
U Know U Love Me
45
a certain sort of programmingcutting edge, sophisticated, and snappy with

high production levels and a cult-like following. The edgling CW hoped
to do the same with Gossip Girl, branding itself in the shows hip, youthful
image. The problem, of course, is that Gossip Girl simply isnt garnering the
appointment viewing necessary to regularly draw viewers to The CW. Put
differently, despite the growing viewership, the fact that most girls do not
actually watch The CW hinders the networks push for a close association
between the two.
Yet, the shows major online advertisersVictorias Secret and Verizon
Wirelessenjoy repeated, obligatory viewing of their ads. Unlike users
of TiVo or DVR, who may easily fast-forward through commercials, those
who watch Gossip Girl online are forced to view the same commercial up to
eight times during a single viewing. While this might sound annoying, its
certainly effective in highlighting the product in the viewers mind. Add in
product placement and various links through the Gossip Girl site, and advertising with The CW morphs into an immense marketing opportunity:
Verizon Wireless reportedly paid around $14.4 million to advertise on the
CW in the rst six months of 2007, in large part due to myriad marketing
tie-ins offered by The CW.33
The strategy of brand saturation seems to be working: Across the bulletin
board, several girls mentioned memorizing the words to the commercials;
I myself could readily recite the catchy rhyme that accompanies the ad for
the Victorias Secret Bra and Panties Sale. While The CW may not have
succeeded in bundling itself with Gossip Girl, Victorias Secret certainly
hasone episode features Blairs mother Eleanor, usually in the business
of haute couture, designing a line of retro lingerie for the company and
giving out V.S. gift bags. As several critics have pointed out, the plot point is
both an obvious plug and relatively improbable: As put by New Yorks online
coverage, not only would none of the people on Gossip Girl actually wear
anything as down-market as Victorias Secret, Eleanor wouldnt be caught
dead designing a line for them. Thats like if Carolina Herrera decided to put
together a small collection for Fashion Bug.34 Nevertheless, few teen viewers can distinguish between the relative luxury of Victorias Secret (where
bras cost upwards of $30 as opposed to $10 at Wal-Mart) and the extreme
luxury of, say, La Perla, with few items under the $100 mark. Through its
online and in-show presence, a down-market company, such as Victorias
Secret, is insinuated as up-market, sophisticated, and desirablesome of
the best buzz a business can buy.
Ultimately, more than any other network, The CW is working to crosspollinate different mediums, to quote executive vice-president of marketing
and brand strategy Rick Haskins. In his words, its not just online anymore.
Its not just print. Were trying to make the mediums work together.35 It remains to be seen, however, if such untraditional buzz will sustain advertiser
46
Television
interest into seasons to come, as The CWs Nielson Ratings continue in their
downward slide.
COMMUNITY
Throughout the twentieth century, movie, television, and musical fan clubs
have served as sites of community and friendship. As Georganne Scheiner
points out in her discussion of the Deanna Durbin Devotees, being members
of fan clubs was not only a way in which adolescent girls organized their
social lives, but fan membership also constituted a specic form of cultural
expression.36 As a form of subculture, girls within these groups may nd
solidarity and safe spaces to express opinions otherwise frowned upon or
silenced in greater society. At the close of the twentieth century, these clubs
transitioned from analog bases (print magazines, newsletters, etc.) to bases
in the digital world (fan sites, bulletin boards, listserves). The bulletin board
functions as a sort of time-delayed, virtual conversation about the object of
fandom, along with more tangential and personal issues. Through the act of
participation, fans oftentimes experience a sense of human connection and
solidarity that is rarely achieved in either virtual or real-world communities.37 As Murray notes in her study of the My So-Called Life fan boards,
The writings of girl Lifers contain an activist sentiment that not only
worked to save the show, but to save Angelas life. To extend the life
of their ideal self against the wishes of powerful and predominantly male
network executiveswho have the nal say on whether or not the show
or Angela survivesmay possibly be related to the desire to thwart the
elite male culture that is working to inscribe stricter codes of femininity
to teen identity.38
The girls of Murrays study regularly extended their musings past the show
and into their own lives, engaging in acts of confession and protofeminism.
This may be traced to the emotionally complex nature of My So-Called Life,
or it may have been the work of a few dedicated girls pushing the board
in that direction. Importantly, the MSCL board was fan-created and maintained. While ABC acknowledged their advocacy, the board was in no way
associated with or sanctioned by the network. While the board doubtlessly
moderated posts for offensive content, it remained outside the bounds of corporate control.
The CW and other television networks are relative novices as moderators
of digital fan discourse. Networks and Hollywood studios have long served to
facilitate fan club activities: With the beginning of the star system in the late
1920s and early 1930s, executives quickly realized that acknowledging fans,
even if simply to provide an address to where they could send letters, studios could increase fan devotion and, in turn, prots.39 Until rather recently,
U Know U Love Me
47
however, Internet fandom had been characterized by its independence: From

the initial, telnet-based bulletin board systems (BBS), starting in the late
1970s, through more accessible fan sites and boards on the World Wide Web
in the late 1990s, Internet fandom was profoundly anticorporate in nature.
Some boards were individually and privately maintained; others coalesced
around themes (science ction; reality television) or overarching fan communities (TV Without Pity; BuddyTV).
In recent years, corporate players have realized the potential of such
grass-roots media forums: Instead of shutting down individual fan creations on MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, they create their own offerings,
only ashier and better funded. Whereas corporate-funded sites were once
little more than window-dressing, they now serve as a primary means of retrieving a show in digital format. The lesson is clear: If you post it, the fans
will come.40 In essence, networks have beat the individual fan at his/her own
game, or perhaps more appropriately, stolen the ball and declared victory.
The fate of the fansite TV Without Pity exemplies this trend. Known for
its vitriolic critiques and series spoilers, the site was recently bought out by
the Bravo unit of NBC Universal. In this way, the independent, potentially
subversive fan site is folded into the corporate domain. Google and other
search engines contribute to this sort of mainstreaming of fan content. If a
young girl enters Gossip Girl into the search engine, it funnels her directly
to the ofcial site, rather than other less-linked, unfunded, fan-created
sites. The motivation for this type of control is simple: If fans frequent the
ofcial Web site, the corporation, rather than a resourceful fan, receives the
advertising dollars. What is lost, however, is a fair amount of agency and
creativity, as capitalism feeds on, digests, and spits out a sanitized forum for
fan expression.
As an extension of the CWs ofcial site, Gossip Girls fan community
generally limits itself to discussion of the show, its stars, and individual fan
practices, a narrowness that may be attributed to CW supervision and
control. While The CW claims only to monitor posts for abuse (profanity,
solicitation, verbal attacks, racist language),41 it nevertheless implicitly encourages girls to post and articulate their fandom in a particular style.42 As
mentioned previously, moderators from the CW maintain several threads at
the top of each bulletin board page. The persistence of these threads informs
the structure of the community, leading participants to post in a style that
preferences adherence to the themes of the show as opposed to themes of
real life. The rst thread always deals with fan opinion of the previous episode: CW Moderators solicit user responses, effectively bestowing a feeling
of agency upon the bulletin board community. Put differently, the act of asking for fan opinions insinuates that said opinions are of value. A second stable
thread asks users to proffer questions for the cast of the show.43 Importantly,
the cast has posted no replies, nor does there seem to be any stated plan to
48
Television
submit the questions. Instead, the thread functions as a simulation of connection between fan community and the object(s) of fandom, strengthening the
communitys notion of itself as a respected, heard audience.
As a result, the majority of fan-generated threads organize themselves
similarly: Whether the Derena (combination of Dan and Serena) thread,
The Ofcial Chair Lovers Club, or The Jenny Is Annoying Club, posts engage the show on a supercial level. Not that there isnt value in expressing
attraction to or frustration with charactersin many ways, something as
simple as guring out what kind of character a girl likes can assist in structuring subjectivity. Nevertheless, this particular fan community maintains
a narrow focus, mostly on boys, clothes, and music. The discourse rarely
strays outside the bounds of the shows narrative; Ive yet to nd a piece of
fanc that pressures the boundaries of the narrative or suggests a subversive
reading.
Which isnt to say that girls do not still manage to nd companionship
within the virtual pages of the boards, as exemplied by The Amanda, Katie,
Ally, Anna, Beth, Penny, Meika, Megan, And Anyone That Wants To Chat
Thread. While the enumerative quality of the thread seems to create a form
of fan hierarchy, this particular group is characterized by warmth and inclusiveness. Manderz, the creator of the thread, proclaims I made this thread for
my girlies back from the brase board. Didnt want to loose (sic) contact with
you girls, because Im not going on the One Tree Hill Boards ever again. were
all tight, but we all love meeting new people. So if you want to chat, well chat
with you. While the thread, now at over 5,000 posts, is mostly lled with
updates on what members are doing (homework) and what theyre looking
forward to (the next episode of Gossip Girl ), the inclusive nature of the group
is notable.
Indeed, we might read such inclusiveness as a positive effect of the disembodied nature of bulletin board participation. As girls are able to judge
others on avatar, handle, and written contributions alone, they are less likely
to engage in exclusionary tactics. A virtual fan girl is thus the sum of her
articulated thoughts: The boards privilege her thoughts and her emotions
rather than her beauty or her manifest ability to consume. In this way, even
as The CW valorizes a form of sanitized fan discourse over a more individualized one, girls still nd comfort and community across the boards.
IDENTIFICATION
Female fans most often identify with what they see onscreen through consumption and physical emulation. But, as Stacey points out, the process of
consumption can inspire secondary effects: [T]his is a different form of
imitation, which is more of a temporary reproduction of a particular kind
of behavior which resembles the star. It transforms the spectators previous
U Know U Love Me
49
appearance, and in so doing offers the spectator the pleasure of close association with her ideal.44 This close connection with a star or character also
invokes an association with the characters social milieu: a sense of emotional
and social identication.
This section shifts to an examination of how identication, not just with
a character but also with the characters world, instills an impression of
solace and community. The fans sense of verisimilitude between Gossip Girl
and their own experiences emerges in a particularly heated (and rather
anomalous) thread titled Inappropriate Show. A middle-aged, self-identied
mother begins the thread, stating:
I am no prude; however, I was excited about this show once they compared
it to Sex In The City. The major difference is that Carrie Bradshaw and
the gang were in their 30s. Gossip Girl, which focuses on underage teens
in High School, went over the line during their pilot. In one hour I saw attempted suicide, underaged drinking, two attempts at rape amongst many
other raw issues. I am not unaware that kids these days know what these
issues are, but I certainly dont need to watch a one hour pilot that exploits
them as they are no big deal like they happen every day. When can our
kids just be kidswhat happened to worrying about what dress to wear
for prom?
Responses were immediate and intensely defensive of the shows realism.

Rape and suicide attempts do happen every day, claims hollowgirlx3, They
are big issues nowadays and Im glad that theres a show on television who
isnt afraid to cover it up; I honestly think that this show is a reection of
what really goes on for teenagers today, especially as far as the drinking and
partying (crazybeautiful); those issues DO occur in everyday life to high
schools all over the world. GG just brings out the darker side of it ( jemappelletirah); I nd the show pretty relatable . . . it may not be a perfect world
but reality is that kids these days deal with these things. Im not saying underage drinking is ok but Im not nave enough to think that it doesnt (sic)
happen to just about everyone (LoganFan06). The recurring sentiment was,
in the words of carcrashx0hearts, If youre saying that the show is inappropriate, youre saying that life is inappropriate. Im sick of these other shows
on Nick and Disney trying to sugarcoat life. In contrast to those shows, the
realism of Gossip Girl, even if at times melodramatic, serves as a comforting
recognition of the girls lived experiences.
Girls also felt strongly that the show, or media in general, was not to
blame for bad behavior. Several girls chided the original poster for her
navet in believing that teens (1) dont engage in these sorts of activities or
(2) would be blindly inuenced by what they see on the screen. As BGirl55
emphasizes, sure it deals with sex, etc, but most teenagers are already thinking about this kind of stuff without the show inuencing them. Theyre not
50
Television
idiots. When it comes to what age of kids should be watching the show, that
is up to the parents if they dont like the show hopefully they can stop their
kids from watching it. JessicaGGFan exclaims There arent words across
the screen that say HEY KIDS GO GET DRUNK BECAUSE ITS OKAY.
They arent promoting it at all, they are just showing things that HAPPEN.
In other words, the girls acknowledge that the content is risqu, controversial, and even dangerous, but they want to make it known, especially to
this middle-aged mother, that this is what they deal with, think about,
and like to see examined onscreenin Janna7s words, Gossip Girl started
the conversation.
Interestingly, many girls asserted that parents should know what their children are watching. While they stop at entertaining the idea of watching the
show with their parents, Speakez questions Should parents be aware of what
their children are watching? Yes! Can they use this to jump start conversations about drugs and sexual behavior? Yes! In other words, a show that
girls identify as realistic could serve as a productive site for communication
between daughters and parents. In this way, the discourses of verisimilitude
and social identication, so strongly articulated on the board, speak to girls
desires for their elders to understand their complex, un-sugarcoated lives.
ESCAPISM
This category is organized under the heading of escapism, but its focus
will in fact be on the novel, multifaceted methods of spectatorship and escapism practiced by girl fans. Traditionally, escapism has taken on pejorative
connotationsas Stacey explains,
[E]scapism has been applied to forms of popular culture in order to dismiss them as insignicant and unworthy of critical or academic attention.
Indeed, this has been particularly true of forms of popular culture enjoyed
by womensoap operas or romance ction and lms. In the light of such
attacks, feminist critics have insisted on taking womens pleasures in popular culture seriously and understanding exactly what is at stake in their
consumption of these particular popular forms.45
Again, we must be careful in conating girls means of escapism with those

of grown women. But Staceys pointthat the pleasure of spectatorship
must be taken seriouslycertainly applies to girls viewing practices, often
derided as distracted and frenetic. Such derision, however, is based on a hegemonic notion of escapismone that privileges patience and traditionally
adult levels of attention. But todays girls are changing the how, where, and
even why of escapism.
Girls and boys alike are clamoring for alternative means of viewing media
content: iPods, cellphones, computers, portable DVD players, and so forth.
U Know U Love Me
51
As David Denby emphasized in his article Big Pictures: Hollywood Looks

to the Future, the video iPod and other handheld devices are being sold as
movie-exhibition spaces, and they certainly will function that way for kids.
According to home-entertainment specialists I spoke to in Hollywood, many
kids are platform agnosticthat is, they will look at movies on any screen
at all, large or small.46
Denby and others palpable anxiety is somewhat straightforward: Kids
are okay with a very different sort (and level) of spectatorship than their
parents. What seems to be at stake, as a result, is the future of the traditional
movie-going experience: the big, sweeping epic, shown on a massive screen,
mesmerizing the viewer, pulling her into the world of cinema. Whether the
anxiety over new, mobilized screens is based on generational nostalgia or a
form of elitist cinema purism, the fact remains that kids are watching content
through alternative means. Of course, they continue to go to the movies and
watch television, but they have complimented traditional viewing with their
own highly mobilized practices. According to an October 2007 study by the
Pew Research Center, 53 percent of teens personally own an mp3 player or
iPod, 25 percent own a laptop, and 72 percent have their own desktop computer.47 While these statistics do not necessarily mean that teens are using
technology to view media, we can safely assume that many of them are.
But does a change in screen necessarily entail a change in the relationship
between viewer and image? Escapism is often characterized by its vision of
something betterbetter than ones quotidian drudgery, better than ones
unspectacular love life, better than ones tired, ill-tting wardrobe. While
Stacey stresses the cinematic pleasure of spectatorship, this pleasure was
in part derived from the physical escape from the hardships of their lives at
this time.48 One might argue that girls alternative spectatorship, despite
the lack of dark-room, big-image absorption, continues to offer girls a form
of escape. The sumptuous world of Gossip Girl certainly offers an image of
something better; the mobile nature of computers and other mobile devices
allows girls to view the show away from the stresses of family, the domestic,
or the public sphere. While their hardships might not be those of 1940s Britain, they are hardships nonetheless, oftentimes characterized by emotional
and social strife. Considered this way, downloading GG and watching it in
ones room, on the bus, or during lunch period serves as a profoundly escapist activity.
Through viewing practices and online fan participation, Gossip Girl fans
participate in their own girl culture, moving it from the domestic to the
public space. Mazzarella highlights the ways in which girls appropriate conventions and media content as a means to
[create] a space for themselvesa space in which to engage in a practice (romantic fandom) that has been ridiculed, dismissed, and denigrated
52
Television
by the dominant adult culture for decades. Until now, this activity, like
many elements of girl culture, has been engaged in in the privacy of ones
bedroom and only in the company of ones inner circle of closest female
friends.49
The Internet, along with other digital technologies, including wireless, cell
phones, and iPods, blurs the line between the public and the private, breaking
down distinctions of appropriate female viewing practices. Girls may view
a show completely alone; girls may view it, like the rst audiences of the soap
opera, while multitasking: completing homework, blogging, or talking with
a friend on the phone.50 As Lynn Clark emphasizes:
Todays young people experience constant accessibility, separation from
adults and their multi-tasking abilities as liberation and empowering, a way
to manage risk and to direct ones own course. These technologically
mediated communication experiences represent for them an openness to
possibilities rather than a limit on their possibilities for privacy, personal
reection, and individual direction.51
In this way, uses of technology that adults often consider alienating, even
antisocial, may in fact increase a girls feelings of agency, participation, and
social linkage.
Girls are watching Gossip Girl, but theyre not necessarily watching it
when the CW would like them to do so. Only 2.7 million viewers tune in when
theyre supposed toMondays at 8 P.M. (EST).52 Instead, theyre watching
it via streaming video, on DVR, or via downloads. Accounting for delayed
DVR viewing, Nielson numbers rose 20 percent amongst young adults; Gossip Girl was streamed 1.5 million times from the CW Web site during October 2007; the show was the most downloaded show on iTunes and the most
streamed on Yahoo! during the same period.53 Importantly, its a top-ve network show amongst teen girls and the top new teen show on television.54 As
a recent article in USA Today points out,
Its a case in point of how Hollywoods denition of a hit TV series is radically changing. Though still the primary focus, live TV ratings are no
longer the sole barometer of success. As viewing habits change, programmers are struggling with how to factor in DVR-use, Web-viewing, soughtafter niche audiences and online chatter when weighing shows health.55
Entertainment Weekly adds, The generation watching Gossip Girl doesnt do

appointment television. They are masters at using the latest technology to
watch TV when and how they want.56 Yet, many within the industry are
reluctant to rely on such statistics: Not only do Nielson Ratings remain industry currency, but many remain skeptical that users are using alternative
viewing practices for anything more than catch-up.57
U Know U Love Me
53
If we take the conversations across the Gossip Girl bulletin boards as evidence, girls certainly are engaging in alternative viewing practices, sometimes for catch-up, at others as their preferred means of viewing. Some employ
the site for repeat viewings: I just watched the ep again for the 3rd time, I cant
(sic) stop I am addicted, lol (mlwestie); Ive seen each of the two episodes
about half a dozen times (Emily117). Such statements are signicant: At
this point, repeat viewing is possible only through nontraditional viewing
sources, such as DVR or streaming video. Others use the boards to seek out
missed episodes: MeagsW complains, so I have missed the last 2 weeks,
and I used to just catch up online, but the last two episodes havent been
posted . . . any idea why?? Just curious . . . I love the show but I work [when it
airs]. Liz4TreeHill2 exclaims, I missed the last episode and am hating it!!
GRRR!! [. .] It was supposed to be posted on The CW Site today to view and
its still not there. In response, tech-savvy girls serve as guides to frustrated
ones, explaining how to access streams on the GG site or pointing them to
other online areas, such as BitTorrent, sidereel.com, or even YouTube, where
users can access the video for free. Multiple posts also recommend downloading episodes via iTunes, paying the $1.99 per episode charge.
But not all girls are altering their viewing. Many posters lacked the patience to wait for The CW to post the episode, insisting that any true fan
would watch it on Monday: In gossipgrl1110s words, if gossip girl is one
of ur favorite shows then how can u miss it? Some posters engage in a bit
of fan activism, encouraging other bulletin board users to watch on Monday:
WATCH IT LIVE!!! It needs ratings!!! (chuckblairfan). Interestingly, some
girls watch both traditionally and alternatively. In response to the everpopular You Know Youre Obsessed with Gossip Girl When . . . thread,
omgbrittsonxox offers, you rush your mom home like crazy just so you dont
miss one minute of GG, even though you already pre-recorded it on your
DVR. Girls who lack broadband or streaming capability catch up through
detailed episode recaps; some resort to watching an episode piecemeal via
several YouTube clips.
Viewed collectively, what I nd most compelling about these posts is the
girls technical exibility and dexterity. Put differently, their persistence in
consuming what they want, when they want it. While the subjects of Staceys
study may have achieved a fuller sense of escapism, their options for such
escape were somewhat limited: As accessible as the cinema was, it was still
one xed locale. Theres a reason why subscription cable has recently shifted
to offering programming on demand: Todays girls want to indulge their
tele-visual obsessions, diving into the world of the Upper East Side, when
and where they desire. That may be in front of the TV on a Monday night or
on their desktop computers, but the key is the extent of their control over the
experience. Whether its pausing the video stream to go to dinner or DVRing an episode for repeated viewing, escape is a click away. The discourse of
54
Television
escapism and spectatorship, made manifest on the boards, is one of control and
immediate indulgence of desire, most often facilitated by digital technology.
CONCLUSION
Where does this leave us? In the age of New Media, it seems girls are reproducing traditional discourses of girlhoodtheyre doing it digitally and
in accordance with their own desires and demands. The rhetoric surrounding
the renewal of the series, its relative success, and the need for the networks
and Nielsen to change their way of judging a hit show all speaks to a sense
of power. Instead of girls altering their habits to save a favorite show, the
networks alter their means of measurement to better cater to their coveted
demographic. A sense of power characterizes this generation of girls: their
power to consume, to sway networks, to change the denition about what a
hit means.
Yet, its a peculiarly consumerist brand of power, tied to the notion of
girls as a mass of status-obsessed shoppers. Discussing this project with my
50-something mother, I was reminded of recollections of traditional girl
fandom. In her words,
It is amazing to me that a process that used to happen by girls hanging
around in someones bedroom reading a fan magazine or talking about a
movie has moved to television and blogs. The former is a small group and
based on a great deal of imaginationthere were few details about pop
star romances and all of the images were static. It was not anonymous; the
comments a girl made were made as she hung out with friends and so it
was risky. If it was a movie couple, rather than outside of the movies, there
was no way to replay a scene other than to talk about it. And, expendable
income was much lessteenagers largely did not have the money to recreate outts like they do now. However, they could and did copy hairstyles
and perhaps had a signature outt that they paraded about.
In my mothers recollection of the late 1960s and early 1970s, to be a devoted

girl fan was to make a decision: to risk something, whether it be a weeks
allowance or ones standing in a social group. Fandom was also far more
embodieda girl demonstrated her fandom by parading about a hairstyle,
recreating a scene, discussing the show out loud, or, as myriad accounts of
Beatlemania attest, screaming and fainting.58
In contrast, todays girl fandom manifests cerebrally and virtually. A keystroke brings community, episode recall, star gossip, and immediate consumption. The interface of the computer screen does not judge; the fellow fans
one meets online know little to nothing of your life; no one, save perhaps your
parents, has to know how many times you review a YouTube clip of a specic
scene. One might speculate that obsession is easier, that passions are given
U Know U Love Me
55
room to proliferate, that the freedom to be a girl, whatever that might mean,
has expanded exponentially with the rise of New Media.
If I were writing this chapter in the early 1990s, I would agree with such
statements. The utopian hopes for the early Internet extended to girls development, subjectivity, and identity formation, as is so clearly evidenced by
Susan Murrays 1995 ndings on girls and fan bulletin boards. Since then,
however, the ground-up construction of the World Wide Web has been coopted and homogenized from the top down. Massive corporations (including
CBS and Time Warner, co-owners of The CW) now own and control the
dominant forms of social networking, blogging platforms, and fan forums. In
this way, any hopes for a substantial shift in the dominant discourses of girlhood are dying with the gradual but near-universal allocation of the Internet
by a handful of immense media conglomerates.
The future of TV, it seems, is the same as that of other media: consolidation, integration, and cross-pollination between business and art. Gossip
Girl, like so much of todays television, may be about innovation but certainly
not of the artistic variety. Instead, through novel means of product placement, brand ubiquity, and creative online content, its producers adapt to and
anticipate the changing topography of advertising. Its not so much the show
thats young, hip, and sophisticated; rather, its the means of selling a product
that is, and thats what continues to draw sponsors. In this way, programming becomes a means to a necessary end, a ller around which a network
may structure its ads.
In 1975, Marshall McLuhan famously posited that the medium is the message. If such technological determinist philosophy holds, then a change in
the medium of fandom and spectatorship should presumably change the message that girls receive and reproduce through their own New Media usage.
Im certainly not the rst to call McLuhans catchphrase into question, but
my ndings on the CW Gossip Girl Bulletin board indicate, in no uncertain
terms, that the medium has begun to change . . . yet, the message has not.
Romantic individualism and consumption still characterize the way that society conceives of girls and the way that girls, in turn, conceive of themselves. As was the case in Classic Hollywood, fan communities continue to be
constricted by corporate regulation and hegemonic notions of proper fan
engagement.
I want to believe that a girl watching a Gossip Girl episode on her iPod,
and a network responding to that change, is somehow a gesture lled with
feminist potentiala liberating gesture toward control of ones media consumption. Then suddenly I recall that this same girl is negotiating the history of a male characters sexual assault to make way for her appreciation of
the diamond necklace he gave a new crush, and my thoughts turn markedly
pessimistic. I do not intend to permanently debunk the potential of New
Media to radically alter the discourses of girlhood. Girls like Youtubes
56
Television
Lonelygirl15 have already fooled consumers and corporations alike with

their performative media manipulation, and the ngerprints of girl activism,
from Riot Grrl to angry, underrepresented girls on MySpace, still smudge
the computer screen. Nevertheless, despite a urry of contemporary rhetoric
to the contrary, a change in medium does not, in the end, necessitate a substantive change in message.
NOTES
1. The premiere drew 3.5 million viewers (according to traditional Nielsen ratings), a number that fell in subsequent weeks. See: John Consoli, CWs Key Demos
Dating Other Nets, MediaWeek 17.38 (2007): 4 5; Gary Levin, Viewers shifting
habits redene TV hit, USA Today, October 24, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/
life/television/news/20071023-tv-hits_N.htm; Lacey Rose, Q&A with CW Entertainment Chief Dawn Ostroff, Forbes, November 1, 2007, http://www.forbes.com/
media/2007/11/01/television-cw-ostroff-biz-media-cx_lr_1101ostroff.html.
2. The codes of romantic individualism and fashion/beauty come from Angela
McRobbies seminal work on the teen magazine Jackie; community is borrowed from
Susan Murrays study of girls and Internet bulletin boards; identication and escapism are taken from Stargazing, Jackie Staceys groundbreaking work in the eld of
female spectatorship. Using ads in various British magazines, Stacey solicited responses concerning viewing attitudes and practices. While the women of her study
are middle-aged, their replies speak of their viewing practices during the 1940s and
1950swhen the women were girls and young adults. While I realize that a woman
reecting on her girlhood experiences is not the same as a girls immediate responses,
I nevertheless nd Staceys study a valuable tool in parsing out aspects of girl and
young adult spectatorship.
3. Indeed, as Shayla Thiel Stern found in her investigation of instant messaging
culture, girls in digital spaces may be reproducing the same hegemonic and patriarchal discourses of the analog world. See Shayla Thiel Stern, Instant Identity: Adolescent Girls and the World of Instant Messaging (New York: Peter Lang, 2007).
4. See Susan Murray, Saving Our So-Called Lives: Girl Fandom, Adolescent Subjectivity and My So-Called Life, in Kids Media Culture, ed. Marsha Kinder (Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 2001), 221. For more on historical girl spectatorship, see
Moya Luckett, Girl Watchers: Patty Duke and Teen TV, in The Revolution Wasnt
Television: Sixties Television and Social Conict, ed. Lynn Spiegel and Michael Curtin
(New York: Routledge, 1997), 95118. Girls studies is loosely dened as scholarship
dealing with females from the age of 6 anywhere to the age of 20. The notion and
boundaries of girlhood are dynamic and up for debatefor instance, the girlpower of the early 90s applied equally to teens and twenty-somethings.
5. Melanie Lowe, Colliding Feminisms: Britney Spears, Tweens, and the Politics
of Reception, Popular Music and Society 26.2 (2003): 123.
6. Wolfgang Iser, The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach, in Reading Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, ed. J. P. Tomkins (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 106.
U Know U Love Me
57
7. Mary Celeste Kearney, Coalescing: The Development of Girls Studies, Currently in review for publication in NWSA Journal, 1.
8. See also Sherry Turkle, The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1984).
9. Murray, 225.
10. Murray, 233.
11. Sharon R. Mazzarella, Claiming a Space: The Cultural Economy of Teen Girl
Fandom on the Web, in GirlWideWeb, ed. Sharon R. Mazzarella (New York: Peter
Lang, 2005), 143.
12. Christine Scodari, Youre Sixteen, Youre Dutiful, Youre Online: Fangirls and
the Negotiation of Age and/or Gender Subjectivities in TV Newsgroups, in GirlWideWeb, ed. Sharon R. Mazzarella (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 119.
13. Mazzarella, 147.
14. Scodari, 107.
15. See Henry Jenkins, ed., Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture
(New York: New York University Press, 2006); and Sonia Livingstone, The Challenge of Engaging Youth Online, European Journal of Communication Culture 22.2
(2007): 16584.
16. Paul Agre, Net Presence, Computer-mediated communication magazine 1.4 (1994): 6.
17. Available at http://www.cwtv.com/shows/gossip-girl.
18. I included some comments from posts in which the prole did not include an
age, but the post clearly indicated that the author was in high school or junior high.
19. Realizing the performative nature of the Internet, I acknowledge that boys or
even adults could easily posture as girls on the bulletin board. With that said, one
might consider such performance of girlhood of similar value to the online performance of actual girls.
20. Angela McRobbie, Feminism and Youth Culture: from Jackie to Just Seventeen
(Houndmills: Macmillan, 1991): 83.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 85.
23. See Mazzarella.
24. McRobbie, 85.
25. Ibid., 101,
26. Ibid., 103.
27. Jackie Stacey, Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship (New York:
Routledge, 1994): 170.
28. See Mary Celeste Kearney, Girls Make Media (New York: Routledge, 2006).
29. See Jeanne Allen, The lm viewer as consumer, Quarterly Review of Film Studies 5.4 (1980): 48199.
30. Charles Eckert, The Carole Lombard in Macys Window, Quarterly Review of
Film Studies 3.1 (1978): 121; Jane Gaines and Charlotte Herzog, eds., Fabrications:
Costume and the Female Body (New York: Routledge, 1990); Maria La Place, Producing and Consuming the Womans Film: Discursive Struggle in Now, Voyager, in Home
is Where the Heart Is, ed. Christine Gledhill (London: British Film Institute, 1987).
31. Farah Malik, Mediated Consumption and Fashionable Selves: Tween Girls,
Fashion Magazines, and Shopping, in Seven Going on Seventeen: Tween Studies in the
58
Television
Culture of Girlhood, ed. Claudia Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh (New York: Peter
Lang, 2005), 258. See also Rachel Campbell, Teenage Girls and Cellular Phones:
Discourses of Independence, Safety, and Rebellion, Journal of Youth Studies 9.9
(2006): 206.
32. Thiel Stern, 97.
33. Verizon phones now offer Gossip Girl content; Verizon hosts their own Gossip Girl Web site where users can download songs from the show onto their Verizon
phones. See Brian Steinberg, Verizon gets in on Gossip Girl, Advertising Age, October 22, 2007, 8.
34. A Very Gossip Girl Christmas, New York Magazine Online, December 20,
2007, http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/12/a_very_gossip_girl_christmas.html.
35. Chad Gervich, Marketing on Web Tangled, Daily Variety, September 12, 2007, 1a.
36. Georganne Scheiner, The Deanna Durbin Devotees, in Generations of Youth:
Youth Cultures and History in Twentieth-Century America, ed. Joe Austin and Michael
Nevin Willard (New York: New York University Press, 1998), 81.
37. Siddhartha Menon, A Participation Analysis of the Once and Again Internet
Message Boards, Television and New Media 8.4 (2007): 342.
38. Murray, 233.
39. Scheiner, 82.
40. According to Nielson/Netratings, after NBC and ABC began streaming programming in the Spring and Fall of 2006, their Web sites began drawing signicantly larger trafc than those of CBS and Fox, who had yet to offer content online.
From October through December 2006, ABC.com and NBC.com averaged 9.5 million unique visitors a month; yet, CBS averaged 5.2 million unique visitors and Fox
only 2.8 million. See David Goetzl, Networks Battling for Web Trafc on TV Sites,
ABC Leads the Pack, Media Daily News, January 18, 2007, http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=54089. For more
information on the push to attract fans to network sites, see Cynthia Littleton, Nets
go on blitz for fan hits, Daily Variety, June 11, 2007, 12.
41. See The CW Lounge Community Guidelines, available at http://lounge.cwtv.
com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item#faq_communityguideline_faq_item. Interestingly,
The CW prohibits racist language but has no such policy concerning homophobic
language, which presents itself several times in reference to Dan, who, in the Gossip
Girl Books, inspires rumors of potential homosexuality.
42. McRobbie emphasizes, however, that the complementary ways in which young
girls interact among themselves and with each other to form a distinctive culture of
their own are recognized by and catered to by commercial media. McRobbie, 22.
43. To date, 384 users have posted questions, and over 40,000 have viewed the
threads.
44. Stacey, 170.
45. Ibid., 90.
46. David Denby, Big Pictures: Hollywood Looks For a Future, The New Yorker,
January 8, 2007, http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/01/08/070108
crat_atlarge_denby.
47. See http://pewresearch.org/pubs/621/parents-teens-and-technology.
48. Stacey, 95.
U Know U Love Me
59
49. Mazzarella, 56.

50. See Lynn Spigel, Make Room for TV: Television and The Family Ideal in Postwar
America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
51. Lynn Schoeld Clark, The Constant Contact Generation: Exploring Teen
Friendships Online, in GirlWideWeb, ed. Sharon R. Mazzarella (New York: Peter
Lang, 2005), 218.
52. See Ostroff, online.
53. Steve McClellan, CWs Unconventional Approach to Advertising, Adweek.com,
October 22, 2007, http://www.adweek.com/aw/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_
content_id=1003661100.
54. Levin, online.
55. Levin, online.
56. Jessica Shaw, Gossip Girl: Psssst . . . Did You Hear? Entertainment Weekly,
November 16, 2007, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,20160343_3,00.html.
57. Ostroff, online; Levin, online.
58. See Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess, and Gloria Jacobs, Re-making Love:
The Feminization of Sex (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1986).
chapter 4
Why I Love The Office . . . and

Hate NBC
Sue J. Kim
I am so disappointed in NBC. They should realize that iTunes viewership saved The Ofce from extinction and have a bit more loyalty!
Angry iTunes User
The U.S. version of The Ofce started out dealing with supercial forms of
liberal multiculturalism and a somewhat source-less or obscure sense of
worker ennui, primarily because it mimicked the British original. But in later
seasons, the show has developed into a more complex critique of late capitalism and moved beyond surface terms of multiculturalism. It has become an
astute critic of the economic logic that drives corporations and is, unfortunately, the dominant force in our world. The show was prescient in that the
kinds of things The Ofce skewers are what informed NBC and other studios refusal to share with writers prots from new forms of media, particularly digital downloads. The studios stance resulted in the Writers Guild of
America (WGA) strike that began in November 2007 and ended just weeks
before the 2008 Oscar ceremony. In other words, in both its content (the
episodes) and its form (its production and distribution), the show explores
the small and large negotiations we make as mere human beings trying to
survive in the age of late capitalism.
The term late capitalism, also referred to as post-Fordism, denotes the
changes in the global economy since the middle to late twentieth century.1
Fordism, an older mode of production named for the assembly-line innovations of Henry Ford, refers to the general conditions of industrial production, including production-focused, blue-collar jobs with security, unions,
62
Television
pensions, and benets. But, as we all know, this model no longer describes
the economies of most industrialized nations; for example, the U.S. economy
focuses less on production, which is shipped overseas to cheaper labor markets, and more on service and white-collar work. In late capitalism, information is important in two ways: You have to have it, and its what youll be
working with (instead of, say, raw materials). Therefore, today the primary
form of capitalor valueis information and knowledge. Whereas once you
just needed a lot of money or raw materials or a factory, today such straightforward prot strategies no longer apply. In order to compete in todays
economy, companies must have information, particularly highly technical
or specialized kinds, and they must be fast, exible, and mobile. For workers,
labor itself has become impermanent and variable, and the principle of collective bargaining becomes difcult when workers and their jobs are parttime, mobile, and difcult to dene. Older modes of production have not
disappeared; rather, newer forms of production (e.g., software and Web site
design; high nance) coexist with older modes of production (factories,
large-scale farming). Dunder Mifin, the mid-range paper supply company
on The Ofce, has served as a kind of petri dish for observing these economic
reactions and the ways that people respond to them.
In addition, the relationship of late capitalism to issues of race is complex
and inconsistent.2 While state and corporate institutions happily tout the
rhetoric of multiculturalism, the exibility of late capitalism enables racialized economic inequalities to be hidden in other countries or other neighborhoods. Like this discourse of multiculturalism, new languages of management
emphasize what Tara Brabazon calls corporate objectives, professional development, multi-skilling, generic competencies and strategic plans, which
actually suppress the volatility and antagonism of employment relations
and perpetuate an articial consensus.3 Rather than sweep things under the
rug, The Ofce helps bring to light many of these suppressed antagonisms,
both in its content and in its production and distribution.
Let me be clear, however, that I am not claiming that The Ofce is some
kind of progressive manifesto or Leftist roadmap; rather, the show makes its
point not in broad strokes but in subtle touches that accumulate over time, in
the process providing an astute analysis of the conditions of modern work.
As Brabazon points out in her analysis of the original British Ofce, sources
of alternative information about workoutside of neo-liberal agendasare
difcult to nd, so popular culture is as effective a fount for knowledge as
any other.4 Her argument that the British Ofce provides a more accurate
account of modern workplace ennui resonates with the ways that other comedic and satiric programs, most pointedly The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report provide more insight into political issues than actual news programs.
By the same token, the fact that The Ofce offers useful insights does not
necessarily mean that it is not complicit with some of the things it critiques;
63
it is, after all, on a major network. But as Laura Kipnis notes in her analysis
of Hustler, counter-hegemonic, or critical of the dominant order of things,
does not necessarily equal progressive in usual political terms.5 In other
words, elements of progressive insight and resistance can be found within
power structures; indeed, it would be difcult to nd any person or thing in
the U.S. entertainment industry that is not part of a dominant structure.
Unquestionably, The Ofce is a showcase product for media behemoth NBC
Universal. The Ofce is one of the anchor shows on NBCs heavily marketed
Must See TV Thursday-night line-up, lling the void left by Seinfeld and
Friends. And while The Ofce is innovative in many ways, its very departure from situation comedy conventions participates in a new trend. Like
the British original, The Ofce is in faux documentary style; as various cast
members and directors note, the camera is essentially another character.6
Furthermore, unlike sitcoms of the past, the show lacks a laugh track, mood
music, and pointed didactic purpose. In this The Ofce is part of a new wave in
sitcoms trail-blazed by Seinfeld; such showsincluding other NBC hit shows
such as Scrubs, My Name Is Earl, and 30 Rockare self-conscious and ironic
and feature dysfunctional, young, and single characters. The show has also
helped pioneer the new trend of multimedia marketing, of which Lost is the
vanguard. In addition, the show is an adaptation of a British program, like the
hugely successful American Idol and the disastrous Coupling. The Americanization of the British original, however, has been successfulcommercially,
aesthetically, and, I argue, politicallyin unique and unexpected ways.
The original British Ofce, created by the great Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant and rst airing on BBC Two in 2001, began inauspiciously
but has become widely acclaimed.7 Painfully accurate and aesthetically innovative, the show explores threatened middle-manager masculinity, casual
racism, supercial sensitivity, and, most of all, the grey purgatory of ofce
work. But, as Brabazon argues, the British series, while certainly a brilliant
slice of life, does not reference any larger structures or processes; she writes,
The Ofce cuts away public domain politics.8 We see the challenges of pettiness, insecurity, and alienated work but little sense of where these come from.
The company Werner Hogg foists regional manager David Brent, played by
Ricky Gervais, on its employees, but it has not really created him. In fact, the
corporate gures who do know how to play the gameDavids immediate
superior Jennifer Taylor-Clark (played by Stirling Gallacher) and Neil Godwin
(played by Patrick Baladi), another manager who becomes Davids supervisor
dislike David as much as his employees do and ultimately re him.
While I do not think an aesthetic product must necessarily provide the
answers to the problems it may raise, Brabazons observation about how the
British Ofce is not tied to the larger world brings to mind the Marxist literary critic George Lukcss cranky view of modernism.9 Lukcs disliked
modernist works because, in his view, they elevate alienation and despair to
64
Television
a universal condition thereby making them seem inevitable and inescapable.

Instead, he argued, modern alienation and despair come from something. While
his analyses were not always accurate in regard to specic modernists such
as Kafka and Joyce, Lukcs nevertheless makes an important point. If we
fail to understand the reasons for why things are the way they are, we risk
naturalizing and perhaps even glorifying these conditions. In its exploration
of deeper causes and reasons, the U.S. Ofce, for a variety of reasons, has been
more successful than the original in providing insight into how the logic of
capitalism shapes our lives.
At rst, the U.S. show closely followed the original series. The pilot episode was an almost scene-by-scene remake, and ensuing episodes from the
rst season also reect the original series. Jim, Pam, and other secondary ofce workerswho have not yet developed into real charactersexperience a
generalized sense of ennui and alienation. The ofce workers hate their boss
and their jobs, but they do not know why and neither do we. Dunder Mifin
is an amorphous corporate entity, personied by the ice-queen Jan LevinsonGould (Melora Hardin), whose hyperprofessional manner, hyphenated name,
and exquisitely portrayed exasperation with Michael Scott (Steve Carell) are
taken wholesale from the British show. We see examples of Michaels bumbling racism; for example, he picks Stanley Hudson (played by Leslie David
Baker) to play on the basketball team because he is black, while saving Oscar
(played by Oscar Nuez) for baseball season because he is Latino.
But even from the beginning, the U.S. show was different for a number
of reasons. First, as Greg Daniels notes, in meetings before production of
the U.S. show started, Gervais and Merchant expressed regret that people
had read David Brent as more of a malicious jerk than simply a buffoon.10
People hated David Brentwith good reasonbut Gervais and Merchant
had intended him less as an object of ire than of pity. So Michael Scott, although still fairly unbearable in the rst season, becomes humanized. As TV
critic Maureen Ryan puts it, Michael is funnier when he seems like a real
person, not an overwrought sitcom buffoon.11 Furthermore, as we will see
in later seasons, whereas David Brent is completely incompetent, Michael
Scott proves to be a good salesman.12 Second, the U.S. show is meant for a
very different audience. During the rst season, I wondered if this was why
Pam and Jim were more conventionally good-looking than the British shows
Dawn and Tim. Part of the appeal of the British show was its relentless
drabness, but the U.S. show seemed to have two fairly conventional romantic
lead actors, regardless of mussed hair or nondescript clothing. But again, the
shows developmentincluding critiques of Pam (in season three) and Jim
(in season four)has complicated this situation. Likewise, the show could
have made Michael too likeable, thereby excusing his aws, but ultimately
Michael succeeds in his humanity because we see the larger structures in and
from which he gets his strange ideas.13
65
The third reason for the differences is that the U.S. show has had a longer
life (the British series ran for two seasons and had a two-part nale), allowing more time to develop plotlines and principal and secondary characters.
It is in these later seasons that the show develops its deeper insights. While
Brabazon points out that post-Fordist shifts in capitalism, such as globalization, the paperless ofce, exibility, and even technology (computers,
Internet) barely register in the original series,14 these elements of late capitalism have become increasingly important in the third and fourth seasons
of the U.S. show. The show explores the dominance of large corporations
and the implications of information as the primary mode of capital. Moreover, the show has moved beyond the basic terms of liberal multiculturalism,
and it even subtly critiques patriarchal elements of corporate culture.
BUSINESS IS ALWAYS PERSONAL
The shows critique of large corporations driving out smaller businesses
is most obvious in its constant references to Staples and other such box
chains, but it also makes other critiques of corporate logic. For example, in
season three, although Dunder Mifin has restructured their company to
retain the Stamford manager Josh Porter (played by Charles Esten), he uses
the position as leverage to gain a senior management position at Staples.
Michael, for all his faults, is contrasted with the typical corporate executive; as Jim tells the camera, Say what you will about Michael Scott, but he
would never do that.15 By the same token, when Dwight quits and must get
a temporary job, the show takes us into the bowels of Staples to compare
its working conditions with Dunder Mifins. A large national chain store
such as Staples gives the worker even less room for individuality, personal
satisfaction, and connections with other human beings than is allowed at a
mid-range market company such as Dunder Mifin. In the episode, Dwight
unnerves a customer by hovering too attentively near her. Employees of
box stores should be nameless, faceless, and hidden until needed, whereas
Dwights apparent faultsidiosyncrasy, total dedication, and a lack of alienation and ironyare his strengths in his position at the paper company.16
The show also pointedly demonstrates how, in late capitalism, information
becomes the primary form of capitalmore valuable than money, human
resources, raw materials, or even a product (after all, Dunder Mifin does
not actually produce paper, it merely sells it). More than any other character on the show, Ryan (played by writerproducer B. J. Novak) demonstrates
the value of knowledge and special expertise. In todays economy, these are
harder to obtain and worth more than money capital or other assets, such
as experience. Thus Ryan, with his MBA and technological savvy (at least
compared to Michael), rises meteorically from temporary worker to corporate executive.
66
Television
For example, in the season three episode Business School, Ryan, despite
reservations, invites Michael to speak to his business class in order to gain a
higher grade. Before Michael enters the room, Ryan explains to his class that
Dunder Mifin is doomed because it cant compete with the modern chains,
and management is unwilling or unable to adapt. Michael implodes in the
class because he lacks the business and management training that these students are in the process of gaining and that Ryan will use to such effect in
season four. When one student questions Michael about how a paper supply
company can survive in an increasingly paperless world, Michael replies
that while computers are fun for playing games, real business is done on
paper. When he instructs the class to write that down, the camera pans to
show all 50 or so students typing on their laptops. When another student
asks if the companys Herndahl Index, a specialized economic indicator
that Michael does not know, has declined since the branches merged, Michael
responds with a petulant insult. When the students continue to challenge
Michael about Dunder Mifins impending obsolescence, using the language
and logic of market forcesBut how can you compete with the resources of
a nationwide chain?to drive him into a corner, Michael nally bursts out,
[Ryan] doesnt know anything and neither do you. So, suck on that!
This scene works on several levels. Michaels childishness, which is both
his weakness and his strength, is on display here. The scene also mines some
comedic gold in the disjunction between the students expectations and Michaels lecture. But this scene also points to the way that late capitalism
naturalizes itself as logic. More than ennui or alienation, Michaels angry
outbursts pointedly demonstrate that modern workers and managers are
stuck in situations about which an individual alone can do nothing; market
forces are inexorable and inhuman. Highly sophisticated models, theories,
and language naturalize the current economic system, and unless one is
trained in economic-speak, there is no way to respond to or even describe
it. In other words, to even describe and/or respond to information-age late
capitalism requires specialized information. We may try to blame individual
companies, such as Staples, but they too operate within the inexorable logic
of a particular economic system.
The episode further develops Ryan and Michaels contrasting philosophies of business and life by twisting sitcom conventions. On the ride back
to the ofce, Ryan tries to backtrack, telling Michael, It wasnt personal.
Michael replies, Business is always personal. Its the most personal thing
in the world. When they return to the ofce, they have a version of the
sentimental learning moment in classic sitcoms, in which Ryan apologizes
and admits he was wrong. But of course Ryan has not learned anything; he
will say and do anything to get what he wants, and this is what makes him
an excellent candidate for upper management. Rather, what we get is a lesson about opposing values in our world: prot versus people. Despite the
67
ostensible multicultural and employee-centered rhetoric of corporations, it

is the law of the market that drives companies, not any actual person or
group of persons. For all of Michaels faults, his genuine care for people and
the personal contrasts starkly with the cold-blooded corporate logic embodied by Ryan. And that Michael is not always ineffective (he is a good
salesman) speaks to the fact that, as Harvey points out, different models of
capitalist accumulation coexist in our world.17
These seeds planted in season three bear fruit in the season four story arc
that we might refer to as the rise of Ryan. Ryan, who arrived as a temporary
worker in the pilot episode and failed completely as a salesperson in season
three, has been promoted to a corporate executive, assuming Jans former
position as Michaels boss. The wunderkind Ryan undertakes the updating
and streamlining of Dunder Mifin. He foists on employees Blackberries and
Power Pointneither of which Michael can useand he helms the updating
of the new Web site, Dunder Mifin Innity. In a series of talking heads, in
which Ryan appears to be on amphetamines or at least highly caffeinated, he
explains that the paper industry is getting faster and younger:
Yeah, I created a website. Look, at the end of the day, apples to apples, ying at 30,000 feet, this is a paper company. And I dont want us to get lost
in the weeds or into a beauty contest . . .
Convergence, viral marketing, were going guerrilla. Were taking it to
the streets, while keeping an eye on the streetWall Street. I dont want
to reinvent the wheel here. In other words, it is what it is. Buying paper
just became fun.18
Ryan epitomizes the ways in which, as David Harvey explains, in the postmodern age of late capitalism, everything is faster and more immediate.19
On the other hand, Michael continues not to understand information-age
economics. In another season four episode, when an advertising creator tries
to stop Michaels nonsensical babbling by interjecting, I can tell that your
time is valuable, Michael replies, Actually, I dont get paid by the hour anymore, thank you. I get paid by the year.20 His statement indicates both his ignorance and his charm. He is oblivious to the idea that the ad men mean their
time is valuable, and he is unaware that the shift from hourly wage to annual
salary often means that ones time is even more compressed, squeezing everincreasing productivity out of middle- and upper-management. Similarly, in
another episode, we see Ryan tell Michael that he needs to learn to use something and will provide a tutor if necessary.21 It does not even matter what
it is that Michael does not know how to use; Ryans command encapsulates
their respective positions.
Several other episodes in season four develop this conict. In one episode,
Michael decides to win back customers by personally presenting them gift
68
Television
baskets assembled by the ofce workers. He fails to win anyone back because,
as one customer puts it, Dunder Mifin simply cannot compete with the
prices offered by the national (and international) retail chains. In reaction to
rejection, Michael, in customary fashion, completely capitulates to the superiority of technology; he follows the directions of his rental cars navigational systemignoring what is visible through the front windshieldand
drives directly into a lake.22 In another episode, Dwight competes against the
Web site in sales, crying, Woo hoo!! In your face, machines! and wins by
52 reams.23 The same episode centers around the virtual launch party of the
new Dunder Mifin Web site; Michael, who has been excluded from Ryans
exclusive party in New York, announces over the Web-cam to other Dunder
Mifin branches, I just think you should know that one of my salesman
beat your stupid computer, followed by a bleeped out profanity referring to
Ryan. When Michael goes to New York to crash Ryans party (and steal sushi
plates), someone praises him for denouncing Ryan. The fourth season thus
develops its anticorporate theme by making starker the contrast between the
slick, heartless young Ryan and the bumbling but well-meaning Michael. But
the show prevents Michael from being some kind of idealized anticorporate
hero by continually foregrounding his buffoonery and his other weaknesses.
THE EVOLUTION OF KELLY KAPOOR
Just as the show has gone beyond ofce ennui to explore some of the pressures shaping the modern workplace, it has also gone beyond critiquing the
basic terms of liberal multiculturalism and cultural sensitivity, including
issues of gender and sexuality.24 Michael, like David Brent, incarnates the
most supercial forms of corporate multiculturalism, and while the things
he does and says may seem ridiculous, they all too accurately reect the logic
of corporate entities, educational institutions, and other large bureaucracies
that want to be cultural sensitiveand avoid lawsuitswithout actually
changing anything. For example, in one episode, Michael refers to Stanley
as our key to the urban vibeto which Stanley responds, I grew up in a
small town. What about me seems urban to you? In such ways, the show
pokes fun at the multicultural euphemisms in common parlance within corporate, educational, and governmental institutions.
But the development of three characterstwo secondary and one principal
move beyond the relatively easy, although still worthy, critique of surface
liberal multiculturalism. Although still secondary, Kelly Kapoor (played by
Mindy Kaling, who is also a writer and producer) and Darryl Philbin (played
by Craig Robinson) have developed into more signicant characters. When
they were simply foils for the bumbling Michael and points of reassuring
identication for viewers, the show risked replicating the terms of multiculturalism it sought to satirize. But increasingly, the garrulous, air-headed
69
Kelly and Darryl have agency and complexity. Furthermore, while Kelly and
Darryl are obvious examples, an unexpected, delightful surprise has been the
ways that Dwight helps explode the myth of the generic white person without a history.
The shows development in these aspects appears most pointedly in the
evolution of Kelly Kapoor. In the rst season, Kalings character is not yet
the garrulous Kelly that fans of the show have come to know and love. She
appears a few times essentially as background color, particularly in the
Diversity Day episode, in which she slaps Michael for his inappropriate comments. She is dressed demurely and in dark colors; she is not really
a character at all. But the real Kelly Kapoor blossoms in season two; she
is a talkative, pop cultureobsessed sorority girl whose principal goal is to
get married (specically to Ryan), have babies, and drive an SUV. The sheer
volume and speed of her discourse overwhelms her coworkers, and her
romantic-pursuit-as-persecution of Ryan provides some of the shows funniest, if eeting, moments.25 This thread culminates at the beginning of
season four, when Kelly tells Ryan that she is pregnant in order to regain
his attentionsand then genuinely does not understand his anger when
she admits that she was lying.
The season three Diwali episode, penned by Kaling, shows that cultural
differences can be explored without schmaltz and condescension. The episode begins as expected; when Michael makes fun of Ryans dress, Kelly
points out that its a kurta. In ne form, Michael tells us that, Tonight, one
of our most ethnic co-workers, Kelly, has invited us all to a Diwali celebration
put on by her community. When Angela recommends people dont go because they eat monkey brains (a nod to Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom),
Michael objects: That is offensive. Indians do not eat monkey brains. Then,
covering his bases, he adds, And if they do, sign me up, because I am sure
that they are very tasty and nutritional. Its important that this company
celebrates its diversity. And because the people in the ofce can be terribly,
terribly ignorant about other cultures, Michael convenes an Indian cultural
seminar. Michaels actions accurately reect the logic of institutions that
want to avoid litigation by being cultural sensitive but actually practice
the most watered-down version of liberal multiculturalism, in which ones
culture determines ones identity and the main cause of racism is ignorance. In contrast, what I like most about Kelly is what she does not know;
instructed to tell the staff about the origins of Diwali, Kelly answers, Oh,
I dont know. Its really old, I think.26
By the same token, while Darryl begins as simply one of the warehouse
crew who helps highlight the difference of Pams anc, Roy (played by David
Denman), from the ofce staff, in late season three but more so season four
(when Robinson became a regular cast member), Darryl starts to become
a real person. First, he takes joy at tweaking Michaels nave ideas about
70
Television
culture. In season three, Darryl encourages Michael to negotiate for a higher

salary by teaching him specious black man phrases like Pippety poppety,
give me the zoppety. Darryl says to the camera, barely containing his glee,
Yeah, I taught Mike some new phrases. I want him to get the raise. I just
cant help myself. Similarly, in season four, Michael commissions Darryl,
Kelly, Andy, Kevin, and Creed to come up with a jingle for Dunder Mifin; he
reacts to their upbeat a capella tune by saying he thought it would be more
rap. Darryl responds, smothering a grin, Whats rap? Appalled, Michael
responds, Wow, Darryl, you need to learn a lot about your own culture.
Again, while Michael is ridiculous, his comments accurately reect the assumption of liberal multiculturalism that there are discrete, racially signied cultures that all members of a group must know. And Darryls playful
mocking of Michael indicates awareness of the bankruptcy of such forms of
supercial cultural awareness.27
Furthermore, while we could hardly have expected such a development in
season one, the more we learn about Dwight, the more he helps show that
white people are not a group without race or culture or ethnicityor rather,
whose history and culture are assumed to be universal and not specic. Described by Rainn Wilson as a fascist nerd, Dwight is part product of his
familys German and Amish background and part product of sci-/fantasy.
He lives on a beet farm with his cousin Mose (played by writerproducer
Michael Schur), and he utterly lacks a sense of irony. Among the blandly
neosuburban, middle-class ofce workers, Dwight is even more culturally
mist than any of the ethnic minorities in the ofce.
The show even subtly critiques elements of patriarchy suffusing contemporary corporate culture, beyond Michaels overt, bumbling sexism. Two
story lines develop this critique: Jims effortless popularity and Jans fantastic
decline. First, let us take a cold-eyed look at Jim. At rst glance, Jim is the
focal point of identication for the audience; he conspires with us by looking
at the camera and laughing at other characters actions. But Jim shares with
Michael a need to be likedhe simply does it better, wooing his audience (his
coworkers and we the viewers) in more amenable terms. When the Stamford
manager, Josh, has Jim supervise Karen Filippelli (played by Rashida Jones),
Jim wins her over because he cannot stand being the bad guy.28 In a recent
episode, Jim is excluded from The Finer Things ClubPam, Oscar, and
Tobys highbrow book clubbecause, as Pam puts it, some people think you
monopolize the conversation by trying to be funny.29 When Pam relents and
lets Jim into the club, this critique proves accurate; Jim begins a discussion
of Frank McCourts Angelas Ashes by mimicking an exaggerated Irish accent
and then, under questioning by Toby and Oscar, makes clear that he has not
even read the book.
Moreover, in the course of his heartbreak over Pam, he deeply hurts two
women who genuinely love himKaty (played by Amy Adams) and Karen
and he does not really care, shirking the consequences of his actions. In the
71
second season, Jim takes out his heartache over Pam by unceremoniously
dumping Katy.30 Karen, who calls out Michaels casual sexism, forces Jim to
talk about his feelings, and even mocks Jims constant reference to the camera, is also quickly dispatched. Later, Jim cannot face Karen, literally hiding
by crouching down in a car. When they do meet, she recommends that he act
like an adult.31 Jims cowardice calls to mind the numerous times Michael
has tried to avoid facing the repercussions of his actions or even acknowledging responsibility. Along these lines, this season John Krasinksi is perfecting
a hilariously scared, embarrassed facial expression that complicates his usual
smug, conspiratorial relationship with the camera.
Furthermore, we may ask: Why, after all, is slacker Jim so successful?
Jim gets ahead casually, effortlessly, simply by being an athletic, heterosexual, normal guy; he seems less peculiar than Michael or Dwight because
he embodies the naturalized norm of masculinity. At a cocktail party as his
house, David Wallace, the chief nancial ofcer (CFO) of Dunder Mifin,
invites Jim outside to shoot hoops. At the end of season three, when Jim interviews for the executive position (he eventually withdraws to stay in Scranton), it is implied that he will get the job.32 Jim does not have to even comb
his hair to be promoted over everyone else in his ofce, while his soulmate
Pam never moves beyond the reception desk, and Jan, in order to win Michael back, feels moved to get breast implants. In season four, the terms of
Jims self-assured masculinity were pointedly examined. For example, in
Local Ad, when Kevin and Andy fawn over Ryans newfound coolness (his
job, his clothes, his apartment), Jim betrays subtle signs of insecurity. Despite
Jims aura of imperturbability, he is irked by Kevins constant declarations
that Ryan is awesome and can have any girl he wantsuntil, that is,
Pam turns down Ryans offer of a date. The fact that Jim is reassured by the
fact that Ryan cannot have Pam slyly points out the terms by which Jims
masculinity is secured.
The phenomenon of Jan, played by Melora Hardin, approaches the gender issues from different angles. The character Janinitially Michaels boss
but now his laid-off, live-in girlfriendhas offered a vehicle for exploring
the contradictions of the rise of corporate feminism, particularly through the
events surrounding Jans ring from Dunder Mifin. On one hand, if, as the
CFO David Wallace claims, Jan has been a bad worker for two years, why
has she seemed to embody the corporation for the last three seasons? On the
DVD commentaries, Melora Hardin laughs at the silly reasons [Wallace is]
ring her, suggesting that in her reading the company really is mistreating Jan. On the other hand, viewers also know that beyond her professional
role, Jan is hardly a gure of stability and integrity. As Karen puts it, shes
nuts. But Jim does not agree with Karens assessment of Jan; as Rashida
Jones notes, the moment is a good KarenJim divide, foretelling the different paths their characters will take. In the last new episode that aired before
production shut down as a result of the writers strike, The Deposition,
72
Television
both Dunder Mifin and Jan appear ruthless and vindictive. Jan sues the
company for wrongful termination, and Michael must make a statement;
he ultimately supports the company and sinks Jans lawsuit. While Jan and
the company can be interpreted in different ways, the show raises all kinds
of questions of what it means to be a human being who knows how to wield
both the discourses of feminism and the corporation. Janlike Dunder Mifin itselfuses anticorporate rhetoric against the corporation when it suits
her, and the issue of whether she is right or wrong does not lie in her identity
but in the complexities of the situation.33
But even more than in its plotlines, the show moves beyond convention by
letting its secondary characters blossom. As Hardin notes, she, Carrell, and
Daniels had discussed the possibility of Jan and Michael pairing romantically even before the pilot episode, complicating things far beyond the British character. Likewise, in the DVD commentaries, Hardin talks about how
much fun it is to play a awed, complex character:
I love that youre just seeing little breaks of Jan, just little cracks in the
armor, little by little. And its just starting to all snowball up. Its one of
my favorite things about her as a character, playing her. Shes just so wonderfully dimensional that way . . . The writers write me the greatest stuff.
I mean, I am so thankful that I get to show her aws. Its no fun to just play
a perfect person all the time.34
In other words, what is great about Jan is what is great about Kelly; they
have moved beyond merely being foils for Michael and become awed, multidimensional, and specic characters, whirling dervishes of comedy all on
their own.
The shows strength in later seasons, involving such developments of secondary characters and complications of principal characters, stems in part
from the conditions in which it is created. Many key people involved with the
show wear multiple hats, including acting, writing, producing, and directing.
The star of the show, Steve Carrell, also has credits as producer and has written two episodes. B. J. Novak and Mindy Kaling, who play the once-warring
couple Ryan and Kelly, are on the writing team and receive producing credits.
Michael Schur, another key writer, plays Dwights cousin Mose and is listed
as co-executive producer. Greg Daniels, executive producer of the show, is
also a writer and had directed several episodes; Daniels began as a writer
on Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons and then cocreated King of the Hill.
Furthermore, as made abundantly clear on the commentaries, many lines and
even scenes are improvised, testifying to the various improv backgrounds of
many actors on the show. As Novak has said, It is a perfect creative environment.35 This innovative approach to the show has produced the kind of
complex material that appeals to the audiences who access the show via the
73
Internet. Appropriately enough, then, this conuence has also meant that
the creators of the show as well as viewers have had to consider issues raised
within the show in contexts beyond the screen.
THE OFFICE IS CLOSED

Hollywood and the blogosphere are up in arms about the status of new
media, particularly digital video. In August 2007, NBC decided to end their
relationship with iTunes due to disagreements over pricing. On November 5,
2007, the Writers Guild of America went on strike, demanding a slightly
larger share of DVD sales and compensation for online material. At the heart
of both the NBC/Apple dispute and the writers strike is the issue of what
constitutes content, or product, and what constitutes promotional material. Such categorizations are important because, while revenue from the nascent digital video market is still nancially a minor consideration for the
studios, the standard denitions that are established now will dictate who
will reap potential future prots.
Through season three of The Ofce viewers could download individual
episodes from iTunes for $1.99. Younger viewers in particular tend to view
the show on the Internet, and early popularity of show was fueled by digital video downloads.36 But when NBC and Apples negotiations fell apart in
August 2007, NBC decided not to offer new fall season episodes of shows
such as The Ofce, and in December 2007, when the companies contract
completely expired, all NBC videos were removed from iTunes. The dispute
arose because NBC Universal, once the top seller of digital video on iTunes
(over 40% of downloads), wanted greater latitude in pricing and the ability to
offer more expensive bundled deals.37 Bundling means, as Scott Gilbertson
puts it, buy a movie you want [at slightly higher cost] and get a free TV
show you dont care about; he adds, For some reason, NBC believes bundles
are what consumers really want.38 In a press release, Apple stated that negotiations had ended because Apple declined to pay more than double the
wholesale price for each NBC TV episode, which would have resulted in the
retail price to consumers increasing to $4.99 per episode from the current
$1.99.39 NBC executive vice president of communications, Cory Shields, denied that the studio had requested a price increase; rather, Shields claimed,
NBC merely wanted exibility in wholesale pricing.40
This development has raised the ire of many viewers, as angry, disappointed posts on iTunes attest (these were posted as comments on season
three of The Ofce before all NBC content was removed):
This show is great. But, I am exceeding dissipointed [sic] in both Apple
and NBC in their behavior towards making season 4 available to download
74
Television
on MAC systems. itunes, I speak for a lot of your customers when I say
refusing to fulll your contractual obligations is penalizing us.
I love the OfceI would rather pay iTunes to download and watch on
my iPod than sit through the ridiculously slow stream on NBCs website
for F8#! sake!
I have downloaded every single Ofce episode from The Pilot to The
Job. In total thats about 102 dollars Ive given to iTunes in order to watch
my shows. But now its like Ive bought a TV contract and all I have to air
is re-runs. Why cant there be any frresh [sic] shows? I understand the
contract issues but right now NBC is being too greedy. They wanted $4.99
[per] episode. No way!
NBC and Apple . . . You guys are pushing a large number of legal downloaders to steal the new episodes on torrent sites. I have every episode
up to this season. I liked the consistency of quality I got with the digital
episodes. I did NOT buy a season pass so you made a big prot off of me.
Where do I get the new season? I dont know . . . not on iTunes.41
Such comments, beyond expressing irritation and inconvenience, raise several points. First, NBCs decision impacts primarily the younger demographic
that uses Apple computers and watches The Ofce because episodes can be
downloaded at NBC.com but only to PC computers. (This group, coincidentally, would also include the bulk of exible, mobile information-age workers
who are professionally more like Ryan but who identify with Jim and Pam.)
Of course, anyone can watch full episodes online at NBCs Web site, but as
the comments note, the digital streaming is slow and of relatively poor quality, and brief video advertisements from sponsors such as State Farm, Target, and Blackberry are interspersed through the episode (you must watch
them in order to see the show content). Furthermore, the removal of NBC
material from iTunes may push users to illegally download material from
torrent sites, such as Kazaa or Pirate Bay. Moreover, while the appeal of
iTunes has been its convenience, its virtual monopoly over the digital sales
(currently, iTunes is responsible for 76% of digital music sales) conicts with
the logic of free-market competition.42 In order to prevent Apple from dominating the digital video market as it has the digital music market, NBC, in
conjunction with Fox, plans to launch Hulu.com, an online video provider
similar to YouTube.43
All this seems to make clear that digital video is a product and that NBC
wants to make more money from it. This view correlates to NBCs charge
that Apple deliberately underprices digital material in order to use it as promotion for its hardware. NBC executive Shields argues that Apples retail
pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple
devices, at the expense of those who create the content that makes these devices worth buying.44 Other entertainment companies have echoed the belief that Apple underprices video and audio content as a way to propel sales
75
of a much more signicant prot center: iPods and related merchandise.45

But the studios complaint that Apple sees digital downloads as primarily
promotional contrasts starkly with their stance vis--vis the Writers Guild
of America. The writers demands center on new media, particularly DVD
sales and Internet revenues. Writers want a marginally bigger portion of
DVD sales (eight cents per DVD instead of the current four cents), and they
want to get paid for material available on the Internet. But because the studios consider online content promotional, they do not compensate writers
for this material.46
That is, writers of shows such as The Ofce do not receive any revenues
from digital video sales and advertisement revenue (such as ads you must
watch in order to view shows on NBC.com). Furthermore, shows such as The
Ofce have content exclusively available online for which the writers are not
paid. For example, during season two, a series of 13 miniature Web episodes,
or Webisodes, titled The Ofce: The Accountants, were made available exclusively through NBC.com. The storyline featured Kevin, Oscar, and Angela
(played by, respectively, Brian Baumgartner, Oscar Nuez, and Angela Kinsey) searching for $3,000 missing from the budget. The writers wrote scripts
expressly for these Web episodeswhich won a Daytime Emmy in 2007
but received no compensation for them because the studio refers to all online
content as promotional. In the YouTube video The Ofce Is Closed, in
which Daniels and other writers explain the reasons for the WGA Strike,
writer-producer-actor Schur points out the irony of taking their demands
to the public via a mediumthe Internetfor which they get paid nothing
because the studio insists on categorizing digital video and Internet material
as promotional. In the video, Schur, Kaling, Novak, and Lieberstein have a
good time rifng on this notion, referring to shows available online, such as
Lost, as excellent promos.47
The Ofce was one of the rst shows to shut down production because
Steve Carrell and Rainn Wilson refused to cross picket lines.48 The executive
producer of the show, Greg Daniels, who helmed the translation of the show
into the U.S. version, also did not cross picket lines and expected to have his
contract suspended without pay. As Daniels told Scribe Vibe, Varietys blog,
on the strike, Weve seen the future . . . The Ofce has received 7 million
downloads. It generates the most trafc at NBC.com. We received a Daytime
Emmy for webisodes that no one was paid for. The future is very bright for
these companies. The CPMs [cost per thousand impressions] on Internet
ads is double what they are for TV.49
Of course, some dispute has arisen about the class status of the writers
and the validity of their demands. While many production crew workers
have expressed solidarity despite being laid off, one sign testies to another
sentiment: WGA AMPTP PLEASE NEGOTIATE SIGNED 100,000
OUT OF WORK CREW MEMBERS.50 Studios have red crew members
76
Television
as productions have shut down, although some production companies have

stated they will not lay off nonwriting staff.51 The studios that do re nonwriting staff thus exploit class divisions between upper- and middle-class
writers and working-class crew members, just as they try to divide the more
middle-class writers and wealthy producers, and just as multinational corporations exploit divisions between workers in industrialized and developing
nations to corrode union power.52 As the local Teamsters union, which supports the WGA strike, points out, the principle of collective bargaining is important for all workers and must be defended against the divide-and-conquer
tactics of the studios.53 It is important to remember that the real culprit here
is NBC Universal, one of the largest entertainment conglomerates in the
world. Although General Electric, which owns NBC, posted record prots
in 2006, NBC itself was seen as struggling earlier in 2007, so its drive to
maximize prots even further remains as strong as ever.54
Like privileged minorities who are surprised by racism, many of the Hollywood writers, particularly those who are also producers, may have been
taken by surprise when the studios put prot over people. Like any modern corporation, Hollywood not only participates in the rhetoric of liberal
multiculturalism, postfeminism, and new management styles, it also tries to
repress the antagonistic relations between groups with fundamentally different goals. For example, some key corporate executives championed The
Ofce, and its actors, writers, directors, and producers have acknowledged as
much.55 Much like the original British show, the U.S. Ofces renewal for a
second season was seen by some as an act of generosity and faith. Whereas
the rst season had a relatively small audience (average 5.4 million viewers),
after the show won an Emmy in season two for best comedy and Carrell
became a star with 40-Year-Old Virgin, by season three the show was ranked
13th in the key demographic of 18 to 34 year olds. 56 Ben Silverman, now cochair of NBC Entertainment, brought The Ofce Stateside via his production
company, Reveille.57 But despite apparent and actual support of the show
and the artists work, at the end of the day, the primary goal of a corporation
is prot. That is not to say that all corporations or executives are evil; as
the business school students point out to Michael, companies are not run
by ethics or values but by market forces. Therefore, in the long run studios
will do whatever they feel necessary in order to protect future market shares
in digital video and prevent iTunes monopolyin the business school students terms, studios run according to the big picture. The disjunction in
purpose becomes most stark when entities critiqued by the show become
studio sponsors, most notably Staples and Blackberry.
Even for something that seems as trivial as television and the labor
manual and intellectualthat goes into it, the principles of solidarity and
the critique of the logic of late capitalism are important. If anything, the
strike provides a unique opportunity because in the United States, things like
digital media and the Internet are at the center of young peoples lives. As
77
the chapters in this volume demonstrate, entertainment is never just entertainment, and business is never just business. As Michael Scott, who like a
child blurts out the truth only when pushed against the wall, says to Ryan,
Business is always personal. The minor inconveniences caused for many
iTunes users and television viewers can point the way toward larger issues
of public culture and corporate control. As Greg Daniels puts it,
I suppose the reason people should care about this is because the television
networks get their broadcast licenses from the government. They are supposed to create public culture. Instead, they are taking the attitude of We
will crush you toward the people who create their programming. They
are talking of canceling scripted programming and replacing it with reality programs. I think that is not in the public interest.58
If The Ofce is successful as a satire, it is because the kind of heartless

corporate drive evidenced by Ryan and the kind of willful hypocrisy and ignorance practiced by Michael are not only everywhere around us but also particularly embodied in NBC Universal. In this sense, The Ofce falls in the
category of smart, insightful satires such as The Daily Show (on which Carrell
used to be a correspondent) and The Colbert Report, which are more honest
than supposedly serious media. This irony becomes even more pointed when
comedians step out of their roles and speak truth in legitimate spaces, such
as John Stewart on Crossre in 2004, Stephen Colbert at the 2005 White
House Press Correspondents Dinner, and The Ofce writer-producer-actors
on the picket lines.59
So, while Ive argued elsewhere that some productions, such as Lord of the
Rings, are complicit with the problems of late capitalism, here I argue that
the content of The Ofce and some elements of its productionparticularly
the freedom it gives its creative teamchallenges the logic of the studios
who fund and distribute the show.60 While NBC continues to act like the Michael Scott of the rst season, the show has developed sophisticated critiques
of the symptoms and causes of late capitalist frustration and anger.
An example of the shows development is encapsulated in a conversation between Michael and Jim at the end of a recent episode Survivorman,
written by Carrell. Michael, who has been excluded from Ryans corporate
wilderness retreat, tries to compensate for his disappointment by imitating
survival reality shows such as Survivorman and Man vs. Wild, in which a
professional survivor goes out into some remote, dangerous location and
survives by his wits alone. While Michael ounders out in the Pennsylvania
wilderness, he leaves the ofce in Jims charge. In order to decrease wasted
timeand thereby maximize productivityJim consolidates all the birthday
parties for the month into one party. Chaos and sniping ensue, as each of the
birthday persons want a different cake and the benighted Toby, whose birthday is not even during that month, wants to be included because Michael had
78
Television
short-changed his actual birthday by planning it for 4:58 P.M. on a Friday

afternoon . . . in the parking lot. Eventually Jim realizes the futility of his plan,
and when Michael returns during the partywhich is now only for the actual birthday person (the wonderfully weird Creed)Jim ruefully recounts
the tale to him. Michael laughs, informing Jim that he had also tried this
before, to similar effect. When Michael reassures Jim that he will learn in
10 years, Jim replies that he does not plan to be there in 10 years. Michael
laughs and says, Thats what I said. Then he leaps to his erstwhile catchphrase, Thats what she said. Jim laughs and asks, thats what who said? Michael tells Jim that thats simply something that he says to lighten things up in
the ofce, when things get hard, to which Jim replies, Thats what she said.
Since the rst season, Michael has had to almost involuntarily interject
Thats what she said! when a suitable occasion arises. The joke is an old
one that turns an everyday phrase into a double-entendre. But the changing
contexts in which that phrase appears testify to the evolution of the show.
Initially, Michael was just an insufferable buffoon, a bad boss like David
Brent, but increasingly, we see how he came to be that way. Granted, perhaps
the demand of U.S. entertainment that the star be likeable plays a factor in
such humanizations of Michael Scott. But in other respects, the show thrives
on awkwardness and awfulness, and nothing could be more awful than the
prospect of becoming Michael Scott. In the episode, Phyllis accidentally addresses Jim as Michael, and this scene in particular subtly references Star
Wars, likening Jim to young Anakin Skywalker and Michael to Darth Vader.
In other words, you can be a really good person and have the best intentions, and you can be smart and good looking and distance yourself from
those who are different, and you can try to win over the audience constantly (as Jim does with both the viewing audience and the other characters
on the show), but ultimately, the pressure of the historical situation in which
you nd yourself makes you the person that you are. The terms of the choices
you makesuch as Jims rejecting the professional opportunity of a corporate position for the security of his old job and a good woman waiting for
himare delineated by that situation. At its best, The Ofce shows us that we
are the way we are for reasons, not special innate qualities or race or ethnicity
or gender. In other words, as Marx put it, [people] make their own history,
but they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves.61 Id
like to think that even the cantankerous Mr. Lukcs would approve.
NOTES
I would like to thank Gina Caison, Dorothy Joo, and Daniel Siegel for their help
in developing this chapter.
1. For further discussions, see David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity
(Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990), particularly chapters 711; and Ernest Mandel, Late
79
Capitalism, translated by Joris de Bres (London: Verso, 1972), particularly chapter 16,
Ideology in the Age of Late Capitalism.
2. For a further discussion of what has also been called the McDonaldization of
work and its links to race, see my essay, The Business of Race in The Lord of the Rings
Trilogy, in The Business of Entertainment, vol. 1, edited by Robert Sickels (Westport,
CT: Greenwood, 2008).
3. Tara Brabazon, What Have You Ever Done on the Telly?: The Ofce, (Post)
Reality Television and (Post) Work, International Journal of Cultural Studies 8, no. 2
(2005), 108.
4. Brabazon, 108. See also The Ofce: Complete Series One & Two and the Special,
DVD (20012003, BBC Video, 2004).
5. Laura Kipnis, (Male) Desire and (Female) Disgust: Reading Hustler, Cultural
Studies, edited by Lawrence Grossberg et al. (New York: Routledge, 1992), 37391.
6. Episode commentary, The Dundies, Performance Review, and Christmas
Party, The Ofce: Season Two, DVD (2006, NBC). The ambiguous status of the camera in the U.S. Ofce calls for more extensive examination than is possible here.
7. For further discussions of the British show, see Brabazon and Ben Waters, The
Ofce: A Critical Reading of the Series (London: British Film Institute, 2005).
8. Brabazon, 104. Mark Sinker concurs that with the BBC happily hawking [the
show] as a management-training manual and Gervais sticking to his anti-political
pose, the Brent pathology comes across more as a comical personal failing than . . . a
pervasive symptom of modern capitalism. Mark Sinker, book review of The Ofce,
by Ben Waters, Sight and Sound 16 (March 2006): 94. See also Yeoman, Brents
Secret Microsoft Ofce, The Times Online (August 24, 2006). Available from: http://
entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article617763.ece
9. George Lukcs, The Ideology of Modernism, The Critical Tradition, 3rd edition, edited by David H. Richter (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007), 121732.
10. Episode Commentary, Pilot, The Ofce: Season One, DVD (NBC, 2005).
11. Maureen Ryan, Scrubs, The Ofce, and the Perils of Supersizing, Chicago Tribune (October 24, 2007). Available from: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/
entertainment_tv/2007/10/scrubs-the-of.html (accessed November 2, 2007).
12. Brabazon writes that David is able to deploy manager-speak with vacuous skill
(105), but in the rst episode, he cannot even do that right.
13. To me, one of the most disturbing notes of the show is the Christmas episode
from season three, in which Michaels inability to distinguish two Asian waitresses seems to be excused. A Benihana Christmas, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD
(NBC, 2007).
14. Brabazon, 109.
15. Branch Closing, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (NBC, 2007).
16. The Return, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (NBC, 2007).
17. Harvey, chapter 22.
18. Launch Party, The Ofce, Episode no. 403, rst broadcast October 12, 2007 by
NBC.
19. Harvey, chapters 1218.
20. Local Ad, The Ofce, Episode no. 405, rst broadcast October 25, 2007 by NBC.
80
Television
21. The Deposition, The Ofce, Episode no. 407, rst broadcast November 16,
2007 by NBC.
22. Dunder Mifin Innity, The Ofce, Episode no. 402, rst broadcast October 4,
2007 by NBC.
23. Launch Party.
24. One of the best lines in the entire show occurs at the very end of the rst episode
of season three, Gay Witch Hunt. In the episode, Oscar is outed by Michael, suffering
discrimination, particularly from the conservative Angela, and general humiliation by
the contrite but inept Michael. In exchange for his agreement not to sue the company,
Jan gives Oscar a three-month paid vacation; after describing the trip to Europe he
and his partner plan to take during that time, Oscar tells the camera, Kids, sometimes
it pays to be gay. Gay Witch Hunt, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (NBC, 2007).
25. For example, when Phyllis (played by Phyllis Smith) throws the bouquet at her
wedding, Ryan lunges out of the crowd to block Kelly from catching it; the scene
is less than a second in duration. Phyllis Wedding, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD
(2007, NBC).
26. Diwali, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (2007, NBC).
27. Promisingly, Kelly and Darryl have started dating in season four, with Darryl exhorting Kelly to access [her] uncrazy side. Money, Episode no. 404, rst
broadcast October 19, 2007 by NBC.
28. Grief Counseling, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (2007, NBC).
29. Branch Wars, The Ofce, Episode no. 406, rst broadcast November 2, 2007
by NBC.
30. Booze Cruise, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (2007, NBC).
31. Branch Wars.
32. Cocktails and The Job, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (2007, NBC).
33. For example, in Local Ad, Dunder Mifin uses anticorporate rhetoric in the
television advertisement that it is forcing all its branches to use.
34. Episode commentary, The Job, The Ofce: Season Three, DVD (2007, NBC).
35. Whitney Pastorek, The Ofce: Working Overtime, Entertainment Weekly, October 5, 2007, 33.
36. Pastorek, 33.
37. Brook Barnes, NBC Will Not Renew iTunes Contract, New York Times, August 31, 2007, section C, 1.
38. Scott Gilbertson, NBC Universal Drops ITunes Downloads After Apple Refuses
to Raise Prices, Wired Blog Network (August 13, 2007). Available from: http://blog.
wired.com/monkeybites/2007/08/nbc-universal-d.html (accessed November 10, 2007).
39. iTunes Store to Stop Selling NBC Television Shows, Apple (August 31, 2007).
Available from: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/08/31itunes.html (accessed
November 15, 2007).
40. Gilbertson.
41. My personal favorite reads, I would like to go on the record to say that if NBC
does not renew its contract with apple, then people will not stand for it . . . including
myself. Where as someone from Texas might go shooting up the local post ofce,
I am from Utah. Therefore, I will pray for NBC and talk bad about them behind their
back. Please renew, thank you!
81
42. Barnes.
43. See Barnes and Geoff Duncan, NBC, Fox Launch Hulu Private Beta, Digital
Trends (October 29, 2007). Available from: http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/
story/14641/nbc_fox_launch_hulu_private_beta (accessed November 12, 2007).
44. qtd. in Gilbertson.
45. Barnes.
46. Patrick Goldstein, Strike Reveals a Future Feared, Los Angeles Times (November 17, 2007). Available from: http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-bigpicture
13nov13,0,7487231.story (accessed November 25, 2007); Jeffrey Ressner, Writers Strike
To Ripple Across Hollywood, Politico.com (November 4, 2007). Available from: http://
www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6692.html (accessed November 25, 2007); and
Michael Hinman, SciFi Channel Forced Battlestar Webisodes, Syfyportal (November 8, 2007). Available from: http://syfyportal.com/news424409.html (accessed November 25, 2007).
47. The Ofce Is Closed, YouTube (November 6, 2007). Available from: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6hqP0c0_gw (accessed November 7, 2007).
48. Brian Stelter, Early Victim of Strike: Ofce Originals End Next Week, New
York Times TV Decoder (November 7, 2007). Available from: http://tvdecoder.blogs.
nytimes.com/2007/11/07/early-victim-of-strike-ofce-originals-end-next-week/
49. Michael Schneider, Greg Daniels: Weve Seen the Future, and It Is Us, Scribe Vibe:
Varietys WGA Strike Blog (November 7, 2007). Available from: http://weblogs.variety.
com/wga_strike_blog/2007/11/greg-daniels-we.html (accessed November 10, 2007).
50. Michael Schneider, And Now, A Word From Recently Laid-Off Production
Crews, Scribe Vibe: Varietys WGA Strike Blog (November 16, 2007). Available from:
http://weblogs.variety.com/wga_strike_blog/2007/11/and-now-a-word.html (accessed
November 10, 2007).
51. Bill Carter, Strike Prompts Layoffs at NBC, New York Times, December 1,
2007, section C, 4.
52. Schneider, Greg Daniels.
53. Jim Hoffa, Teamsters Support the Writers Guild in Fight for Fair Contract,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (November 1, 2007). Available from: http://
www.hollywoodteamsters.org/ (accessed November 15, 2007).
54. General Electric, Fortune 500, CNN. Available from: http://money.cnn.com/
magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/561.html; John Christoffersen, Record Prot at General Electric, International Business Times (January 19, 2007). Available from: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070119/general-electric-earnings.
htm); Paul R. La Monica, NBC: No Big Comeback, CNNMoney.com (April 11, 2007).
Available from: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/11/news/companies/ge_nbc/index.
htm (accessed November 15, 2007).
55. Josef Adalian, Peacocks New Kid in Town, Variety, Sept. 1723, 2007, 1819.
56. Pastorek, 32.
57. Pastorek, 33.
58. Stelter.
59. Jon Stewarts America, Crossre, rst broadcast October 14, 2004 by CNN;
Jon Stewart on Crossre, YouTube (January 16, 2006). Available from: http://www.
82
Television
youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE; Colbert Roasts President Bush2006

White House Correspondents Dinner, Google Video (April 29, 2006). Available from:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879 (accessed November 7, 2007).
60. Sue J. Kim, Beyond Black and White: Race and Postmodernism in The Lord of
the Rings Films, Modern Fiction Studies 50, no. 4 (Winter 2004), 875907.
61. Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Marx-Engels
Reader, 2nd edition, edited by Robert C. Tucker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978), 595.
chapter 5
Who Wins with NASCAR

on ESPN?
Wanda Little Fenimore
When ESPN was purchased by Walt Disney Company in 1995, the

sports network inherited a genetic disorderDisneys penchant for
marketing a product ten times every millisecond.
Michael Freeman, ESPN: The Uncensored History
The rst full-length broadcast of a NASCAR race was the Daytona 500 in
1979 on CBS. Interestingly, ESPN was also launched in 1979. I doubt anyone had an inkling of what the future held in store for both of them. In 1979,
NASCAR was a regional sport hungry for exposure on national television,
while ESPN was a edgling cable network searching for programming. As
they say, the rest is history: A lucrative relationship was borne with each
partner using the other to build popularity and prots. For nearly 20 years,
until 2000, ESPN was the home for NASCAR and has been widely credited
for helping popularize the sport.1
Fox, NBC, and TNT took over televising Nextel Cup races in 2001 with
a 6-year, $2.4 billion contract. During its absence, ESPN president George
Bodenheimer repeated that the one TV-rights package he most wanted to
obtain was NASCARs Nextel Cup races.2 When NBC declined to renew
its contract, ESPN/ABC got its chance, for a mere $270 million! Beginning
with the 2007 season, the 36 Nextel Cup races are split among Fox, TNT,
and ESPN/ABC. The networks bought the rights for a combined $4.48 billion over 8 years; the deal boasts a 40 percent increase over the former contract.3 At this price, ESPN/ABC didnt get the broadcast rights to all 36
races. ESPN/ABC will broadcast the last 17 races of the Nextel Cup season,
84
Television
including the nal 10 races in the Chase for the Cup.4 NASCARs return
to ESPN seems like a reunion between long-lost friends. However, being
owned by Disney situates ESPN as another avenue for opportunistic marketing. NASCAR racing is denitely big business, but with NBC bowing out,
why was ESPN/ABC willing to pay such an exorbitant amount of money?
Second, how will it recoup this investment? And, most important, what does
this new contract mean for fans watching every Sunday?
THE MONEY
There are several possible reasons why ESPN/ABC wanted the NASCAR broadcast rights. NASCAR touts itself as the number two spectator sport in the United States with over 75 million people identifying
themselves as fans.5 Thats a lot of eyeballs and wallets tuned in for about
three hours every Sunday. Sports programming is perceived as the best,
and sometimes only, way to access the hard-to-reach male viewer. Having
sports allows a network to approach advertisers who want to put their
products in front of the elusive male. Susan Tyler Eastman and Gregory D.
Newton state that, With a seemingly endless proliferation of television
channels, sport is seen as the programming that can best break through
the clutter of channels and advertising and consistently produce a desirable
audience for sale to advertisers.6
As the self-proclaimed worldwide leader in sports, adding NASCAR to
ESPNs line-up lls a noticeable void previously lled by Fox, NBC, and TNT.
Sports offer networks an opportunity to distinguish themselves from their
competitors. For example, News Corporations acquisition of NFL rights put
Fox on the map. Instead of being seen as an upstart, Fox became a signicant
contender among the Big Three (ABC, NBC, and CBS). Also, by acquiring
NASCARs broadcast rights, ESPN and ABC eliminated their competitors.
Although NBC turned down its option to renew with NASCAR, CBS and
other cable networks, such as Comcasts Outdoor Life Network, could have
entered the picture if they were willing to put up the money.
Finally, NASCAR offers an ideal promotional vehicle for programming:
Tyler Eastman and Newton offer that [b]ecause sports has such high visibility and popularity with both vocal fans and advertisers, the networks expend billions of dollars obtaining television rights, and one of their many
justications is the value of sporting events as a platform for promotion of
prime-time programs.7 ESPN and ABC have an opportunity during a Nextel Cup race to promote their other programming.
Although several political, economic, and social changes have contributed
to the process, deregulation opened the door to ESPN/ABC having access
to the millions of dollars necessary to acquire broadcast rights. The political
climate of the 1980s, along with an enduring atmosphere of deregulation in
85
the 1990s, led to numerous media mergers and acquisitions.8 Disney, along
with other companies, took full advantage of the opportunities afforded by
this environment. As a consequence, media ownership in the United States
is concentrated in a handful of companies; a small number control a large
percentage of the media acquiring a monopoly over the content, form, and
meaning of the images and news items disseminated to the public.9 With
their extensive holdings and resources, these megamedia corporations dominate their competitors. While this may seem to be simply a business situation, it also affects media viewers because this concentration of ownership
limits the sources and availability of programming, news, and information.
Overall, it reduces the range of choices and increases uniformity.
In 1984, ABC bought ESPN for $225 million and was then acquired by
Capital Cities in 1985; Disney merged with Capital Cities/ABC in 1996,
bringing ABC as well as ESPN into the Disney family.10 The Disney empire
is the worlds second largest media conglomerate (behind Time Warner) and
includes assets encompassing movies, music, publishing, radio, television, Internet, mobile communications, theme parks, and sports.11 ESPN may have
been able to get NASCAR without being a part of Disney, but in 2000, it lost
the broadcast rights to other networks who were willing to pay more. The
current contract substantially increased the networks investments. Without the nancial backing of Disney, ESPN may not have been able to take
advantage of NBCs bowing out. Disney is the epitome of deep pocketsit
can purchase almost any entity or media property it sets it sights on thereby
shutting out its competitors.
THE STRATEGY
First and foremost, media conglomerates, including Disney, have a single
goal, which is to dominate the markets in which they are engaged by attracting as much market share and revenues as possible, as well as engage
in economies of scale and scope to improve efciencies and lower the cost of
operations.12 Because media in the United States are not controlled or nanced by the government, they are dependent on other sources for funding,
notably advertising. With the structure of advertiser-supported media, ABC
and ESPN make money with higher ratings that translate to advertising
dollars. With high ratings, ESPN can sell commercial time at a premium to
prospective advertisers. For example, in my local market, Roanoke-Lynchburg, Virginia, of approximately 30,000 households (cable subscribers),
the rate for a 30-second commercial on ESPN Monday Night Football is
$135.00, and the rate for Nextel Cup on TNT or ESPN is $65.00.13 For
nonsports programming on other cable networks, for example, CNN, Food
Network, Lifetime, Hallmark, and TBS, local commercial rates range from
$3$12 each.
86
Television
In order to consistently earn high ratings, Disney implements a strategy

that takes advantage of all its media platforms, with each property an extension of other properties as well as a separate revenue stream.14 This strategy
includes cross-promotion with multifaceted campaigns utilizing multiple
forms of media. According to Adam Arvidsson, When a particular media
product (or content) can be promoted across different media channels and
sold in different formats, what is marketed is not so much lms or books, as
content brands that can travel between and provide a context for the consumption of a number of goods or media products.15 Along with generating revenue from multiple sources, the company also has the opportunity to
cross-promote. The process is very efcient because it decreases costs and
increases prot. However, smaller companies without multiple media holdings cannot take advantage of it, thus, [f]irms without this cross-selling
and cross-promotional potential are simply incapable of competing in the
global marketplace.16
Synergy is the word often used to describe this process. Basically, synergy
refers to components of a company working together to produce benets
that would be impossible for a single, separately owned unit of the company;
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.17 Synergy is effective when
a company owns multiple media holdings because it involves promoting a
single project across different platforms. For example, synergy becomes a
force when a book develops into a movie, soundtrack, television series, and
licensed merchandise because one entity owns publishing, motion picture,
music, and broadcast holdings. The company then employs all these holdings to promote the project. Although parents may not term this process
as synergy, they are cognizant of its effects. For example, when a Disney
movie such as Shrek (Adamson & Jenson, 2001) is released, parents begin
by taking their children to the theater. Buying continues with soundtracks,
books, and cartoons, along with merchandised products such as lunch boxes,
purses, clothing, stuffed animals, and so forth. The process continues with
Shrek-themed McDonalds Happy Meals. Once the theater run is over for the
movie, the DVD is released, and not long after, the movie airs on Disneys
networks. In recent years, these platforms have expanded to include the Internet, video games, and ring tones.
One of the major elements of synergy is cross-promotion. Cross-promotion also requires multiple media holdings because it involves promoting a
single concept across various media.18 With television, a company that owns
broadcast and cable networks can promote its programs in the most valuable
time slots while at the same time bumping other advertisers. For example,
News Corporation owns Fox and F/X and partners with Speed Channel.
Viewers of programs on Fox will see promos for F/Xs programming. During Nextel Cup races, Fox will include promos for NASCAR-related programming on Speed Channel. At the same time, Speed will promote Foxs
87
coverage of the races. Though viewers may not call it cross-promotion, everyone sees it. Because it is free, networks commonly employ the device.
Disney is the authority on branding; just consider the worldwide recognition of a certain mouses ears. Within the realm of media, branding involves
exclusive distribution of proprietary symbols across multiple platforms.
Branding develops a highly stable corporate product.19 It not only involves
symbols but also signature events, especially sports programming such
as the NFL, Olympics, MLB, and now NASCAR. Networks use these signature events to keep audiences aware of their other programming. David
Rowe notes that Leading sports and events (notably the Olympics) become
the equivalent of well-recognized labels and logos in an increasingly mediatized sports environment.20 Along with differentiating itself from its
competitors, acquiring sports programming associates the network with the
sports values, another facet of branding. With NASCAR, this is a signicant
association because fans are steadfastly loyal. In his analysis of NASCAR
from a business perspective, Robert G. Hagstrom observes that No sport
matches the unique relationship that exists in NASCAR between athletes
and fans, or the depth of loyalty the fans feel.21
Although other media corporations employ synergy, cross-promotion,
and branding, Disney elevates the process to a capitalistic masterpiece.
These practices directly impact what fans see on the racesa never-ending commercial for consumer products, ESPN and ABC programming, and
NASCAR.
THE RACES
Does synergy really affect how races are televised and what viewers see on
the television screen? To demonstrate that methods employed by megamedia
corporations do affect the structure of televised spectator sports, I carefully
watched and analyzed four races: Daytona 500 (February 18, 1979, Daytona
International Speedway, CBS), referred to as 79 Daytona; Champion Spark
Plug 400 (August 16, 1992, Michigan International Speedway, ESPN, rebroadcast on Mid-Atlantic Sports Network on October 26, 2007), referred to
as Michigan; Sharpie 400 (August 27, 2007, Bristol Motor Speedway, ESPN),
referred to as Bristol; and Ford 400 (November 18, 2007, Homestead-Miami
Speedway, ABC), referred to as Homestead-Miami. In my analysis, I considered the races from the start to nish, green to checkered ags, and did not
include any pre- or post-race coverage. Table 5.1 outlines the length of each
race, including commercials; the time the actual race was on the screen; the
number of breaks; the combined time of all the breaks; the average length of
each break; as well as the number of network programming commercials.
With advertising increasing across multiple venues in recent years, it is
fairly safe to predict that the total commercial time would increase from 1979
Table 5.1: An Analysis of NASCAR Telecasts
Race
Green to
Checkered
Flags
On-air time
of race
Number of
Breaks
Total time of
breaks
Average
length of
break
Programming
commercials
Daytona 500
Daytona 1979 CBS
3 hrs 2 mins
2 hrs 40 mins
20
21 mins 55 secs
1 min 6 secs
Champion Spark Plug

400
Michigan 1992 ESPN
(re-broadcast MASN
10-26-07)
2 hrs 17 mins
1 hr 59 mins
18
18 mins
1 min
unavailable
Sharpie 400
Bristol 2007 ESPN
2 hrs 58 mins
2 hrs 11 mins
22
47 mins 30 secs
2 mins 10 secs
11
Ford 400
Homestead-Miami
2007 ABC
3 hrs 2 mins
2 hrs 17 mins
18
44 mins 55 secs
2 mins 30 secs
15
89
to 2007. What is a bit surprising is that the commercial time during the
Homestead-Miami race was more than twice that during the 1992 Michigan
race. By taking the total time of each race divided by the number of breaks,
the 79 Daytona averaged a break about every 9 minutes, Michigan every
7 minutes, Bristol every 8 minutes, and Homestead-Miami every 10 minutes. On the surface, this seems fairly consistent, except the breaks during
the Homestead-Miami race, on average, were over twice as long as breaks in
the 79 Daytona race, two and half minutes versus a little over a minute.
More problematic than the amount of commercial time is the actual content of the commercials. During the 79 Daytona 500, 8 commercials totaling
2 minutes 25 seconds were allocated to CBS programming. The commercials
were for other sports programming including the Glen Campbell Los Angeles Open (golf), Super Fight, a boxing event, Challenge of the Sexes, and
NBA Regional Games. There were two promos each for the CBS Sunday
Night Movie and CBS Tuesday Night Movie.
The Bristol race on ESPN included 11 commercials, totaling 4 minutes
10 seconds, for programming on ESPN and ABC. The commercials included
sports such as the IRL Grand Prix at Sonoma, the World Series of Poker, and
Monday Night Football. Also included were ESPN Fantasy Football, The
Bronx is Burning, and SportsCenter. However, the most number of commercials were for the Little League World Series being televised on ABC.
The Homestead-Miami race included 15 commercials dedicated only to
ABC programming. Featured programs were Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy
Money, October Road, Samantha Who?, and Greys Anatomy along with onetime events such as the American Music Awards and Dancing with the Stars
nale. None of the 15 programming commercials were for any sports or
events on ESPN, but ABC did not disregard ESPN as well see shortly.
From a fans perspective, the increase in network programming commercials may not be signicant. After all, a commercial is a commercial, right?
If all I am interested in is watching the race, what difference does it make if
ABC bumps a local advertiser in order to promote its programming? It makes
a difference because it limits my choices. Instead of being offered products
from a variety of sources, my options are restricted by ABC. This may seem
to be far-fetched, but quite often we learn about local businesses through advertising. If local advertising is conned to off-hours because desirable time
slots in premium programming are unavailable, it is less effective. The goal of
advertising is to increase sales, and more than one business has closed down
because of unsuccessful advertising campaigns and subsequent low sales.
So far, Ive discussed commercials promoting the networks programming. These are actual breaks during the race, and the programming commercials run adjacent to commercials for other products. At other times,
the networks programming is also featured during the race without any
break from the action on the track. It can appear as a supposed unobtrusive
90
Television
scroll across the bottom of the television screen, a pop-up in the corner, or an
opaque logo. However, these devices are not only becoming more numerous,
they are invading more of the viewing area. As a result, even though the race
isnt interrupted by a commercial, it is disrupted by graphics, logos, animation, and audio from the booth commentators. ESPN and ABC are not the
only networks to implement this technique, but it is worse on them because
of Disneys philosophy of maximum exposure, prolonging and exacerbating
the disruption.
ESPN regularly features 18/58; at 18 and 58 minutes after the hour, a
scroll appears across the bottom of the screen with news, scores, and of
course, programming information. The appearance of the scroll is signaled
by distinctive music, an ESPN trademark. During the Bristol race, the 18/58
scroll appeared six times, each time reminding viewers of SportsCenter coming up after the race. In addition, an orange programming scroll appeared
across the bottom of the screen upon each return from a commercial break,
a total of 19 times. This scroll included information about the current program as well as upcoming programs on ESPN, including SportsCenter and
the following weeks race. If all that isnt enough, another mechanism is
SportsCenters 30 at 30 Update: 30 seconds of sports news and highlights
on the half hour with a mention of SportsCenter after the race. During the
nearly 3-hour Bristol race, 30 at 30 intruded 4 times. With the orange scroll,
18/58, and SportsCenter 30 at 30, SportsCenter was mentioned 31 times
during the Bristol race. This translates to viewers being reminded about
every six minutes to watch SportsCenter.
For the Homestead-Miami race, lets return to the intermixing of ESPN
and ABC. Though referred to as sister networks, ESPN and ABC are really
more like conjoined twins, especially during Nextel Cup races on ABC. Disneys new branding formula is ESPN on ABC, although the race is seen on
ABC. The ABC logo is in the lower right hand corner while the ESPN logo
is in the upper right hand corner, so which one is it? The race looks as if it is
on ESPN; instead of 18/58, BottomLine is used for sports scores, news, and
of course, programming. The commentators and pit reporters are the same
as ESPN. The SportsCenter Minute powered by Vizio replaces SportsCenter
30 at 30. The animated graphics after each break feature the ESPN logo or
the ESPN on ABC logo, not the ABC logo by itself. I was watching a race
on ABC that wasnt included in this analysis, and I thought it was on ESPN. I
didnt realize it was ABC until I tried to change channels and realized where
I was on the dial.
What does Disney gain by televising a race on ABC but framing it as
ESPN? Traditionally, advertising rates on broadcast networks are higher
than cable networks. With programming like Nextel Cup racing, a network
can charge premium advertising rates. Place the high-demand programming
on a broadcast network and the rates are even higher. Locally, commercials in
91
Nextel Cup races are $2,000 each on ABC and $1,200 each on Fox, compared
to $65 on ESPN.22 Unlike the local cable system, the local ABC and Fox afliates reach approximately 100,000 homes. While an advertiser is theoretically
reaching many more homes, the increase in viewers is not proportionate to
the increase in broadcast advertising rates.
Also, as I mentioned before, sports programming offers an excellent opportunity to promote other programming. Typical ESPN viewers may not
tolerate ABC programming promos as well as ABC viewers. Another reason
may be that Disney, along with NASCAR, hopes to reach potential fans who
dont normally watch ESPN by placing the races on ABC. Though the set-up
is subtle, its inarguably clever.
The networks are not the only ones who take advantage of cross-promotional opportunities; NASCAR is very savvy about promoting races and its
other ventures. During the Bristol race, NASCAR had commercials for the
upcoming race at Lowes Motor Speedway featuring one of the most popular
drivers, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., as well as promos for TrackPass, a paid interactive service offering fans an inside look at their favorite driver during the
race. The Homestead-Miami race included four commercials for the nascar.
com Superstore. Keep in mind that this race was November 18, 2007, during
the holiday shopping season.
NASCAR also developed an entertaining campaign of commercials promoting attendance at live races. Called Go to a race. See things differently,
the commercials offer different vignettes of how going to a race changes your
perspective. For example, a teenage son is in the bathroom shaving for the
rst time. His father steps in with model military plans, holding them above
the son and making jet engine sounds. The reference is to the military jet
y-bys at every race during prerace ceremonies. All of the commercials are
funny but probably only have meaning for fans who understand the experience of a live race. According to Jim Obermeyer, VP-brand and consumer
marketing for NASCAR, The spots are a wink and a nod to the NASCAR
insider who understands the world through a NASCAR lens.23
NASCARs investing in an advertising campaign to drive attendance at
live races may be its recompense to track owners for taking over broadcast
fee negotiations from the tracks. Until 2001, each track was permitted to
negotiate its own broadcast deal for its races.24 The previous patchwork deal
was worth about $100 million, but the fees went to the track owners, not
NASCAR.25 While protable for the tracks, the procedure resulted in a fragmented presence for NASCAR on national television. In 2001, Brian France,
Chairman and CEO of NASCAR, approached the 20 track operators to consolidate the television package. France drove the deal by consolidating rights
in a single package rather than permitting individual racetracks to negotiate rights. The owners agreed to Frances proposal, and the rst consolidation television package in 2001 eliminated ESPN and divided the NASCAR
92
Television
schedule among Fox, NBC, and TNT. The track owners may have agreed to
the proposal because it increased the total amount of the broadcast fees with
their receiving the largest percentage: 65 percent, with the racing teams sharing 25 percent and NASCAR receiving the remaining 10 percent.26 However,
the France family owns 35 percent of International Speedway Corporation
(ISC) and controls 65 percent of the voting power within the corporation.
ISC, in turn, owns 11 race tracks that host Nextel Cup races.27
According to France, our new television lineup changed the sport. We instantly reached a broader audience. NASCAR went from a haphazard schedule of mostly cable broadcasts to a coordinated schedule that airs primarily
on broadcast television.28 While France asserts the new contract makes it
easier for fans, or potential fans, to nd the races on television, the schedule
is still split among three networks instead of one. While NASCAR taking
over the fees negotiation did substantially increase how much track owners
receive, it also increased the networks investment that has to be recouped.
Industry analyst Dennis McAlpine conrms the nancial consequences of
the investment, The simple fact is the rights will be so expensive that whoever gets it will also have to spend a lot to promote it and try to get their
money back,29 hence, viewers of the Bristol race being reminded 31 times to
watch SportsCenter after the race.
Of course, the most obvious way to make a prot on their investment
is for the networks to increase ratings of the races. Prior to the rst race
on ESPN, commercials celebrating NASCARs return aired on ESPN and
ESPN2. With their resources as part of the Disney family, ABC and ESPN
created original programming to expose potential viewers to NASCAR.
ESPN and its outlets, including ESPN2, air approximately 66 hours of NASCAR-related programming a week, including NASCAR: The Dirt, Race
Wizard, and NASCAR Tonight.30 Also, by virtue of its pseudojournalistic position, ESPN can emphasize NASCAR in its reporting, like its a real
sport.31 There have been suggestions that prior to the broadcast deal, ESPN
increased its coverage of NASCAR in its news programming to gain favor.32
With the contract, ESPN has even more reason to feature NASCAR instead
of other sports in its reporting. With its news reporting, ESPN can tantalize
viewers by dramatizing the action of NASCAR with specially selected highlights from races.
ABC capitalized on the current reality TV craze by creating two original
series, Fast Cars & SuperstarsGillette Young Guns Celebrity Race and
NASCAR in Primetime. The rst, Fast Cars built on Gillettes advertising campaign featuring six young drivers: Ryan Newman, Carl Edwards,
Jimmie Johnson, Kasey Kahne, Kurt Busch, and Jamie McMurray.33 The
show featured 12 athletes and entertainers, such as John Elway, Tony Hawk,
Jewel, William Shatner, and Bill Cowher, who after training and coaching
by the drivers, competed on the track. Fast Cars premiered on June 7 and
93
aired for seven weeks. ABCs second NASCAR-themed show of the summer, NASCAR in Primetime aired for ve weeks beginning August 8, on
Wednesday nights at 10 P.M.34 This docu-reality show offered viewers the
personal and professional stories of their favorite drivers. Presenting NASCAR in primetime was a very clever maneuver by ABC. These programs
aired in the weeks preceding ESPN/ABCs portion of the Nextel Cup schedule. By airing these programs in primetime, ABC exposed racing to viewers
who may never have seen a race. Fast Cars and NASCAR in Primetime
could reach nonsports viewers. The goal was surely to drive new viewers to
the Nextel Cup races televised on ESPN and ABC.
As far as actual ratings, ESPN and ABC have some work to do. The Daytona 500 historically scores a rating of 1011.5; each ratings point equals
1 percent of U.S. households. The fall race at Lowes Motor Speedway in
Charlotte, North Carolina, had a 5.1 and 4.7 rating in 2005 and 2006, respectively, when NBC broadcast the race.35 In 2007, on ABC, the race had a
4.2 rating.36 However, Game 2 of the MLB American League Championship
Series was on NBC at the same time and scored a rating of 5.8. To put these
numbers in perspective, for the week of October 8, 2007, the week of the fall
Charlotte race, the highest-rated show was Dancing with the Stars with a 12.8
rating. The same week, NFL Sunday Night Football (New Orleans Saints v.
Seattle Seahawks, NBC) scored 7.1, while the Cowboys and Bills on ESPN
Monday Night Football scored a 9.6.37 Broadcast and cable networks along
with advertisers are able to break the total number of households down into
subgroups based on sex, age, race, and so forth. For example, although the
Charlotte race on ABC seems to have a low rating, it may have scored higher
with certain groups, such as men in the 18 to 34 age group. An advertiser
such as Budweiser or Interstate Batteries will place its commercials based
on the ratings for their potential customers, probably not the ratings for the
total number of households.
As for Disneys coup in synergy: the movie, Cars (Lasseter 2006). The
movie premiered in May 2006, at Lowes Motor Speedway in Charlotte,
North Carolina, and was released in the United States on June 6, 2006. Cars
was produced by Pixar (now owned by Disney), presented by Walt Disney,
and distributed by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution (owned by Disney).38
The movie features Pixars signature computer-generated animation, in this
case, anthropomorphic cars. The lead character is Lightning McQueen, a
rising rookie in the Piston Cup.39 The voices of real race car drivers such as
Richard Petty, Darrell Waltrip, and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., unmistakably link
the movie with the Nextel Cup series. The movie was a box ofce hit grossing over $244 million, domestically.40 Although it was released one year prior
to ESPNs airing Nextel Cup races, the movie denitely reached potential
viewers of the Sunday races. Without an insider conrming the fact, there is
no denitive way of knowing if Disney was already in contract negotiations
94
Television
with NASCAR when Cars was in production. However, NBC informed NASCAR of its decision against renewing its contract in late summer 2005.41 It
certainly is an interesting coincidence that Disney produced an animated
movie with a racing theme and a year later begins televising races.
Personally, as an enthusiastic fan who watches every week, I have to commend how ESPN and ABC use technology to improve my viewing experience. Television is denitely the best medium for sports, but the advances in
technology really put the fan in the thick of the action. There are usually at
least six cars in the race with in-car cameras; the cars are spread throughout
the eld ensuring coverage all over the track. Instead of just one camera, the
cars usually have three: one inside the car, one on top, and one on the rear.
Along with the in-car cameras, ESPN/ABC also place between 60 and 75
high-denition cameras around the track and in the pits.42 Having all these
cameras really enhances the viewing experience with replays, close-ups, and
different angles. However, on the ip-side, these cameras represent additional capital expenditure, not to mention employing all the crew members
to operate them. Along with the broadcast fees, ESPN/ABC incur considerable expense in order to televise the races in innovative and creative ways to
keep viewers engaged.
Another technological advance that ESPN/ABC utilizes during the races
is broadcasting the radio communications between the driver and his crew.
Fans attending live races use scanners and select which driver they want to
listen to, but in the past, fans at home havent been able to enjoy this insider
perspective. ESPN/ABC selectively incorporate driver/crew chief communications, but they are most often included when a driver is having trouble with
his car or has wrecked. Another exciting time viewers hear is during what
ESPN calls, Full Throttle. During a restart after a caution, the commentators are silent so the only audio is the cars roaring past the start/nish line
and the spotters telling the drivers to go, go, go, when the green ag waves.
Although it doesnt directly relate to the racing action, ESPN has created
an animated (though it appears real) gigantic television screen that appears
to be suspended at the very top of the grandstands at the races. It is not really there, and of course, fans at the race cant see it, but for fans at home,
it is fascinating and an amusing gadget. The screen does not show scenes
from the race but promos for ESPN programming. When the promos are
nished, the screen folds down like a laptop computer. Despite myself, I nd
myself paying attention to the promos because of the novelty of the television screenprobably the reason for it all along.
THE IMPLICATIONS
My intention is not to present Disney, ESPN, or ABC negatively. Disneys capitalizing on marketing opportunities as well as creating its own
95
opportunities is not unusual among megamedia corporations. Murdochs

News Corporation, Viacom, and Time Warner practice the same methods,
but as an enthusiastic Nextel Cup fan, I am more aware of how these practices manifest on ESPN and ABC. I think its a safe prediction that an analysis of most any televised professional spectator sport will consistently reveal
the same techniques, no matter what network broadcasts the event.
So really, what does all this mean for fans? As much as television viewers
complain about commercials, privately owned media is a better alternative
when compared to media controlled or nanced by the government. However, having periodic commercial breaks for consumer products is vastly different from the current structure of races. Disney resourcefully integrates all
its holdings to drive viewers to its programming. In the process, the races
are disrupted and interrupted by graphics, promos, and audio above and beyond mere commercial breaks, effectively reducing the race to a commodied
form.43 One can walk away or change the channel during an actual commercial break, but one cant avoid the promos on ESPN and ABC because they
are embedded in the race. Watching the race means being bombarding with
the networks self-promotion.
Looking beyond the races, the concentration of media ownership should
be a concern for everyone because it limits the number and diversity of
sources of information. This concentration of ownership is powerpower to
determine what is available for consumption or viewing. As Ben Bagdikian
eloquently summarizes the dilemma,
The threat does not lie in the commercial operation of the mass media. It is
the best method there is and, with all its faults, it is not inherently bad. But
narrow control, whether by the government or corporation, is inherently
bad. In the end, no small group, certainly no group with as much uniformity of outlook and as concentrated in power as current media corporations, can be sufciently open and exible to reect the full richness and
diversity of societys values and needs.44
Because ESPN and ABC had the money, by virtue of Disney, to contract with
NASCAR, they determine what fans see on the screen, whether it is the actual race, advertised products, or promos for their programming. As a result,
these networks, intentionally or accidentally, minimize our options.
THE FUTURE
With the current broadcast contract, ESPN and ABC, along with Fox
and TNT, will be the home for NASCAR until 2014. If, upon the expiration
of the current contract, NASCAR determines to keep the same arrangement
for broadcasting races, then fans are in for more of the same, especially if
the broadcast rights fees increase another 40 percent. As I stated before,
96
Television
programming promos during the races are more or less free for the networks. The networks have to recoup their investment some way. The most
obvious method is by increasing ratings of the races as well as their other
shows so they can raise advertising rates.
Between now and 2014, NASCAR can assess the NFL Networks model.
Currently, the NFL Network is embattled with cable providers, and many
subscribers do not have access to the games. The fewer homes that have access to games means the less the NFL Network can charge for advertising.
Also, the NFL Network is not receiving the maximum amount of cable subscriber fees. Until it can resolve this issue, the NFL is not proting from having its own network. However, if the NFL can negotiate with cable providers
so that the NFL Network is part of basic cable packages, NASCAR will take
a hard look. Having its own network will give NASCAR more control over
programming. While it may seem that NASCAR would lose the broadcast
rights by having its own network, it will gain subscriber fees from the cable
providers as well as advertising revenue. ESPN earns one of the highest
subscriber fees at $2.70 per subscriber and is in 85 million homesthat is a
lot of money!45
For NASCAR to take this step, a couple of things have to happen. First,
the NFL Network has to be protable. Second, NASCAR has to be convinced
that it has the clout to demand its network be included in most basic cable
packages. Lastly, NASCAR has to be certain that it can command high subscriber fees and even higher advertising rates. Based on NASCARs power
and popularity, these events are highly probable. Of course, NASCAR may
partner with a successful network, such as ESPN. With a partnership, NASCAR can still retain control, along with the prots, while at the same time
supplement its business savvy with the television experience of an established cable network. In that case, the NASCAR Network is not in the too
distant future for race fans.
What will races look like on the NASCAR Network? Much as they do
on ESPN or ABC, maybe even worse. Like any other network, the potential
NASCAR Network will not survive nancially by only selling advertising
during three races each week (Nextel/Sprint Cup, Busch/Nationwide Cup,
and Craftsman Truck Series).46 It will have to drive viewers, and advertisers,
to its other programming. The sport will become even more commodied
because NASCAR will have to commercialize everything associated with the
racesdrivers, drivers personal lives, crew chiefs, sponsors, motors, engines,
technology, tracks, and car manufacturersunder the guise of bringing fans
closer to the action and offering insider information. The one-car team and
less popular drivers will be ignored because they wont raise as much money
for NASCAR. Even some national companies will not be able to afford to advertise during races, much less local advertisers. But the biggest loss for fans
will be that NASCAR will funnel and control all information about the sport.
97
It will decide who to feature, what to report, and what makes good racing;
unfortunately, I think its decisions will be based solely on potential prots,
thereby limiting fans choices.
NOTES
1. Larry Stewart, NASCAR: On the road again. Los Angeles Times, February 22,
2007, home edition, Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.
roanoke.edu/ (accessed October 20, 2007).
2. John Consoli, ESPN Kicks Nascars Tires. MediaWeek 15, no. 38 (October 24,
2005): 68. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 29, 2007).
3. NASCAR Revs Up Rights Fees. Broadcasting & Cable 135, no. 53 (December 12,
2005): 23. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 3,
2007).
4. Drivers earn points toward the Nextel Cup championship based on their nishing position in a race and earn ve bonus points for leading a lap or leading the most
laps. After the rst 26 races, the top 12 drivers in points are eligible to compete for
the Nextel Cup Championship: The Chase for the Cup.
5. Mark Emmons, Its the season of change for NASCARs followers: series will feature foreign cars, driver. San Jose Mercury New, February 18, 2007, Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed May 4, 2007).
6. Robert V. Bellamy Jr., The Evolving Television Sports Marketplace, in MediaSport, ed L. A. Wenner (New York: Routledge, 1998), 73.
7. Susan Tyler Eastman and Gregory D. Newton, Promoting prime-time programs in megasporting events. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 40, no. 3
(Summer 1996): 366. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 14, 2007).
8. For further discussion of the political climate and the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, see John Allen Hendricks, The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Its Impact on
the Electronic Media of the 21st Century. Communications & the Law 21, no. 2 (June
1999): 39; and Michele Hilmes, Only Connect: A Cultural History of Broadcasting in the
United States (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2002).
9. Barry D. McPherson, James E. Curtis, and John W. Loy, The Social Signicance
of Sport: An Introduction to the Sociology of Sport (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Books, 1989).
10. Stuart Evey with Irv Broughton, ESPN The No-Holds-Barred Story of Power,
Ego, Money and Vision that Transformed a Culture (Chicago: Triumph Books, 2004).
11. Hoovers Company Records, The Walt Disney Company, Lexis-Nexis Academic,
via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed November 12, 2007).
12. Alan B. Albarran and Terry Moellinger, The Top Six Communication Industry Firms: Structure, Performance and Strategy, in Media Firms: Structures, Operations and Performance, ed. R. G. Picard (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc.,
2002), 103.
13. Comcast Spotlight, Lynchburg, Virginia ofce (rates are for the 2007 NFL and
Nextel Cup seasons).
98
Television
14. Susan Tyler Eastman, Douglas A. Ferguson, and Robert A. Klein, eds. Media
Promotion and Marketing for Broadcasting, Cable and the Internet, 5th edition (Burlington, MA: Focal Press, 2006), 15.
15. Adam Arvidsson, Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture (London, New
York: Taylor & Francis, Routledge, 2006), 75.
16. Robert W. McChesney, The Political Economy of Global Communication, in
Capitalism and the Information Age: The Political Economy of the Global Communication in Revolution, eds. R. W. McChesney, J. B. Foster, and E. M. Wood, (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1998), 1.
17. David Croteau and William Hoynes, The Business of Media: Corporate Media and
the Public Interest (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2001), 74.
18. Ibid., 117.
19. Alan Law, Jean Harvey, and Stuart Kemp, The Global Sport Mass Media Oligopoly: The three usual suspects and more. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport 37, no. 34 (2002): 279.
20. David Rowe, The global love-match: sport and television, Media, Culture &
Society 18, no. 4 (October, 1996): 565.
21. Robert G. Hagstrom, The Business that Drives the Sport: The NASCAR Way (New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998), 147.
22. Local ABC and Fox afliates; Lynchburg/Roanoke DMA.
23. Richard Thomaselli, How NASCAR plans to get back on the fast track, Advertising Age 78, no. 7 (February 12, 2007): 3. Communication & Mass Media Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 5, 2007).
24. Brian France, Bringing Racing into Prime Time, Newsweek, June 11, 2007,
U.S. edition, Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.
edu/ (accessed October 20, 2007).
25. Tedesco, NASCAR in the drivers seat. Broadcasting & Cable 129, no. 47 (November 19, 1999): 7. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed
February 2, 2008).
26. Michael Hiestand, New TV Contract brings ABC, ESPN into NASCAR fold,
USA Today, December 8, 2005, nal edition, Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://
0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed October 20, 2007).
27. Hoovers Company Records, International Speedway Corporation, Lexis-Nexis
Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed November
12, 2007).
28. France, Bringing Racing.
29. Ben Grossman, Lots of Networks Want a Piece of NASCAR. Broadcasting &
Cable 135, no. 39 (September 26, 2005): 18. Communication & Mass Media Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 3, 2007).
30. Michael Hiestand, ESPNs revolutionary graphics will show the unseen at
NASCAR races, USA Today, July 25, 2007, nal edition, Lexis-Nexis Academic, via
http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed October 20, 2007).
31. Stewart, NASCAR: On the Road again.
32. Grossman, Lots of Networks.
33. Realty TV World, ABC announces Fast Cars & Superstars to premiere June 7,
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/abc (accessed November 23, 2007).
99
34. Reality TV World, ABCs NASCAR in Primetime docu-reality series to premiere August 8, http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/abc-nascar-in-primtime (accessed November 23, 2007).
35. Jim Peltz, NASCAR: Caution Period, Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2007,
Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed
October 20, 2007).
36. Nielsen Ratings, Broadcasting & Cable 137, no. 42 (October 22, 2007): 20. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed January 30, 2008).
37. Ibid.
38. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_(lm) (accessed November 30,
2007).
39. From 19722002, R J Reynolds/Nabisco was the sponsor of NASCARs premier
series, and it was called the Winston Cup.
40. Box Ofce Mojo, http://www.boxofcemojo.com/movies/?id=cars.htm (accessed
November 30, 2007).
41. Consoli, ESPN Kicks NASCARs Tires.
42. Kelly Dixon, ESPN Back with a Vroom, St. Petersburg Times, July 29, 2007,
Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.edu/ (accessed
October 20, 2007).
43. Law et al., The Global Sport Mass Media Oligopoly.
44. Ben H. Bagdilian, The Media Monopoly, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press,
1990), 223.
45. Michael Hiestand, ESPN makes another Splash, USA Today, October 19, 2005,
nal edition, Lexis-Nexis Academic, via http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ntel.roanoke.
edu/ (accessed October 20, 2007).
46. Beginning with the 2008 season, the Nextel Cup series will be called the Sprint
Cup. Also, Nationwide is the sponsor for the former Busch series.
chapter 6
Show Time: Sundance Meets

Corporate America
K. Alex Ilyasova
In the interest of full disclosure, let me state at the beginning that I at times
suffer from self-diagnosed Chronic Heterosexual Fatigue Syndrome. The condition, like Chronic Whiteness Fatigue Syndrome, rst announced and selfdiagnosed by Darrell Y. Hamamoto in his article How to Rob: Strong-Arming
Our Way to Equity and Diversity, has not yet made it into the psychiatric
clinical literature nor is it found among the insurance-billable psychic maladies catalogued in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.1
Following Hamamotos example, I will not go too deeply into the behavioral
manifestations of this disorder. I will just say that its causes or origin owes
itself to a lifetime of unrelenting exposure to a heterosexual-dominated universe multiplied many times over and intensied via the instruments of mass
communication, such as television.
Like Hamamoto, there are certain stop-gap measures I have devised to
keep myself on just this side of a complete psychotic break: watching Desert Hearts for the um-teenth time (a lesbian cult classic), relaxing with the
Logo Channel (gay and lesbian cable channel) or the Sundance Channel in
the background, watching Ellen, reading the latest online spoilers for the
next season of The L Word, and actively supporting queer cinema as an antidote to the toxic dominant hetero-media.2 And on particularly grim days,
I fantasize about queer alternatives. I fantasize that one day queer people will
have our own talk show like Oprah, our own sitcoms like Friends, and our own
cable channels . . . like Logo! Oh wait, come to think of it, we do Ellen and
Will and Grace come to mind. Unlike Hamamotos semisarcastic point that
102
Television
Asian Americans have failed to parlay our proud past and present criminal
traditions into signicant wealth and power,3 which he argues is part of
the cause and consequence of their near-invisibility, marginalization, and
continued disparagement on White-controlled TV,4 queer culture today has
market power on white heterosexual-controlled TV. The December 2003
issue of Vanity Fair stated it best: Ten years ago American woke up to Willard Scotts forecast; now it awakens to a pair of aming-red leather pants.5
In other words, queer culture or gay culture appears to have made it in terms
of reaching the mainstream or the dominant heterosexual viewing audience. Were there, daily, on your television screens. However, like the nearinvisible and marginalized Asian American, our presence in the mainstream
is nonthreatening and thus void of any real power and effect. For example,
there is desexualized, romantically challenged Will on Will and Grace or the
caricatures of the consumer-obsessed, trend-setting, stereotypical (dont forget nonthreatening) gay men in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and lastly,
the dont-ask-dont-tell, approachable (and thus nonthreatening), dancing
lesbian diva who never mentions it on television, Ellen.
With all this mainstreaming of gay and lesbian culture on the major networksABC, CBS, NBCit seems important to examine if there are any
other places on television where viewers can see the lives of gays and lesbians represented in more complex ways.6 One place is on the cable networks.
However, as media companies compete for both prots, and viewers, the
content is often sacriced for savings. And so, I look at the recent developments with regard to media conglomerates and how these events may affect
the gay and lesbian content on cable networks. Specically, I will discuss
how one burgeoning relationship, the relationship between the media conglomerate Viacom and the independent (indie) lm industryan industry
that continues to be inuenced and shaped by the projects and talents of
queer-identied lmmakers and directorstranslates into the type of content viewers see on their televisions, particularly their cable networks such
as Showtime and HBO.
Ill be completely honest here: When I rst started thinking about the
connection between media conglomerates, the indie lm industry, and queer
representation, I was suffering from another episode of Chronic Heterosexual Fatigue Syndrome. My initial argument was that the increasing relationship between Viacom and the indie lm industry would have yet another
mainstreaming effect on the few queer-focused cable shows that currently
explore the lives of gay men and lesbians in a more complex way. Im thinking specically of Queer as Folk and some of the issues the show took on, such
as living with HIV/AIDS, the anxiety and tensions that exist around aging,
the practices and representation of safe sex, testicular cancer, and community activism. Im also thinking specically of The L Word and the fact that
the shows very existence signals for the rst time the power and potential
Show Time
103
of the lesbian community. Although, I still think that the increasing relationship between the indie industry and the media giants has the potential to do
more harm than good in terms of mainstreaming the content of a show such
as The L Word on the cable networks, at the same time, it seems that the work
of indie lmmakers who make it to the safe havens of nancial security by
working for big media companies also have the potential to change things as
well. And so, in what follows, I discuss the relationship between large media
conglomerates and the indie industry and how that has lead to gay and lesbian content on cable networks, and I use The L Word and its appearance and
success on Showtime as my primary example. However, my main argument
is that the potential for resisting mainstreaming effects does exist because of
the increasing relationship between the indie industry and the media giants.
I discuss this potential by rst exploring some of the history with both
the development of media conglomerates and the indie lm industry. In particular, I look at some of the key legislation that has led to the concentration
of media we currently have. I look at one of the largest media conglomerates,
Viacom, and some of the nancial holdings and subsidiaries that illustrate
the extent of power these conglomerates wield. And, I trace how this one
media conglomerate has established a relationship with the indie lm industryin this case, The Sundance Institute and The Sundance Film Festival.
Lastly, to illustrate this potential change, I look at the relationship between
the indie lmmakers that have made The L Word successful and a signature
for Showtime; specically, I look at some of the ways these lmmakers and
directors have adapted the strategies used by media giants to create work
that successfully stays on the air and continues to represent the more complex lives of the queer community.
THE GROWTH OF MEDIA CONGLOMERATES
At the end of 2006, Mother Jones magazine reported that there are eight
giant media companies dominating the U.S. media:7
Disney (market value: $72.8 billion)

AOL-Time Warner (market value: $90.7 billion)
Viacom (market value: $53.9 billion)
General Electric (owner of NBC, market value: $390.6 billion)
News Corporation (market value: $56.7 billion)
Yahoo! (market value: $40.1 billion)
Microsoft (market value: $306.8 billion)
Google (market value: $154.6 billion)
This translates into the realization that most people are getting their news,
information, and programming from eight giant media companies. These
megamedia companies are considered the media elite dominating on both
104
Television
the national and global media level. For the purposes of this article, I focus
on the top ve media corporations because of their longer histories and sustained dominance in the media market.
Such a concentration of ownership by media corporations has not always
been so integrated and unfathomably large, partly because TV and movie
companies were the parent companies, at least until the 1970s. For example,
according to Ben H. Bagdikian, a media critic and author of The Media Monopoly, In 1983, fty corporations dominated most of every mass medium
and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal.8 However,
in the 1980s, the unrelenting efforts of network lobbyists to overturn the
Financial Interest and Syndication Rules, or Fin-Syn, reduced the number to
29 companies by 1987.9 According to The Museum of Broadcast Communication, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), implemented the
[Fin-Syn] rules in 1970, attempting to increase programming diversity and
limit the market control of three broadcast television networks,10 namely
NBC, CBS, and ABC. The main objective of Fin-Syn was to limit the amount
of prime-time programming the networks could produce themselves,11 or,
in other words, keeping the means of production separate from distribution,
much like what the Paramount Decree of 1948 had done for the movie industry. Fin-Syn attempted to do this by taking away the long-term monetary
rights to programs created by the networks, severely restricting their participation in syndication,12 and by eliminating incentives for the networks
to produce programs. After the collapse of Fin-Syn, which began in the early
1980s, the trend toward vertical integrationthe control of production, distribution, and exhibitionopened the way for production organizations to
merge with distribution organizations. Examples of production and distribution coming together were rst seen with FOX Broadcasting, or more
specically Fox Pictures, and a Hollywood studio, then with Paramount and
Warner Brothers, and by the mid-1990s, Disney purchasing one of the big
networks, in this case ABC, instead of starting one from scratch.13 As Bagdikian goes to chronicle,
[I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. . . . [I]n 1997, the
biggest rms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal,
at the time the biggest media merger ever. . . . [In 2000] AOL Time Warners $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger
[than the biggest deal of 1983].14
One of the results of such huge mergers is the consolidation of numerous

media companies into media conglomerates who controlled both the means
of production and distribution, a strategy that the FCC was attempting to
prevent.
These now larger-than-life media corporations own businesses across
various industries, such as distribution networks, production companies,
Show Time
105
manufacturing of other related products such as toys, and retailingthis is

vertical integration at its nest, the owning of everything up and down the production and distribution chain. Vertical integration arguably makes it easy to
have horizontal help or cooperation across different divisions. For example,
Think of [a company] like Sony, which produce, distribute, and exhibit the
Spiderman movies but also the DVDs and games which can be viewed/played
on Sony DVD players and/or Playstations, [and] the soundtrack which is
populated by Sony Music artists. [T]hey have vertical monopolies of different media which can cross-pollinate across their holdings horizontally.15 As
Anup Shah explains, author of Corporate Inuence in the Media, this vertical
integration means that while this is good for their business, the diversity
of opinions and issues we can see being discussed by them will be less well
covered.16 The wider ramications include enhanced market power through
cross-promotion and cross-selling, unrestrained ability to own and control
the total process, and increased ability to seize the competition.
Inherent in this business strategy is the enormous inuence these corporations have in shaping mainstream medianationally and globally. To
play devils advocate for a moment, the idea of corporate media itself is not
inherently bad. As Robert W. McChesney points out, global conglomerates
can at times have a progressive impact on culture, especially when they enter
nations that had been tightly controlled by corrupt crony media (as in parts
of Asia). The global commercial-media system is radical in that it will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of prots.17
Additionally, on the surface, the idea that mainstream media is more corporate owned translates into the media feeling the same market pressures and
drives that have affected and spurred competition among companies. Such
competition in the past has fueled innovation, facilitated risk-taking (which
is connected to innovation) and, with regard to news reporting and media in
general, has pushed for better quality.
However, the concern that has grown out of the media mergers and consolidation efforts of corporations is that such concentration of ownership by a
handful of corporations is having the positive effects mentioned previously.
For example, the idea of competition facilitating innovation and pushing for
better quality has, with few exceptions, not materialized. Im thinking of the
reality shows on all the major networks and the lack of local news reporting that extends beyond the personal survival tale of a local resident. As a
result, the enormous inuence these media conglomerates have in shaping
mainstream media is both their strength and their weakness. And in terms
of competition, as is the heart of traditional capitalism, where free markets
experiment to create better, more unique products, in the media market
such capitalist intentions translate more into mutual aid and shared investments than outright competition. As Ben H. Bagdikian explains, to compete
outright
106
Television
would mean offering differing kinds of programs that reect the widely
different tastes, backgrounds, and activities of the American population.
To compete outright would mean unique products and the goal of a winner-take-all victory. Instead, the Big Five indulge in mutual aid and share
investments in the same media products. They jointly conform to the periodic ratings that presume to show what kinds of programs have fractionally larger audiences, after which the competitors then imitate the
winners and take slightly varying shares of the total points.18
One of the results of such cooperation, which is another business strategy

employed by the media conglomerates, is that the thousands of media outlets
then carry highly duplicative contentagain, thinking of reality shows here.
In addition to cooperation with each other, when it serves their business
interests, the big ve also have interlocking members on their boards of directors. Interlocking, the practice of one board member sitting on a board of
another company, is yet another business strategy used by these media giants
to sustain their status as major owners of all kinds of media. As Bagdikian
reports, According to a study by Aaron Moore in the March/April 2003
Columbia Journalism Review, News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, and Time
Warner have forty-ve interlocking directors.19
As Ted Turner explains in a 2004 article for Washington Monthly titled,
My Big Beef with Big Media,
Unless we have a climate that will allow more independent media companies to survive, a dangerously high percentage of what we see and what
we dont see will be shaped by the prot motives and political interests of
large, publicly traded conglomerates. [ . . . ] Let me be clear: As a business
proposition, consolidation makes sense. The moguls behind the mergers
are acting in their corporate interests and playing by the rules. We just
shouldnt have those rules.20
One of the rules that Ted Turner is referring to is the FCC restrictions on
how many stations a company can own and what percentage of the audience
they are allowed to reach, or audience-reach cap. In 1984, the FCC raised
the number of stations one company can own from 7 to 12. A year later it
revised this ruling to include an audience-reach cap of 25 percent, meaning that media companies were prohibited from owning TV stations that
together reached more than 25% of the national audience.21 By 1996, the
FCC did away with numerical caps and raised the audience-reach cap to 35
percent. And in the summer of 2003, it raised it again to 45 percent. Moreover,
the FCC also allowed corporations to own a newspaper and a TV station
in the same market and permitted corporations to own three TV stations in
the largest markets, up from two, and two stations in medium-sized markets,
up from one.22 More recently, in December of 2007, the FCC overturned
Show Time
107
a 32-year-old ruling banning the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcasting. Essentially, the new ruling allows newspapers to own one television
station or one radio station but only in the very largest markets.23 These
rulings are important to mention because most citizens get their views and
understandings of the world around them from mainstream media. Thus,
the concern over the concentration of ownership has led many critics to the
following points of contention: (1) very few media owners are inuencing
what issues and perspectives reach the masses; (2) large corporations that
own television channels and/or newspaper/magazines would understandably not encourage information that criticizes the company; and (3) vertical
integration, cooperation, and interlocking as business strategies have made
competition difcult for smaller companies, forcing them out of business,
making them prone to buy outs, or encouraging them to try and emulate the
larger corporations.
VIACOM AND THE INDIE INDUSTRY
Viacom is a particularly useful media conglomerate to focus on for a number of reasons. First, Viacom is one of the top-tier media conglomerates, having nancial interests in broadcast and cable television, radio, Internet, book
publishing, and lm production and distribution. As stated on their company
Web site, Viacom is a leading global media company [ . . . ] with programming that appeals to audiences in every demographic category across virtually all media, the company is a leading in the creation, promotion, and
distribution of entertainment, news, sports, music, and comedy.24 Second,
the self-described interests of the companyleading in the creation, promotion, and distributionillustrates clearly Viacoms success in vertically
integrating its businesses, and as youll read shortly, it has also often cooperated with its competitors when it is benecial to do so. Some of the
conglomerates highly recognizable properties include:
CBS network: one of the oldest television networks

MTV: most popular teen media outlet
Simon and Schuster: one of the worlds largest book publishers
Blockbuster: operates and franchises video stores around the world
Paramount Pictures: producer and distributor of motion pictures25
Within this vertically integrated structure is the connection between

Viacom and the indie lm industry. Viacom owns the Showtime movie networks, which also manage the Sundance Channel. This is particularly relevant because Viacoms ownership of Showtime, and, more recently, the
Sundance Channel, establishes the connection and growing relationship it
has to the indie industry. Let me explain this further: In 1990, Showtime
108
Television
began acquiring and premiering independent lms directly for the channel.
It started with some short-lm anthologies and eventually expanded into
the realm of feature-length lms, one of the most recognized being Lolita,
directed by Adrian Lyne. In 1996, in a joint venture with CBS Corporation
(Showtime Networks are part of CBS Corporation as well), and in cooperation with Robert Redford and NBC Universal, the Sundance Channel was
launched in order to show independent lms on TV. As an interesting side
note, a year earlier the Sundance Film Festival, the brainchild of Robert Redford and arguably now the worlds premiere forum and competitive marketplace for independent lm, had a record-breaking year in terms of the
number of feature lms and short lms presented, as well as sold-out attendance. Understandably, it was just a matter of time before Corporate America
and the big ve in particular took notice. But, Im getting ahead of myself.
Before I discuss this connection further, let me provide some background
information about the indie lm industry.
THE INDIE FILM INDUSTRY
It seems important to note the roots of this industry in order to understand what it is evolving into now or possibly what it has, at least partially,
always been. Indie lms have been thought of as typically low-budget, smallstudio-produced lms. Additionally, indie lms have often been identiable
by their content and style, which has resulted in their developing a reputation for representing more than their share of art lms, foreign language
lms that larger studios refuse to make, and lms that introduce and explore
topics that are seen as too avant-garde or politically risky for mainstream
producers. The underlying sentiment of the defenders of indie lmmaking is
the maintenance, at all costs, of the writers or directors personal, creative,
and artistic vision for the lm. As a result, old school indie lmmakers
tend to be identied as ones that reject mainstream standardsincluding
the business-minded approaches of production companiesand explore and
create lms that preserve the artistic nature and integrity of lmmaking.
Thats arguably the idealistic version. The reality, with of course some
exceptions, is that indie lmmakers have almost always existed alongside,
and at times have worked directly with, the major lm studios of the day.
For example, around 1908 when Thomas A. Edison and his Motion Pictures
Patent Company created a monopoly in the lm industry by combining a
number of lm companies, and an oligopoly by holding most of the patents
for lm equipment, many indie lmmakers shunned the Edison Trust Corporation and moved west to California. These indie lmmakers moved as
far away as possible in order to avoid Edisons lawyers, to continue making
their smaller, yet more creative lms, and, ironically, to create the second
oligopoly in Hollywood. As one article about the history of the independent
Show Time
109
lm industry describes, Louis B. Mayer, the Warner Brothers, and all the
other pioneers of the original big six studios who fought Thomas Edison
over his lm patents all started out as independent lmmakers, ghting the
very thing they would become: corporate lmmakers trying to control the
lm market.26
The 1920s, and later the 1930s, not only brought the pressures of the corporate lm industry but also the emergence of lm societies such as The
London Film Society in England. Such societies brought together lmmakers passionate about the art of lmmaking. It provided a forum for them to
share and develop ideas about lm editing techniques (such as montage) and
subject matter (such as alternative realities and interior thoughts of characters). Eventually, these lm societies that started in Europe made their way
to Hollywood where the very thing these societies railed against (big lm
studios) lived and prospered.27 It was arguably during this period where
independent lmmakers made the types of lms still often considered as
true indie lms todaylms screened at little art-house theaters that were
owned and operated on an independent level. Although the lms did not have
packed audiences, often lmmakers made enough to cover their expenses and
even have a little prot because the lms cost hardly anything to make.
Skipping ahead a bit, past World War II, we hit the 1950s. According to
some television history trivia, 19501959 was a particularly exciting time
for the television industry. According to one source, [i]n the USA, [black
and white] television exploded onto the scene at the beginning of the decade,
mid-decade saw electronic color television and remote controls launched,
and at the end of the decade the public witnessed some interesting styling
changes and the introduction of transistorized television.28 What did this
new technology in the television industry mean for big studios of the day?
Namely, a noticeable downswing in their prots. And so, to lure people out
of their living rooms and back into the movie theaters big Hollywood studios offered color lms on a wide screen format.29 Meanwhile, as the big
Hollywood studios grew, as McCarthyism played its part in censorship, lm
studios grew conservative in their lm choices and imposed more artistic
restrictions on lmmakers. As a result, some big-time directors sought other
means (for example, ghost-directing) to create and be part of the lms that
allowed for artistic experimentation even in highly restricting times. For example, Howard Hawks, who made dozens of lm classics including Scarface
(1932), Only Angels Have Wings (1939) and To Have and Have Not (1944),
directed The Thing From Another World (1951) without out receiving credit
because it gave him a chance to use his strong narrative style to the full
extent with an emphasis on character motives and realistic dialogue.30 And
so, even in that time, people who had made-it still strived to be part of the
indie lm scene as a way to make movies without big Hollywood studio restrictions and commercialism.
110
Television
Coming almost to the end now, for our purposes, in terms of indie lm
history, are the 1960s and 1970s and the concept of lm festivals. Although
the concept of having contests among lmmakers, as well as promoting their
lms through such venues, has been around since the lm industry itself, it
wasnt until the 60s and 70s that lm festivals blossomed into full-edged
circuits. In 1978, what has become the Sundance Film Festival started in
Salt Lake City, Utah. The guiding goal, at that time, was to showcase lms
made regionally outside the studio system. In 1985, Robert Redford, a local
resident and a person who was involved in the festival from the beginning,
took over the artistic management of the festival through his arts organization the Sundance Institute. By 1991, the lm festival having gone through
various name changesfrom the U.S. Film Festival to the Utah/U.S. Film
Festival to the United States Film & Video Festival to the Sundance/United
States Film Festival31nally settled on the Sundance International Film
Festival. The success of Sundance, as the story goes, was spurred by Redfords management of the festival, the move from Salt Lake City to Park City
(a ski resort town in the mountains), and changing the festival date from
September to January (making it the only lm festival held at a ski resort
during ski season).
By 1992, Sundance had attracted the attention of American audiences
who were increasingly being let down by the seemingly unending number of
unadventurous, lowest-common-denominator nature of Hollywood production lms.32 Throughout the 1990s, Sundance rmly established itself as the
place where you could see talent early, launching the careers of independent
lmmakers such as Kevin Smith (Clerks, 1994), Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi, 1992), and Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, 1992). Understandably, it
was just a matter of time before Hollywood studios really took notice and became invested. As Kenneth Turan, a lm critic and author of From Sundance
to Sarajevo: Film Festivals and the World They Made, describes, by 1996, after
the much-publicized fuss made over the lm Shine, it was clear how and why
Sundance has changed in its relatively short life. According to Turan,
Ever since Redfords Sundance Institute had taken over the festival, the putative specter of the evil empire of Hollywood and the movie establishment
had hung over the event. Every year, agents and development executives
[make] the trek to Park City in greater and greater numbers, paying up
to $5,000 for coveted Fast Passes to the entire festival and prowling the
occasionally snowy streets on a lonely mission to discover the Next New
Thing.33
To put this into some monetary perspective and to quote Turan once again,
Though [Sundance] still believes passionately in championing striving
young lmmakers, Sundance itself, not immune to all the success that surrounded it, has become established and institutionalized enough to have an
Show Time
111
annual budget of $8.5 million. With a eet of Mercedes M-Class vans as

ofcial vehicles and a catalog as fat and glossy as an issue of Architectural
Digest, Sundance increasingly exudes the prosperity and success that go
with its place in the lm universe.34
Consequently, with such success it is no wonder that nowadays the lm festival circuit no longer exists solely for the purpose of showcasing independent
lms and unknown independent lmmakers. The top ve media conglomerates, who all now have a division for independent lms, all aim to have
a lm in the race in every festival in order to meet their quotas of 10 to
17 percent of company grosses each year coming from these independent
lm divisions.
The potential problem of the big studios increasingly investing in and
conancing the projects of independent lmmakers and the smaller independent studios is that the business side of such investments tends to lead to
conservative choices in cast and crew. Why is this a point of concern? It is a
concern partly because the problem that the quotas and conancing create is
the lack of opportunities for the unknowns in the indie industry to get their
big break. As one article explains, An unproven lm director is almost never
given the opportunity to get his or her big break with the studios unless he
or she otherwise has signicant industry experience in lm or television.
Films with unknowns in the cast, particularly in lead roles, are also rarely
produced by the Big Six.35 As a result, big Hollywood stars these days not
only dominate the lm festival circuit but are also signing on to do more
art-house type lms with big Hollywood studios. Arguably, as the big studios gain more access to and attract the spotlight from indie lmmakers, the
line between indie lms and Hollywood will continue to blur.
INFLUENCE IN INDIEWOOD: THE L WORD
AND SHOWTIME
The increasing relationship between media conglomerates, their lm studio subsidiaries, and the indie industry no doubt has inuence on what we
see and dont see on our cable networks. Up until this point, it may be all too
clear that the inuence over content on cable shows is similar to the network
shows, that is, a one-way street, namely, from the media conglomerates to
the networks, and driven by cooperation, and not necessarily competition,
among the big ve or six. However, in spite of this established pattern, the
increasing relationship between media giants and indie lm directors and
lmmakers, in particular, does have the potential to push back and possibly
inuence this established standard in a variety of ways. To address this potential, I want to discuss briey some of history that has led to such a possibility. I outline just a slice of lesbian history on television. In doing so, I am
not presuming to encompass the entirety of lesbian history on television nor
112
Television
all of the other histories that engaged with it, instead, I just want to provide
some context for what has contributed to The L Words emergence in 2004
and the potential inuence of the indie industry on cable television.
LESBIAN TV HISTORY
Major networks had gured out by the early 1980s that there were ratings to be had by writing in shocking content during sweeps weekremember all those Dynasty episodes that ended with a re, explosion, or a character
being killed off ? It seemed that once every network adopted that strategy,
something else had to be done. Arguably, prior to Ellen DeGeneress coming
out of the closet in 1997, lesbians on network television were relegated to
these sweep weeks as sweep boosting subplotsthat is, temporary, titillating, and nonthreatening. Although gay men were present since Billy Crystal
played one on Soap in 1977, the rst lesbian kiss ever on network television
did not occur until 1991 between CJ, a bisexual lawyer on L.A. Law played by
Amanda Donohoe, and her female colleague. An even more controversial kiss
occurred between two girls on Picket Fences in 1993, and in 1994, Roseanne
Barr planted one on Mariel Hemingway on her sitcom Roseanne. By 1996, the
rst lesbian wedding was televised on Friends, between Rosss ex-wife Carol
and her lover, Susan. And that brings us back to 1997, and to Ellen DeGeneres. DeGeneress coming out in real life and on the show Ellen on April 30,
1997, the rst day of May sweeps, was TVs biggest lesbian moment. As
Malinda Lo explains, Ellens coming out on The Puppy Episode was signicant not only because it was the rst time a leading primetime character
was gay, but because the character was also played by an openly gay actor.36
More importantly, although this episode occurred during sweeps week, it
did not adhere to the established pattern of temporary sweep boosting subplots. Instead, that episode made front and center the life of one semictional primetime character/actor, and that was threatening. As Lo goes on
to explain,
The right-wing group Media Research took out a full-page ad on the back
cover of Variety on April 17 claiming that ABC and Disney were promoting homosexuality to Americas families. Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schay,
Rev. Donald Wildmon, and Rev. Jerry Falwell joined a group of antigay
right-wingers to sign a scathing letting characterizing The Puppy Episode as a slap in the face to Americas families.37
Despite The Puppy Episode winning an Emmy for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series in 1997, as well as a GLAAD Media Award and
a Peabody Award in 1998, the show was cancelled at the end of the next
season. In all fairness, the show did have low ratings coming into its fourth
Show Time
113
season. Although it started off strong, ranking at one point at 13th on the
top ratings chart, the lack of a love life for the main character, Ellen, seemed
frustrating for both the producers and viewers of the show. The Puppy
Episode was the result of various negotiations to try and address this issue.
The episode pulled in approximately 42 million viewers. In spite of this initial peak, the show continued to have low ratings into its fth season, leading to its cancellation. However, as Stephen Tropiano, author of The Prime
Time Closet, notes, Instead of simply stating that the show was canceled
due to low ratings, [Stuart Bloomberg, chairman of ABC entertainment]
claim[ed] that because the material was more politicized (translation: gay)
and issue-oriented (translation: gay), it became less funny (translation: too
gay). Obviously, no straight TV shows are ever criticized for being too
straight.38 In the wake of Congress passing the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) in 1996, the mainstream media did not appear willing to make any
waves. Consequently, DeGeneres soon felt the backlash of media personally.
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times criticized her for being
too openly affectionate with Anne Heche at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Although DeGeneres and Heche claimed that they werent
doing anything that a straight couple would do, the New York Times characterized their behavior as an ostentatious display of affection, thereby teaching all future lesbian couples that they should do no more than hold hands
in public.39
Not surprisingly, there was a dry spell on network television in terms of
lesbians kissing for a number of years. It wasnt until 1999 that viewers saw
the return of sweeps boosting lesbian kissingfor example, on Ally McBeal
between Calista Flockhart and Lucy Lui, and on Party of Five with Neve
Campbells character. Somewhat ironically, in the fall of 1998, less than a year
after The Puppy Episode controversy, NBC premiered Will and Grace a
show featuring a straight-acting gay man (Eric McCormack), his straight
female friend (Deborah Messing), and their hyper-amboyant stereotypical
gay male friend, Jack (Sean Hayes). The show went on to win 13 Emmy
Awards in its eight seasons on the air. In contrast to the relegating of lesbians to sweep weeks and the success of the desexualized show Will and Grace,
HBO premiered, that same year, Sex and the City. Sex and the City focused on a
group of sexually charged (straight) women who were not only shown having sex but also discussing it constantly. Prior to Sex and the City, the only
show on network or cable television that made a group of women the focus,
without the main lens being their jobs, was The Golden Girls. Although it
would be a stretch to credit the coming-out of DeGeneres as the sole contributing factor to the premier of not only Will and Grace but also Sex and the
City, it may be reasonable to consider that her coming-out and the furor that
followed paved the way for other primetime and cable shows to include gay
characters and address (at least straight womens) sexual habits.
114
Television
QUEER CINEMA
At this point it might be unclear just where the indie industry ts in. The
reality is that the emergence of this new cinematic force, and Im thinking
particularly of the indie lm movement polemically known as queer cinema, is directly related to Hollywoods (and thus to the media conglomerates) marketing and abuse of queer culture and the abandonment of serious,
issue-oriented, provocative lms and content.40 As Emanual Levy notes in
Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film, In an attempt
to be inclusive, mainstream Hollywood has always held to a nave belief in
America as a melting pot. The strategy that followed ignored gender, racial,
and sexual distinctions in search of a common, unifying cultural denominator that would be acceptable to all and offensive to none.41 By the early
1990s, in the wake of the AIDS catastrophe of the 80s and continued abuse
by Hollywood of employing homosexuality to either get an easy laugh or to
inspire fear by condemning this deviant lifestyle, gay and lesbian audiences
began to express more aggressively their discontent with how they were
shown and began to demand fairer treatment.
As Levy explains, In 1991 alone, four major lms (JFK, Basic Instinct, The
Prince of Tides, and The Silence of the Lambs) came under re for their onesided distorted portrayal of gay characters. Hollywoods well-intentioned but
accid efforts to be sensitive about gay issues, from Personal Best and Making
Love in 1982 to Philadelphia in 1993, have only reinforced the idea that gay
lmmakers must create their own cinema.42 Such an idea began to coalesce
between 1991 and 1992 with the appearance of Todd Hayness Poison, Gus
Van Sants My Own Private Idaho, Jennie Livingstons Paris is Burning, Tom
Kalins Swoon, Christopher Munchs The Hours and Times, and Gregg Arakis
The Living End. By the mid-1990s, gay visibility and queer cinema nally
got the attention of Hollywood. New voices challenged the old stigmas and
stereotypes, and the ght was on for more realistic representation. As Levy
explains, The queer cycle reached its maturity at the 1994 Sundance Festival, when the director Rose Troche (one of the writers/directors on The
L Word) and her cast stormed Park City with Go Fish, their edgy lesbian romantic comedy. Industry suits suddenly began to think about gay and lesbian
spending power.43
However, Hollywood, and particularly network television, is slow to
change. Although the spending power and market potential of gays and lesbians began to be understood as a result of the success of these new voices
in the indie/queer cinema industry, it would be a while yet, six years to be
exact, before television took on serious, issue-oriented, and provocative gay
and lesbian contentand then only on cable networks. The idea of gay
and lesbian lmmakers that had to create their own cinema in order to see
the kind of complex and complete representations of themselves that they
Show Time
115
wanted to see is the same idea that brought to the small screen Queer as Folk
and, particularly, The L Word.
In 1999, HBO came out with another hit in the form of The Sopranos.
That same year Ilene Chaiken pitched the idea of The L Word to Showtime.
After writing a magazine article about same-sex couples with children, she
pitched a drama based on her life as a lesbian mother in Los Angeles.44 As
Chaiken explains, There wasnt a shred of receptivity.45 Nobody took the
possibility seriously. Meanwhile, the all-woman cast of Sex and the City and
the stars on Will and Grace were reveling in their success. By 2000, the competition between premium cable channels HBO and Showtime appeared to
dene HBO as the winner. In December 2000, Showtime premiered Queer
as Folk. That same year, Chaikens movie Dirty Pictures aired on Showtime
as well. The movie was about the Cincinnati museum director, played by
James Woods, who went on trial in 1990 for exhibiting sadomasochistic photographs taken by Robert Mapplethorpe. In 2001, Queer as Folk was well on
its way to becoming Showtimes signature show, and Chaikens Dirty Pictures
won the Golden Globe for best TV movie. There is, I think, a certain amount
of strategic thinking and timing involved in these events. Chaiken, whether
consciously or not, made use of this propitious momentnamely, the competition between major networks, her work and success with Dirty Pictures, and
the viewers readinessto experience more challenging, more complex, and
serious content. Perhaps the most profound change that occurred here is the
same one that was affected by queer cinemathe realization by Corporate
America that money isnt homophobic.46
One characteristic then that some of the HBO and Showtime shows in
particular have shared in common was the use of indie lmmakers and directors. According to the Village Voice, HBO and Showtime in particular
remade themselves as the natural habitat for adventurous lmmakers, offering them freedom from the stresses of nancing and distribution that
besets any indie lmmaker.47 HBO arguably prepared the ground for the
indie-cation of TV.48 Showtime quickly followed in order to compete for
ratings, viewers, and dollars. For example, The L Word premiered on Showtime in 2004 with lmmaker Rose Troche, of Go-Fish and Six Feet Under,
as co-executive producer; Guinever Turner, also of Go Fish and American
Psycho, as one of the writers; and Steve Golin of Being John Malkovich and
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as an executive producer. For the second season, The slate of directors on board [read] like a Sundance festival
of Whos Who Neil LaBute of The Shape of Things, Lisa Cholodenko of
Laurel Canyon, Burr Steers of Igby Goes Down, and Alison Maclean of Jesus
Son.49 With the show in its fth season, the presence and inuence of indie
lmmakers and directors cannot be denied. Arguably, what is happening is
what happened when queer-identied indie lmmakers and directors created
queer cinemain order to see the kinds of representations on television they
116
Television
want to see, they have to create them themselves. And that is, I would argue,
what they are doing on The L Word.
SHOW TIME: ILL SHOW YOU MINE,
IF YOU SHOW ME YOURS
Three of the most effective strategies employed by the indie producers
and writers of The L Word are the use of celebrities in every season, the producers and writers willingness to continue to work within, as opposed to
against, the system that employs them, and what I refer to as horizontal integrationexpanding the show beyond cable television. As I explained earlier,
the indie lm festivals are now places where the presence and participation
of celebrities in recent years has attracted additional attentionfrom both
Corporate America and from the average Americanmaking the lm festivals something almost everyone pays at least a little attention to now. Such
celebrity presence and appeal is, I would argue, one of the ways The L Word
crafted itself into something more than just a lesbian soap opera. Some of
the celebrities that have made an appearance on The L Word include Snoop
Dogg (Season 1), Lolita Davidovich (Season 1), Sandra Bernhard (Season 2),
Tony Goldwyn (Season 2), Gloria Steinem (Season 2), Kelly Lynch (Season
1 and 2), Ossie Davis (Season 1 and 2), Jane Lynch (Season 2, 3, and 4), Alan
Cumming (Season 3), Rosanna Arquette (Season 1, 2, 3, and 4), and Heather
Matarazzo (Season 4). Others celebrities that have had a more lasting role
include Cybill Shepherd, Marlee Matlin, Jane Lynch, and Kristanna Loken.
Unlike the 1990s, when the sigma of playing a gay or lesbian character, and
thus being perceived as homosexual, kept almost all celebrities away from
gay and lesbian roles, appearing on The L Word seems almost chic now. One
of the reasons celebrities seem to ock to The L Word may have to do with
the indie lmmakers and directors that are working in the television industry
and thus shaping the content of cable television series. As Christine Vachon,
one of the well-established indie lmmakers, explains Up until a couple of
years ago, if you went to direct TV, you didnt tell anyone because there was
such a stigma attached to it [ . . . ] But now some of the HBO and Showtime
series show more provocative things than we can get into movie theaters.50
Additionally, as lm and TV director Barry Levinson states, Movies these
days are less and less about characters and behavior. All thats gone out the
window. Its television thats taken over the role of capturing the small moments of human behaviora role thats been abdicated by theatrical lms.51
If the comments by Vachon and Levinson are true, its not surprising that
celebrities follow indie lmmakers and directors to TV. As a result, shows
like The L Word make use of the caliber of writing and directing that indie
lmmakers and directors bring, including a certain art-house aesthetic that
brings the edgy aspects of indie lms, as well as high-prole celebrities,
Show Time
117
into our living rooms. The potential result for viewers is a deeper understanding and affection for television characters that is built over a number
years instead of a couple hours, which makes for a more intense experience
that keeps viewers coming back for more.
The presence of celebrities and the edgy work of the indie folks on the
show does not address or solve all of my concerns about the growing relationship between indie folks who are writing and directing The L Word and
the media giant Viacom, Inc. Ultimately, when prots or ratings are at stake,
it is the media giant or its executives who will make the nal decisionwhich
is often reective of their conservative, white, male, and heterosexual values
and privileges. But wait. Some of you might be thinking (and rightly so) that,
if a show is not making money, then canceling it is not necessarily reective
of white, male patriarchy. Its simply smart business. And in some cases it is.
Arguably though, not all decisions in response to shifting ratings and prots
need to be addressed in the usual and expected way. One of the benets of
having indie directors and lmmakers as a part of the larger media industry
is their ability to think differently. Consequently, what if there are other ways
to address the issue of ratings and prots? Such a moment came at the end
of season one. Apparently, the ways that the perfectly nice women leading
pleasant, more or less realistic lives on The L Word were represented did
not attract the attention of the mainstream audience meaning the white,
heterosexual male. According to the demographic breakdowns from audience polls, although the rst two episodes of season one generated four
times the Showtime prime-time average rating, pulling in a strong audience
in spite of the fact that the second installment aired opposite the powerful
Golden Globes telecast,52 and led the executives to renew the show for a
second and third season, it did not in the course of the rst season hook the
broader, or heterosexual male, audience media executives had hoped for.
As Stacey DErasmo explains, Visibility is a tricky thing; is someone visible
when you can point her out in a crowd, or when you understand what her life
feels like to her?53 With regard to The L Word, visibility meant, at least by
big media standards, having cross-over appeal to not only the Sex and the City
crowdwomen and gay men between the ages of 1839but to the white
heterosexual men as well.
Apparently, Tim (played by Eric Mabius), the one main, straight male
character from season one, did not provide the executives with what they
had hoped fora guy the male audience can relate to and straight women
can desire. And so, my concerns seem to have materialized when news broke
at the end of season one that Showtimes top executive Bob Greenblatt had
specically requested that the cast of season two add a straight male character so that the male audience . . . have a guy they could relate to.54 The
result of this request is, in the fourth episode of season two, Mark (played
by Eric Lively)an amateur lmmaker and future roommate to Shane and
118
Television
Jenny. His newest project, after meeting Jenny and particularly Shane, is to
put his nger on how lesbians work, particularly in the bedroom, centering on his two new roommates and their lesbian friends . . . through nine
strategically and respectfully placed cameras (i.e., placed everywhere but
the bathrooms) Mark becomes xated with Shanes bedroom practices and
develops a form of non-penis envy for her ability to seduce and shag every
girl in sight.55
As the season progressed with this storyline, the message boards on
Showtimes online posting area, particularly from lesbian viewers, reected
the opinion that they were not thrilled with Marks character. Lesbian viewers especially noted that they found the storyline distasteful. They noted that
they get to hear guys being sleazy assholes in real life and are not interested
in examining this issue on their favorite show.56 Although the dissatisfaction
that lesbian viewers, in particular, experienced is important, what is important
here is why the writers and directors chose to write such a storyline in the rst
place. One possible explanation maybe have to do with how Ilene Chaiken, the
creator and executive director, and her team of indie writers and directors are
able to negotiate the system they are working inbalancing the realities of
prots and ratings with meaningful content and artistic control. Arguably,
the Mark storyline allowed them to do both, as well as to make a tactical
point that may ultimately create a space for change.57 Let me explain. The
request by top exec Bob Greenblatt to add a straight male character to the
show could have been handled in a variety of waysfor example, a straight,
attractive, metrosexual male with no porn-based assumptions about lesbians
sex lives. Instead, the writers chose to create the character of Markan
awful stereotype of the straight male population that may be based on a certain amount of truth, as stereotypes can be.58 In the process, Ilene Chaiken
and her indie writers and directors took a major risk. They risked alienating
their main audience lesbian viewers. They risked decreased ratings in their
second season, which did materialize ratings for the second season were
considerably lowerand they risked that the third season could be their last.
However, I would argue that the Mark storyline had more positive longterm effects than the short-term consequences let on. First and foremost,
Chaiken and her group fullled the request by the top media exec to add
a straight male character. In the process, they directly took on the issue of
the voyeuristic straight male audience (a point of criticism among viewers
from season one) who tunes in to the show to get off on the depictions of
lesbian sex. And, they tactically asserted themselves as the ones in control of
content in a media system designed to co-opt anything that makes a prot.
As a result, Bob Greenblatt has yet to make another request with regard to
content, although he does weigh in on casting decisions. Additionally, ratings
came back up in season three, and the show got renewed for a fourth and then
a fth season.
Show Time
119
Lastly, Id like to address the strategy of horizontal integration. Unlike vertical integrationthe owning by media conglomerates of everything up and
down the production and distribution chainhorizontal integration is the
extension of a show beyond the boundaries of television. In terms of The
L Word, horizontal integration means exporting parts of the show to the Internet. For example, in season one, the character of Alice introduced viewers
to her chart of lesbian hook-ups. The chart became both a symbol of how the
lesbian community is often connected to each other as well as the overarching
theme of the show. By season four, Alices chart expanded into real-time the
creation of an actual online social networking site for lesbians, dykes, queer
girls, gay women, high femmes, butches, drag kings, bois, transwomen and
transmenhowever we dene ourselves,59 known as OurChart.com. Additionally, the shows popularity has also launched the creation, by Showtime,
of various avatarsa 3-D virtual world that is designed to imitate the shows
environment. Participants can customize their own avatars to allow them
to throw parties, interact with characters from the show, have coffee at The
Planet, watch episodes of the show, and more. What these two developments
point toward is the potential for change. The expansion of the show beyond
the borders of television comes with some potential perks (and yes, some
drawbacks). The Internet has long been touted as having limitless potential
when it comes to media. As Robert W. McChesney explains, After all, the
cost of launching a website is minimal, there are millions and millions of
websites, and people have access to a range of information and ideas that was
simply unfathomable as recently as ten or fteen years ago.60 Although it
remains to be seen just how the Internet will reshape the media system, it
has already became evident that the Internet has the ability to subvert and
undermine some of the established practices of big media.61 With regard to
The L Word, and at least in terms of content, the Internet has the potential to
inuence what viewers and consumers have access to online and potentially
how that translates into what they see on their small-screens. Arguably, as
the popularity of the show gains more currency on the Internetgarnering
a larger and more loyal audience and fan base I would contend that Ilene
Chaiken and her group of writers and directors would have the ability to
exert more control over the content and issues raised by the show. This is, Ill
admit, a double-edged sword at times because of the expectations and feedback of those fans that Chaiken and her group will then have to negotiate.
Together, these three strategies have had the effect of at least changing
how The L Word does business. The indie lmmakers and directors have
continued to be one of the most creative, at times the most outspoken, and
inspiring groups in the media culture. It is not surprising that as the indie
folks get recruited by media conglomerates to direct television their inherent
skills of addressing taboo subjects, tackling marginalized issues, and representing serious content affects what we as viewers and consumers see on
120
Television
the television screen. Ultimately, the indie lmmakers presence in directing television is one of the main antidotes to Chronic Heterosexual Fatigue
Syndrome.
But is this a blip? Or, is this the beginning of a continued viable (i.e.,
protable) presence of queer-themed media? In the moments in which I am
not under the inuence of Chronic Heterosexual Fatigue Syndrome, I tend
to think that the presence of queer-themed media is here to stay and is quite
protable. In what form and with what consequences to queer communities, I think, are the real questions. Queer cinema, for example, has tended
to be way ahead of the mainstream in how they deal with and represent gay
and lesbian characters. And as Levy explains, in the late 1990s, Hollywood
nally began to take notice of the new gay [and lesbian] lifestyles, which
resulted in movies that propagated a revised gay [and lesbian] image.62 For
example, gay and lesbian characters are rarely now portrayed as tortured
perverts or diseased victims, and lms, at least, have moved further and
further away from swishy queen humor to more complex and substantive
dramas.63 At present, representations of gay, and to a lesser extent lesbian,
characters on network television tend to be cast as charming, loveable, emotionally accessible, playful, at times vulnerable, and often unapologeticor
in other words, still quite nonthreatening to mainstream expectations.
Arguably the unstated justication for the various representations of gays
and lesbians on network television comes down to the phrase: Its business,
not politics. As Katherine Sender explains with regard to gay marketing,
With the claim that gay marketing is a matter of business, not politics, marketers have attempted to establish a commonsense idea that the business of
gay marketing can be considered independently of the politics of gay rights,
identity, and visibility, [a view that shows like Queer as Folk and The L Word
clearly contest].64 Understandably, media conglomerates are counting on
this mantra to apply to television content as well. By separating business
from politics, media companies can appeal to an economic model in which
nancial decisions can be made free from political motivations and ramications, and most importantly, where networks can reach new consumers and
generate increased prots independently of any impact this activity might
have on social relations or cultural politics.65 But the reality is that there is
no escape from politics.
Consequently, as the trite saying goes, only time will tell, with regard to
how much politics make it into our living rooms in the near future. But for
my money, the amount of politics the media companies have already allowed
and the amount of politics indie lmmakers and directors have incorporated
has already shifted. And this shift could not have happened without the success of cable shows such as Sex and the City, Queer as Folk, and The L Word and
the increasing inuence of indie lmmakers and directors on the content and
business of television.
Show Time
121
NOTES
1. Darrell Y. Hamamoto, How to Rob: Strong-Arming Our Way to Equity and
Diversity, Critical Studies in Media Communication (2001) 18:109115.
2. Queer is used in this chapter as a sort of shorthand to include and refer to all
members of the LGBT community. I use the term whenever I refer to the entire
queer community instead of using the more cumbersome acronym LGBT (which is
limiting as well because it fails to include allies, intersex, and questioning individuals,
making the acronym LGBTIQA).
3. Hamamoto, 2001, 112.
4. Ibid.
5. Ned Zeman, Gay-per-view TV: With Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy, and Boy Meets Boy, Prime Time Has Come Out, Vanity Fair, December 2003, 325.
6. Gay and lesbian is used specically to refer to gay men and lesbians and not the
entire queer community. I acknowledge that this is not inclusive of all queer individuals, however, for the purposes of this article, which focuses on television content, it
is the gay and lesbian culture that is currently being mainstreamed and marketed.
Consequently, I will not be discussing the issues present over the lack of representation for transgender and bisexual identied individuals, for example.
7. Eric Klinenberg, Breaking the News, Mother Jones magazine, March/April 2007,
retrieved October 6, 2007, http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/
breaking-the-news.html.
8. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004, xxxxi.
9. Ibid., xx.
10. Matthew McAllister, U.S. Broadcasting Regulations, The Museum of Broadcast
Communication, retrieved October 22, 2007, http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/
F/htmlF/nancialint/nancialint.htm.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Although the term Hollywood is often connoted to mean the movie industry
exclusively, Hollywood in this essay encompasses the TV industry as well.
14. Anup Shah, Corporate Inuence in the Media: Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, April 29, 2007, 3. http://globalissues.org/
HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp.
15. Personal communication with Robert Sickels, Associate Professor of Film and
Popular Culture, January 8, 2007.
16. Shah, 2007, 5.
17. Robert W. McChesney, The New Global Media, The Nation, November 11,
1999, 4. http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991129/mcchesney.
18. Bagdikian, 2004, 6.
19. Ibid., 9.
20. Ted Turner, My Beef With Big Media, Washington Monthly, July/August 2004.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407_turner.html.
21. Ibid., 4.
22. Ibid., 5.
23. Mary Diamond, Chairman Kevin J. Martin Proposes Revision to the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule, Federal Communications Commission News,
122
Television
November 13, 2007. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC278113A1.pdf.

24. About Viacom, Viacom, 2007. http://www.viacom.com/ABOUT%20VIACOM/
default.aspx.
25. Who Owns What, Columbia Journalism Review, June 12, 2007. http://www.cjr.
org/resources/.
26. When Was the Independent Film Industry Born, Make Independent Films,
2007. http://www.makeindependentlms.com/history.htm.
27. Ibid.
28. 19501959, Television History: The First 75 Years, 2006. http://www.tvhistory.
tv/19501959.htm.
29. When Was the Independent Film Industry Born, 2007.
30. Ibid.
31. Kenneth Turan, Sundance to Sarajevo: Film Festivals and the World They Made.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2002, 36.
32. Ibid., 37.
33. Ibid., 41.
34. Ibid., 42.
35. Independent Film, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, October 25, 2007. http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/independent_lm.
36. Malinda Lo, Back in the Day: Coming Out with Ellen, AfterEllen.com, April
2005. http://afterellen.com/archive/ellen/column/2005/4/backintheday.html.
37. Ibid., 3.
38. Ibid., 4.
39. Ibid.
40. Emanuel Levy, Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film. New
York: NYU Press, 2001, 21.
41. Ibid., 459.
42. Ibid., 463.
43. Ibid., 460.
44. Alison Glock, She Likes to Watch, The New York Times, February 6, 2005.
http://nytimes.com/2005/02/06/arts/television/09gloc.html.
45. Ibid.
46. Levy, 2001, 463.
47. Joy Press, Out of the Box: Indie lm directors invade the TV screen, Village
Voice, August 1117, 2004. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0432,press,55810,1.
html.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. News: The L-Word Renewed, ragingwind.net/web, January 24, 2004. http://
ragingwind.net/web/renewed.html.
53. Stacey DErasmo, Lesbians on Television: Its not easy being seen, The
New York Times, January, 11, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/arts/
television/11DERA.html.
Show Time
123
54. Candace Moore, Through Marks Lenses, AfterEllen.com, April 6, 2005. http://
www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/TV/2005/4/mark.html.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. In Michel DeCerteaus The Practice of Everyday Life, he explains that strategies
are employed by those in power and tactic by those without power by way of timing
and opportunity.
58. Moore, 2005.
59. About the Chart, Our Chart: Are you on it? 2007. http://www.ourchart.com/
about_the_chart.
60. Robert W. McChesney, The Problem of the Media: U.S. communication politics in the
21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004, 217.
61. For example, the ease of copying and sharing digital music les has proven
nightmarish for music industry executives [ . . . ]. The music industry is in a desperate jam, because one of the main factors that explained their domination of the global
market was that it required massive networks to distribute music. With digital distribution, much of the industrys raison detre is gone (McChesney, 2004, 222).
62. Levy, 2001, 487.
63. Ibid.
64. Katherine Sender, Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2004, 3.
65. Ibid.
chapter 7
Temporary Resistance: Strategies

of Freelance Workers in American
Network Television News
Kathleen M. Ryan
Media researchers face a difcult problem: Research about newsroom workers is scant at best. From the famous Mr. Gates study of the 1950s to
Jeremy Tunstalls 1971 analysis of specialist correspondents, researchers
historically have failed to get at the heart of newsroom working conditions.1
Warren Breeds analysis of why newsroom staffers conform to corporate
policies assumes reporters and editors are the employees of a publisher with
a loyalty to that single publication.2 At the time of the study (1955), many
of its assumptions about newsroom staffers may have been true. Fifty-plus
years later, however, the nature of the newsroom has changed. Freelance
and per diem work is commonplace in both print and broadcast journalism.3
Modern media workers may be employed by several competing organizations at once.
Even so-called media-centric approaches prefer to look at how news is
stacked rather than how news coverage is staffed. Matthew R. Kerbel dissects
network and local news choices, addressing issues such as story selection,
writing, and placement.4 Likewise, Richard Campbell concentrates on how
story formulas contribute to the success of 60 Minutes.5 Other researchers
look at story coverage, newsroom professionalism, or even the gatekeeping
role of the faux news program The Daily Show.6 When workers are considered, it is in more traditional arenas such as hiring practices, gender equity,
or newsroom competition.7 Matthew Erlich tied satisfaction to winning
126
Television
the daily local news battle. Employment status is a given in his study and not
even worthy of mention.8
However, as the 2007/2008 Writers Guild (WGA) strike illustrates,
employment status is an important issue for consideration. One of the key
sticking points in negotiations with WGA East and both CBS and ABC in
the strike was the status and pay rates of daily hire freelance workers;9 similar negotiations have been seen in other network union contracts. Current
union contracts provide for up to two-thirds of the union workforce to be
daily hires; with nonunion positions the wage is likely quite higher. Worker
adaptive strategies are especially helpful in understanding how employees
react to temporary or per diem labor patterns in American network television news.10
Documentary data gathered from broadcast industry trade publications
such as Broadcasting and Cable and News Photographer is useful in order to
understand the freelance mindset. A census of the magazines revealed a
total of 11 articles published over a 5-year period (20002005); all reported
freelancing to be overall benecial for the temporary worker. But speaking directly to freelancers can also be revealing. This chapter includes a
discourse analysis of interviews conducted with a small (10) group of industry executives and freelancers. The group was found through personal
contacts. I worked at the network level for 11 years (3 years as an executive,
8 years as a freelance writer and producer); as a result, I personally know
many freelancers and news executives. I asked people I know to talk with
me and asked them to recommend others for interviews. Ten people agreed
to participate in interviews; they were both union represented and nonunion
freelancers.
The experiences of this group of workers may not reect that of nonnetwork or nonbroadcast freelancers but rather represents an elite corps of
television workers, the best of the best. Nonetheless, they offer valuable insights into what to date has been a relatively hidden workforce. Network freelancers represent a new breed of resistant worker who sees self-employment
as a way to maintain control and job security in a shifting and unpredictable
labor market.
Networks use freelancers in three different ways: in union regulated jobs,
as per diem workers, and in contract jobs known in the industry as permalancers. Given current trends, freelancing is becoming the dominant mode
of network news work. By exploring how networks employ these three different types of workers, we can understand not only the economic benets
freelancing offers the networks but also how freelancing has the potential to
benet workers. Instead of longing for full-time work, American television
news freelancers report relative job satisfaction and a sense of control over
their working conditions and jobs. This attitude challenges traditional assumptions about employment and television news labor.
Temporary Resistance
127
THE APPEAL OF ITINERANT LABOR

Approaching news media through the concepts of political economy, the
move to freelance labor is seen as driven by capitalistic concerns. The search
for prots, ratings domination, and a maintenance of network hegemony
would outweigh the needs of individual workers. Much research begins with
this assumption, and, as a result, comes to the conclusion that freelancing is
detrimental to the worker. Studies of freelance European media workers have
looked at psychological stress, job uncertainty, and how freelancing harms
working mothers.11 Gillian Ursell began tracking British freelance news
workers in 1997 and found experience was devalued in order to maximize
corporate prot. She describes commercial television production as a vampire, ingesting youngsters at low prices from a large pool provided by the
education system, working newcomers and established hands remorselessly,
and discarding the older and less accommodating at will.12
However, the political economy approach, that temporary hires benet the
network at the expense of the workers, fails to take into account the workers
own reactions to itinerant jobs. Even when looking at working conditions, it
views workers as ultimately being subordinated to the needs of the employer.
As a result, the agency of individual workers has been obscured.
In 1999, Tom Goldstein, Dean of Columbia Universitys Graduate School
of Journalism, said a culture of freelance was dominant in the United States.
He saw contingent work as becoming the norm rather than the exception.13
The government denes contingent work as temporary, contract, or other
types of nonstandard work arrangements, generally without benets. A
2000 report by the U.S. General Accounting Ofce estimated 30 percent
of the U.S. workforce engaged in some type of contingent labor, including
consultants, self-employed workers, part-timers, and temporary or on-call
workers.14
In the meantime, the nature of what may be perceived as traditional fulltime work is changing as well. Jill Andresky Fraser called corporate work
a white collar sweatshop, and described a bleak world of 24/7 overwork,
reduced salaries and benets, and job insecurity. She asks, Is there a way
out of our contemporary business culture of overwork, stress, insecurity, and
under-rewardboth for . . . individuals and the nation at large?15 In a 2005
report on freelancer workers, the New York-based group Freelancers Union
noted job insecurity isnt limited to temporary hires:
A number of respondents noted that the difference between freelancingin terms of benets and economic securityand traditional work
are fast eroding. Freelancing seems no less secure than having a real job
which is no guarantee, said one respondent . . . Many observers point to
increased insecurity among all workers and on all rungs of the economic
ladder . . . that now plagues the middle class as well as the working poor.16
128
Television
This perception of the instability of permanent work, as Vicki Smith

notes, may not have any empirical or statistical validity.17 Nonetheless,
freelancers use it as part of an arsenal of adaptive strategies to normalize
their own employment risk. These strategies have been found in a variety of
itinerant workers, from migrant farmworkers to Silicon Valley technology
professionals.18 Freelancers socially construct perceptions of individual job
security while employed in a manner that unquestionably lacks security. The
perceived risks of freelancing are thus turned into assets. An unstable or
uncertain job offers perks such as scheduling exibility, individual autonomy,
the ability to reject assignments, and greater pay.
Freelance salaries vary depending upon the work involved. Per diem producers and bookers make as little as $300 per day without any overtime,
benets, or any other perks (some are able to negotiate higher day rates).
By contrast, union represented freelancers earn a minimum day rate (up to
$600 for 8 hours of work in current contracts, depending upon experience in
the job and job category), plus extra pay for missed meals, overtime, holiday
work, and additional benets. Freelance camera and sound crews also receive
a daily rental fee for the use of their personally owned equipment, which is
often higher than the daily base rate. Permalancers earn a set daily rate and
no overtime, but they receive benets from the employer such as a 401K
plan, health insurance, and paid vacation. They also qualify for annual raises.
Permalancer pay rates are generally equivalent to staff employees in a similar
position. But despite this pay variance, freelancers in all job categories embrace the belief that they can always obtain the desired amount of freelance
work. They behave in many ways as a distinct class of workers, in that they
have positioned themselves against other(s) . . . whose interest(s) are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.19 Freelancers describe their interests and identity as different from those of staffers.
But network television freelancers satisfaction may stem from another
important aspect: They choose to work freelance over the stability of a staff
job. In other words, their nontraditional job status is voluntary. Business/
economics researchers have looked at the impact of voluntary versus involuntary temporary/part-time employment for workers.20 Alec Levenson
argues, Some of the long-run changes in part-time and temporary employment may be caused by labor supply responses to other changes in the labor
market . . . not all changes in part-time and temporary employment are forced
on workers (emphasis added).21 Network freelancers epitomize this line of
thought; they have looked at the labor market and decided they are better off
as itinerant labor.
John W. Jordan categorizes these adaptive strategies as part of the rhetoric of performativity (which) provides individual temps with a positive way
to rethink and enact their workplace identity.22 This is a provocative way
of rereading the actions of temporary workers to provide them agency or
129
a sense of acting rather than being acted upon. Jordan bases his concept of
performativity on Judith Butlers theories of gender identity. He says it
allows temps to utilize a persona more tting to their own needs rather
than allowing the economic environment to assign them a place and a
value based on negative and generic assumptions. Just as gender proves
to be performative that is, constituting the identity it is purported to
be, . . . performative temping enables the individual to negotiate oppressive
economic relationships without being consumed by ideologies that seek to
dene personal value through job status.23
This concept helps explain the satisfaction television freelancers derive from
this sort of work, and why they seek it out as opposed to a full-time job.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF NEWS GATHERING
The widespread use of television news freelancers began with the explosion of cable television in the 1980s. Previously, television networks employed
full-time workers for the bulk of their staff.24 The traditional newsroom
structure was described by Gaye Tuchman as a news net.25 The idea is that
news is caught much like sh. Big stories are followed by staff reporters
and wire services, while stringers (aka freelancers) pick up on the smaller
stories that slip through the main net.
But in the late 1980s, the television map was radically redrawn. Cable
offered competition to the big three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC).
In 1970, 5 percent of homes had cable; by 1990, that number was 60 percent.26 As a result, each network had new management, driven by prots
rather than a consideration of news and the networks as a public trust.27
Each underwent painful (and public) downsizing and budget cuts. Radical
new programs emerged, including the lauded late-night discussion program
Nightline, which evolved from a series of special reports during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.28 But news for the rst time was also expected to make,
or at least not lose, money.29
Management looked at the biggest cost factor in news: labor. Employment in network television has been traditionally tied to union membership.
Unions fought hard and long for well-compensated, secure jobs with an impressive package of benets.30 But by 1987, unions allowed the freelancer,
or daily hire, to be written into the union contract, as long as numbers
remained less than 10 percent of the union work force.31 Gradually, networks
increased freelance stafng; current union contracts allow for about twothirds of members at a given network to be freelance. Recent network and
union negotiations have focused on both economic protections for freelancers as well as the roles and compensation union workers will receive from
emerging media platforms.32
130
Television
These negotiations acknowledge that American television viewing patterns have shifted, from the traditional over-the-air network dominance to
todays multichannel/multiplatform world. In 2005, 60 percent of American households had cable television, with another 27 percent subscribing to
satellite TV.33 While news viewership is declining overall, network newscasts still dominate their cable competition in terms of the all-important
ratings numbers. In 2005, for instance, CBS averaged 6.6 million viewers
for its nightly newscast. That number may seem paltry, but it was three
times that of the top show on Fox Newschannel, the highest rated cable
news outlet.34
The traditional networks not only draw more viewers than their cable
competitors, they also are considered more prestigious workplaces for broadcast journalists. The conditions are more hospitable; rather than the multi
live shots of the cable universe, network reporters or producers may work on
a nonbreaking news story for several days. In-depth investigative reporting
is featured on news magazine programs such as 20/20 or 60 Minutes.35 Mainstream media (print, cable, Web, and broadcast) reinforce this notion of the
network as something elite; witness the intense scrutiny in 20062007 over
the perceived successes and failures of Charles Gibson (ABC), Katie Couric
(CBS), and Brian Williams (NBC) as successors to long-time news anchors
Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw, respectively. The New York
Times cited the Couric-anchored CBS Evening News as one of the most important shows debuting in the fall 2006 television season.36
Broadcast networks, 24-hour news channels, and local afliates use freelancers in different ways. The 24-hour channels, because of an insatiable
appetite for news, rely on freelancers to make up their staff. For instance,
Cablevisions News 12 franchise regularly advertises to ll freelance slots
for its New York metro-area cablecasts.37 While the bigger outlets, such as
MSNBC, Fox Newschannel, or Cable News Network (CNN), do hire people
for full-time positions, that staff is supplemented by a large contingent of
freelancers.38 Likewise, local broadcast stations hire freelancers on a regular
basis, often trying out for staff jobs. By contrasts, freelancers at the networks are generally called in to ll specic positions at specic times, either
on a long- or short-term basis.39 They break out into three general categories: the worker protected by union contracts, the nonunion daily hire, and
freelancers hired for long-term projects.
Union Protections
High-skilled network television news jobs, such as photographers, editors,
sound engineers, remote engineers, directors, and newswriters, have an advantage over most temporary workers. These positions are represented by a
handful of trade unions: The Directors Guild of America (DGA), the Writers
131
Guild of America (WGA-East), the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians/Communication Workers of America (NABETCWA), and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). At
one point, union positions were staff jobs. Now, especially after cutbacks and
increased competition following deregulation, skilled freelancers nd themselves in high demand. Photographers, theyre limited. The networks dont
want the overhead. As these guys retire theyre not being replaced, says one
network executive.40
Freelance photographer Isaac Rodriguez says union membership gives
him a bargaining chip when dealing with other clients:
I think the union is great. It guarantees that were going to be paid a fair
wage. Youve got to pay for it (in dues) but so what? . . . I get calls all the
time from people who want to pay me crap. When I work for networks the
pay is going to be great. If you want to hire me this is what its going to
cost.41
Nelson Navarro, a freelance lighting and remote location engineer, agrees

that the unions help establish a pay base, It maintains salaries, he says.
Theres a certain level salaries will not go under. I try to get as much as
I can, of course. But when working for the networks, its what they (the
unions) set.42
Lori M. Gossetts description of the three-pronged relationship between
temporary workers, employment agencies, and employers is quite applicable to the union/network/freelancer relationship in television. The union
worker operates in what Gossett describes as the space between two organizations: the network employer and the union. She notes:
In situations where there is not a clear hierarchy between the different
organizational systems (both are mutually relevant), identication with
the interests of one rm may be seen as a legitimate way to escape the demands of the other. In this way, organizational identication might be used
as a method of member resistance rather than a mechanism of managerial
control.43
In the case of the union freelancer, the union offers a means of escape from
the demands of the network. Hiring exibility only increases that demand:
Workers know union membership guarantees them a minimum wage no
matter where they work.
Freelance union benets also include a paid lunch hour and overtime provisions; nights and holidays earn higher pay rates. The company provides
insurance reimbursement ($55 per shift for NABET-CWA members) and, if a
freelancer works enough days, guarantees paid personal time. The daily hire
is also protected against short turnarounds or canceled shifts.44
132
Television
Despite these union-negotiated perks, the freelancer still lacks protection from retribution by a capricious or unreasonable boss. NABET-CWAs
Taylor notes:
Most daily hire employees on the job operate with absolute fear of offending
any management person and fear of not getting any current work . . . they
absolutely resist ling a grievance over most issues. I have spoken to daily
hires that have made $90,000 one year and have had a minor argument
with management or made an error and they are now only making about
$7,000 from the same company.45
He fears these economic whips may ultimately diminish the bargaining power of NABET and other unions. But if Gossetts theory is true, the
whips would actually increase worker identication with the union. Freelancer resistance would be directed toward the punitive network.
Each of the union freelancers I spoke with knew that it was because of the
unions collective bargaining that they were able to leave a staff job in favor of
per diem work. It seemed like a better deal than working staff because of the
money. I knew I could make better money working freelance than staff, and
staff has ofce politics, Navarro says. Now he works for all three networks
as well as the cable sports outlet ESPN. You can do different things every
day . . . Sometimes I get worried, but theres always something else. Someone
will hire you.46
Union writer Carla Brittain works on average two to three days a week
for ABC. With Writers Guild protections, she makes a good living: This
past year I made $70,000 . . . I dont think thats chump money. Shes single,
owns an apartment in New York and a rental in San Francisco, and has been
the regular freelance call for the morning news division for the last nine
years. Brittain turned down a staff job offer for the exibility of freelancing.
Within reason, I can schedule myself how I want to, she says. Once I realized I could feed my face and be all right, I never looked for full-time work
again.47
Likewise, photographer Rodriguez isnt looking for a staff job: Never. Its
a quality of life issue. I enjoy having the freedom of dictating my schedule.
Im fortunate enough to be in a situation where I can do that nancially as
well.48 If he held a staff job, Rodriguez would lose his scheduling freedom.
He would also be prohibited from working for other television or corporate
clients.
Jordan describes this desire for freedom, for an identity outside of the
workplace, as being characteristic of performativity:
Rather than reducing an individual to his or her occupation, a performative
view generates a more expansive articulation of work as only one of several possible means for self-articulation. Temping is redened as a role a
133
person can perform without being consumed by it. Expressed another way,
temp performativity says I temp rather than I am a temp.49
For the union freelancer, temporary work becomes the only logical way to
adjust to an uncertain and uid workplace. Temping allows the worker a
sense of control over his or her own destiny.
Per Diem Producers
At the other end of the freelance spectrum are nonunion producers and
bookers. These workers are key to a networks ability to move quickly on a
story. Even before a reporter, camera crew, or satellite truck arrive on the
scene, a local freelancer can develop contacts, research the story, and obtain
exclusive interviews. It makes the network more effective at news gathering.
Giselle Lamarre played up her local expertise when she rst began freelancing for the networks as a eld producer. She had worked in New York
for the now-defunct Fox news magazine Front Page. When it was canceled,
she moved to the Pacic Northwest. Rather than work for a local afliate, the
married mother of two decided to freelance for the networks:
It would be really hard for me to be a parent of small children and have
a staff job. I hate to insult anybody whos doing this but I think its impossible to do it, if youre a producer and theres a breaking news story for
several days or more and they expect you to go away for several days or
more.50
Other freelancers use their nonpermanent status to their advantage; one tells
clients shes booked on days when she doesnt want to or cant work because of family obligations, without fear of being professionally penalized.
The network never knows if the booking is another job or a school talent
show. The freelancer cites the 2007 tiger mauling in San Francisco as an
example. The story was unfolding on Christmas and the days following. On
New Years Eve, all freelancers were booked with family commitments; a
network staffer ended up covering the story that day.51
Freelancers told me they have the ability to re their boss, rejecting
assignments for particularly difcult supervisors in favor of more reasonable employers. They can also, if offered more than one assignment at the
same time, play competing networks, or even shows within the same network, against one another. During Michael Jacksons 2004 arrest on child
molestation charges, one in-demand freelancer was observed negotiating assignments with competing networks, based upon how long a network would
guarantee work.
Its important to remember that these temps dont have the backing of a
union and so are those with the least potential power. Their jobs are easily
134
Television
lled by the network. So even these small feints at resistance offer the potential for worker liberation. Jordan says Butlers concept of performativity is
especially useful in these sorts of situations because it provides:
a basis for understanding how performed compliance potentially troubles
the dichotomous and rigid boundaries of worker identities that are predicated on employer, peer, and social assessments of worth, and which always
position temps at the bottom of power and value hierarchies that ask temps
to invest more in their work roles than they will get in return.52
The ability to play one potential employer against another or to tell an employer one is booked (even when one is not) gives workers an alternative
mode of resistance. As a result, the freelance producers and bookers I spoke
with prefer their itinerant work status over the security of staff jobs.
Tristan McAllister was a full-time student at the University of Oregon
when he began freelancing for GMA in 2004. He started with the network as
a summer intern in New York. When he returned to school, he became part
of the shows Rolodex of regular freelancers. Im lucky I live in the Northwest. If I lived on the East Coast I wouldnt get any work, he says. I can
walk up to a family and say I have roots in the Northwest. I go to school in
Eugene. Its worked to my advantage to be here.53 As a freelancer, McAllisters pay rate is set by the network; at ABC that is $350 per day with no
benets or overtime. Per diem producers and bookers may work 12-hour (or
longer) days during a breaking news story. Without union protections, freelance producers and bookers lack the collective clout to bargain for higher
salaries. And they lack the customary cost of living increases a staffer might
receive. All of this is a source of worker discontent.
In general, freelance producers have not gotten rate increases that the
camera crews have or as the people who work staff jobs have, says one nonunion freelancer, I bet everyone at the network has gotten pay raises over
the past 10 years.54 But for freelancers, the rate has changed little since
1993, when it was $300 per day. A student like McAllister makes the same
as a producer with 10 or 20 years experience. Former ABC executive Shelley
Lewis notes of producers and bookers, There are so many freelancers out
there that the marketplace doesnt support high salaries. Youre better off if
you can be staff than freelance, nancially at least.55
So nonunion freelancers resort to passive-aggressive techniques to balance out the economic scales:
For the networks a days a day. If its for an hour or 15 hours its the same
rate. And really, I have to say I think it balances out well. I think relative to
what everybody else has, we dont get paid as well, but producers get paid
well for what we do, for the skills we have. Its not like we go to medical
school or something. I think we make a decent wage.56
135
This approach illustrates what Jordan describes as oppositional tactics

temporary workers take in unsatisfactory job situations. He writes, oppositional positioning offers a momentary means of resistance for frustrated
temps but ultimately reinforces the system of domination through complicit
acceptance of the categories and effects of the manager/temp relationship.57
In this case, the resistance is the position that a days a day, regardless of
how many hours one works. The freelancers cant do anything to increase
their salary, so they rationalize the work as a decent wage and convince
themselves that the ratio of overtime to short shifts balances out well. But
what happens if the freelancer only works for that network in breaking news
situations, when 12+ hour days are the norm? In that case, the scale remains
tipped in favor of the employer. Meanwhile, the system of unpaid overtime
and a static day rate remains intact, ultimately unchallenged by the frustrated worker.
Permalancers
Perhaps the most interesting development in the freelance work force is
the trend toward what in the industry is known as permalancers: long-term
project workers, some with contracts, who work for select clients.58 Permalancers often receive benets comparable to that of a staff employee: health
and disability insurance, a 401K plan, and stock options. But a permalancer
has no guarantee of work beyond the current project. One network executive says outside permalancers are a common hire on many projects, and they
often get special perks:
Each company has its own guidelines that it follows. If you were going to
be there more than 30 weeks you got benets. Once you nd people who
are good and work well and you trust you try to keep them. Youd even
keep people for a few weeks on salary (between projects). You want to keep
them on.59
This executive put people on hiatus between projects, keeping them eligible
for the full benet package while being temporarily unemployed and unpaid.
Two or three weeks later, when the next project starts up, the permalancer
would be back on the job and eligible for staff perks such as raises, vacations,
and unemployment insurance.
Valerie Antcliff notes that as media organizations are changing, the power
to shape working conditions is also changing: It moves from the media conglomeration to the producers in charge of the show or project.60 Executives
talk of doing small things to keep individuals happy, such as continuing benets until the end of the calendar month if a worker was between projects. For
the network, its a winwin situation. The freelancer is happy because the
136
Television
work is being recognized and rewarded. In addition, the worker can freelance
for other organizations. The network gets the advantage of using a worker as
projects develop without paying for excess staff during down times.
Lewis agrees permalancers benet both the network and the freelancer:
Obviously it helps not just morale. Its a question that if you have people
you really like you work for the best for them. Everybody works the system the best they can for the benet of the persons and their project. If you
can bend the rules a little or make the rules a little more generous than you
have to be its good business.61
Another network executive also uses permalancers for long-term projects

and then, as she notes, all bets are off. But as other projects develop, the
cycle repeats: I work with people who have worked before because they
know the ropes. Hence you get producers and associate producers who have
benets because theyve worked several shows. Some of her permalancers
have worked with her for years. She doesnt see her actions as anything extraordinary. I think its humane . . . I think its the only decent thing to do
given that the freelancers life is pretty unpredictable.62
In this case, the workers are using few, if any, resistance tactics to generate improved conditions or cope with the precariousness of freelancing. It
is the executive producers with traditional full-time employment who are
lobbying in favor of improved freelancer conditions. Antcliff observes, Casualization of the employment relationship in the television industry has permitted widespread discretionary decision-making on the part of (executive)
producers in the organization of work.63 Executives who hire permalancers
are acknowledging the economic reality of the modern media conglomerate, while at the same time creating the illusion of full-time employment for
their workers. By looking out for their own best interests (an on-call reliable
work force), they have eliminated the need for performativity tactics by their
workers.
THE FREELANCE LIFE FOR ME?
Each of the freelancers was interviewed in December 2005 and January
2006, and each conded a similar refrain: Freelancing isnt right for everyone. It was their unique circumstances and unique employability that made
freelancing viable: a college student (McAllister); a working mother needing
exible hours (Lamarre); an overbooked, highly trained, in-demand professional (Rodriguez, Navarro, Brittain). By fall 2006, only McAllister opted to
leave freelancing. When he graduated from college, he accepted a reporter
position at an Oregon television station.64
So, is McAllister the only freelancer to be honest about a precarious
job status, and are the rest of the (economically successfully) freelancers
137
engaging in a false construction of job security and satisfaction? I would

argue no, given the present economic structure of television news. The October 2006 announcement of 700 job cuts at NBC, including the news division,
highlights the uncertain nature of network employment.65 The freelancers
I spoke with all acknowledge the problems of traditional staff employment:
ofce politics, the expectation of always being available for a job, or the risk
that a new boss will come in and clean house, leaving them unemployed.
These freelancers all, directly or indirectly, mention an important aspect
of their job status: they chose to work freelance. None had been unwillingly
thrust into their temp status by corporate downsizing. By voluntarily choosing itinerant employment, these network freelancers, by extension, control
their employment status. By knowing that a given job only lasts a day or a
week or six months, the freelance worker doesnt suffer from the worry that
the job could go away tomorrow. Working for a variety of employers leaves
them better at managing stress because they dont emotionally belong to
the rm.66 Those issues, combined with the ability to say no to an assignment, are incredibly empowering for a worker.
David R. Roediger described race as a way low-wage, white workers positioned themselves as different from their black counterparts and argues
racism is a response to a fear of dependency on wage labor and to the necessities of capitalist work discipline.67 Freelancers, by positioning themselves
as different from staff employees, engage in a similar construct. Many survived network television downsizing, opted to leave full-time work at a network or local afliate, and see no security in staff employment. They feel
their position is better than that of a staffer, regardless of its economic
benets for the employer.
However, this analysis comes with a caveat. The freelancers interviewed
represent only a small elite segment of the freelance network television work
force. The interviews were conducted before NBCs recent job reductions
and the WGA West strike. The concerns that led to these two events (an increasingly fragmented audience for traditional television and cable programming, networks search for alternative revenue sources, the need for cheaper
programming) will likely continue to intensify as additional media platforms
emerge. Freelancers, especially those unprotected by union contracts, could
be caught in an economic crunch as cash-strapped networks seek to further
pare costs. This could result in lower salaries, fewer benets, or a combination of the two. The 2006 Freelancer Union Report says that access to affordable health insurance is one of the most difcult challenges independent
works face.68 Cable television has already seen permalancer protests at the
MTV networks over eroding benets and an intervention by the Producers
Guild on the behalf of members working at the E! cable channel, which is
not a signatory to Guild contracts.69 Similar actions could take place at the
network news divisions if freelancer interests arent protected.
138
Television
To get an idea of the future of network television news, it is instructive to

look at how modern motion picture studios and production companies operate. Few creative and technical workers are full-time employees; most are
hired for the duration of a given lms production (or for the length of time
that their skills are needed in the production process). The networks seem
to be heading down a similar path. Virtually none of the photography and
sound crews the networks employ are full-time staffers. While staff reporters and producers do exist, freelancers are found in these jobs as well, more
frequently than in the past.70
To succeed, the freelancer adapts less to the culture of a corporation and
more to the culture of the individual. Television news workers, freelance or
staff, have little control over the types of stories that are covered by networks.
So, instead of being forced to cover non-news (celebrity rap sheets, missing
white girls, etc.), freelancers instead reject or accept work depending upon
mood, availability, or need for money. The desire for celebrity coverage, especially in the morning news programs such as the ever-expanding Today show
(4+ hours at the time of writing), means networks will inevitably turn to more
freelancers for work. The Michael Jackson trial in 2005, for example, provided
work for a virtual army of freelancers hired only for the duration of the trial;
extras were brought in for important days, such as the arraignment or when
the verdict was to be read. Freelancers also are vital during the short-term
breaking news stories that increasingly make up the bulk of news coverage,
such as the 2007 California wildres or Hurricane Katrina. However, because
of the time commitment and expense needed to pursue a story, long-term
investigative pieces may fall by the wayside in the freelance-dominated newsworld. Networks may be unwilling to hire a worker to investigate a story with
no guarantee of a nal product. The use of freelancers, rather than the individual freelancer, may contribute to the increasing trivialization in news.
Does this signal the decline and fall of network news? Not necessarily;
instead, it would appear that freelancers reect a shifting type of news gathering. Rather than the traditional bureau set-up, with permanent workers
on call waiting to travel to a storys location, the freelance model gives a
network a collection of people around the globe. It offers the exibility to
quickly move to a developing news story or to cover a feature piece without
the expense of ying a network crew to a location.
However, as the anecdotes from MTV and E! illustrate, without national
universal health coverage/benets or benevolent employers, union protections may be the best way to protect the freelance worker. Drawing from
the lm industry model, where studios hire unionized workers at negotiated
minimum rates, union contracts offer a bit of additional stability for a worker
holding a precarious job status. It levels the playing eld for workers.
The freelance worker occupies an interesting role. On the one hand,
freelancers work at the whim of the media. On the other, freelancers hold
139
immense power. Without freelancers, networks would be unable to cover

news stories in a competitive manner. A network that doesnt react quickly in
a breaking news situation could lose qualied help to a competitor. Worse, it
could lose the respect of the viewers, who may tune to a news source offering
more comprehensive coverage of an event. Networks should treat freelancers as valued resources, through strong union contracts, improved pay for
nonunion per diems, and maintenance of permalancer benets.
As Jordan notes:
The performativity of temp workers may be instrumental in enabling others to think reexively and critically about what it means to perform and
negotiate identity in the myriad dynamic situations encountered on a daily
basis. Performed compliance certainly entails risks and does not lead to a
utopian existence, but it is an effective means for individuals to survive and
even subvert contingent situations.71
Successful freelancers seem to relish the power their jobs provide. The adaptive techniques they use to cope with job uncertainty allow them to nd
fulllment in nontraditional and unstable career paths.
NOTES
1. See David Manning White, The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of
News, Journalism Quarterly 27 (1950): 383390; Jeremy Tunstall, Specialist Correspondents: Goals, Careers, Roles, in Approaches to Media, a Reader, ed. Oliver BoydBennett and Chris Newbold (London: Arnold Publishers, 1993), 287293.
2. Warren Breed, Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis, in
Boyd-Bennett and Newbold, 277282.
3. Growing numbers of freelance print, online, and broadcast newsworkers led the
Society of Professional Journalists to establish the National Freelance Committee in
May of 2004, see Wendy Hoke, We Hear You and We Like What Youre Saying,
Quill 92 4 (2004): 3839.
4. Matthew R. Kerbel, If It Bleeds, It Leads: An Anatomy of Television News (Boulder,
CO: Westview Press, 2000).
5. Richard Campbell, Securing the Middle Ground: Reporter Formulas in 60
Minutes, in Television: The Critical View, ed. Horace Newcomb (New York: Oxford
6. See Stephen Hess, Media Mavens, Culture and Society, March/April (1996):
7078; Matthew Cecil, Bad Apples: Paradigm Overhaul and the CNN/Time Tailwind Story, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 261 (2002): 4659; Candy Crowley
and Deborah Potter, An Experiment Changed: TV Coverage of the 2004 Campaign,
Journalism Studies 62 (2005): 233236; Daniel C. Hallin, Commercialism and Professionalism in the American News Media, in Mass Media and Society, ed. James
Curran and Michael Gurevitch (London: Arnold Publishers, 2000), 218237; Aaron
McKain, Not Necessarily the News: Gatekeeping, Remediation and The Daily
Show, Journal of American Culture, 28 4 (2005): 415 430.
140
Television
7. See C. A. Hollield, Organization vs. Professional Culture in the Newsroom:

Television News Directors and Newspaper Editors Hiring Decisions, Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media 451(2001): 92118; IWMF, Media Report to
Women, Voices of Women Media Leaders 332 (2005): 4; Matthew C. Erlich, The
Competitive Ethos in Television Newswork, Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
12 (1995): 196212.
8. Erlich, The Competitive Ethos.
9. WGAE-ABC News Employees Approve New Contract, Writers Guild of
America East, http://www.wgaeast.org/index.php/articles/article/1186# (2007).
10. This chapters focus on network television news, rather than cable news outlet
or local stations, is a conscious decision. Cable networks and local stations reach limited markets (those who subscribe to cable/satellite services and those within reach
of a stations broadcast signal, respectively). By comparison, the three traditional
broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, are the only ones offering several hours of
daily news programming over the airwaves to the entire nation (PBS news coverage
is much more limited, in terms of both hours aired and audience).
11. See Michael Ertel and others, Adverse Pyschosocial Working Conditions and
Subjective Health in Freelance Media Workers, Work and Stress, 193 (2005): 293
299; Shirley Dex and others, Freelance Workers and Contract Uncertainty: The
Effects of Contractual Changes in the Television Industry, Work, Employment and
Society, 14 2 (2000): 283305; Lizzie Thynne, Women in Television in the Multichannel Age, Feminist Review, 64 Spring (2000): 6582.
12. Gillian Ursell, Creating Value and Valuing Creation in Contemporary UK
Television: Or Dumbing Down the Workforce, Journalism Studies, 4 1 (2003): 38.
13. Tom Goldstein, Speech to the Society of American Travel Writers, in ODwyers
PR Services Report, December, 4 (1999).
14. General Accounting Ofce, Contingent Workers Incomes and Benets Lag
Behind Those of the Rest of the Workforce (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 2000).
15. Jill Andresky Fraser, White Collar Sweat-Shop: The Deterioration of Work and its
Rewards in Corporate America (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001), 16.
16. Freelancers Union, Working Today: The Rise of the Freelance Class (New York:
Freelancers Union, 2005), 8.
17. Vicki Smith, New Forms of Work Organization, Annual Review of Sociology, 23
(1997): 331.
18. See Gretchen Purser, Curbside Contenders: Dignity and Distancing Among
Immigrant Day Laborers, American Sociological Association Annual Meeting
(Philadelphia, August 12, 2005); Jonathan Isler, Normalizing Risk and Uncertainty:
Web Workers Adapt to Employment Instability and Insecurity in the New Economy, American Sociological Association Annual Meeting (Philadelphia, August 11,
2005).
19. Edward P. Tompson, Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage
Books, 1966), 10.
20. See Alec R. Levenson, Long-run Trends in Part-Time and Temporary Employment: Toward an Understanding, in On the Job: Is Long-Term Employment a
Thing of the Past?, ed. David Neumark (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000),
335397; Henry S. Farber, Alternative and Part-Time Employment: Arrangement
as a Response to Job Loss, in On the Job, 398 426.
141
21. Levenson, Long-run Trends, 336.

22. John W. Jordan, Sabotage or Performed Compliance: Rhetorics of Resistance in
Temp Worker Discourse, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 801 (2003): 24.
23. Jordan, Sabotage or Performed Compliance, 35.
24. See Ken Auletta, Three Blind Mice: How the TV Networks Lost Their Way (New
York: Vintage Books, 1992); Edward Bliss, Jr., Now the News: The Story of Broadcast
Journalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991).
25. Gaye Tuchman, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality (New York:
Free Press, 1978).
26. Bliss, Now the News, 435.
27. Auletta, Three Blind Mice.
28. Bliss, Now the News.
29. Auletta, Three Blind Mice.
30. Janet Wasko, Trade Unions and Broadcasting: A Case Study of the National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, in The Critical Communications
Review Volume I: Labor, the Working Class and the Media, ed. Vincent Mosco and Janet
Wasko (New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1983), 85113.
31. Ray Taylor, e-mail correspondence with author (2005).
32. See Dave McNary, CBS, IBEW Extend Contract, Daily Variety, January 24
(2007): 6; WGAE-ABC News Employees Approve New Contract, Writers Guild
of America East, http://www.wgaeast.org/index.php/articles/article/1186# (2007);
Michael Cieply, Both Sides in Writers Strike See New-Media Future at Stake, New
York Times November 30 (2007): C1.
33. J. D. Power & Associates, 2005 Residential Cable/Satellite TV Satisfaction Study,
(Westlake Village, CA: J.D. Power & Associates, 2005).
34. Michele Greppi, NBC Nightly News Big 3s Most Seen, Television Week, October 10 (2005), 43.
35. Bliss, Now the News.
36. Bill Carter, Chimps, Capers and Charming Serial Killers: The New Season
Television, New York Times, Section 2, September 10 (2006): 98.
37. A February 16, 2006, Cablevision posting on the industry Web site http://www.
tvspy.com featured these freelance listings: Trafc & Weather Reporter, Graphic
Artist, and freelance Associate Producers (two).
38. Cable World and Broadcasting and Cable regularly track freelance and staff movement at cable news outlets as well as local stations.
39. See New York Post, David Buckman, June 1 (2005), Judgment Day Planned to
Avoid a Media Riot at the Jackson Verdict, p. 76; Marin Independent Journal, Paul
Liberatore, April 5 (2005), Lion Tamer of the Jackson Media Circus, Lexis/Nexis
Academic Universe Search 11/17/05; Hadass Sheffer, The Risks and Rewards of
Freelance Careers in Media, The Chronicle of Higher Education Chronicle Careers,
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/ (2001).
40. Network news executive (name withheld), telephone interview by author (New
York, December 21, 2005).
41. Issac Rodriguez, telephone interview by author (Los Angeles, CA, December 15,
2005).
42. Nelson Navarro, telephone interview by author (Ardsley, NY, December 26,
2005).
142
Television
43. Lori M. Gossett, Falling Between the Cracks: Control and Communication
Challenges of a Temporary Workforce, Management Communication Quarterly 193
(2006): 410.
44. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, NABET-CWA/
NBC Master Agreement 20022006 (2006), 277282.
45. Taylor, e-mail.
46. Navarro, telephone interview.
47. Carla Brittain, telephone interview by author (New York, January 12, 2006).
48. Rodriguez, telephone interview.
50. Gisele Lamare, telephone interview by author (Portland, OR, December 21, 2005).
51. Producer (name withheld), telephone interview by author (Eugene, OR, January 15,
2008).
53. Tristan McAllister, Interview by Author (Eugene, OR, December 7, 2005).
54. Producer (name withheld), Telephone Interview by Author (Eugene, OR, December 21, 2005).
55. Shelley Lewis, Telephone Interview by Author (New York, December 20, 2005).
56. Producer (name withheld), telephone interview.
58. Fraser noted the growth of permatemps in some industries; these workers are
often contracted by a temporary employment agency and typically receive no insurance or benets.
59. Network news executive (name withheld), telephone interview.
60. Valerie Antcliff, Broadcasting in the 1990s: Competition, Choice and Inequality? Media, Culture & Society, 276 (2005): 841859.
61. Lewis, telephone interview.
62. Network Executive (name withheld), telephone interview by author (Eugene,
OR, December 21, 2005).
63. Antcliff, Broadcasting in the 1990s, 857.
64. By the time of publication, McAllister had left his full-time job and returned to
freelance work.
65. See Atlanta Journal Constitution, David Ho, October 20 (2006), Prime-time
Laggard NBC to Cut Jobs; Savings Will be Invested in Internet, p. 66.
66. Richard Sennett, The Culture of the New Capitalism (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2006), 53.
67. David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American
Working Class (London: Verso, 1991), 13.
68. Working Today, New Unionism and the Next Social Safety Net (New York: Freelancers Union, 2006).
69. See Brian Stelter, MTV to Let Freelancers Stay on Its Insurance, New York
Times, December 13 (2007): C8; Richard Verrier, E! Brings Healthcare into the Picture for Freelance Producers, Los Angeles Times, October 2 (2007): C1.
70. Freelance workers, as mentioned earlier, are also used frequently in both local
stations and cable news and entertainment news outlets. Similar concerns could also
be raised for these sectors of the news industry. However, often these jobs are unrepresented by union contracts, see Stetler and Verrier.
chapter 8
The Economic and Business Realities

of Reality Television
Richard Crew
In early 2003, as American Idol, The Bachelorette, and Joe Millionaire were
racking up impressive ratings, executives at the major broadcast television
networks made bold predictions about the future of reality television. The
world as we knew it is over . . . I think people will be ordering fewer dramatic
pilots, predicted Les Moonves, president of CBS Television. The audience
is never wrong. They have a huge appetite for this, and weve got a responsibility to satisfy that appetite, proclaimed Sandy Grushow, the chairman
of the Fox Entertainment Group.1 Then, amazingly, four months later while
presenting their upcoming fall schedules to advertisers, network executives
put down reality shows as no better than schedule llers, bad for the image
of a network, bad for the business in general.2
Fast-forward 18 months to the key November 2004 rating period, and
bad news arrived for the broadcast networks: For the rst time in television
history, the rival cable networks attracted more viewers than the traditional
networks during the primetime viewing hours.3 And during the same rating
period, some very telling developments: Younger audience demographics,
the ones advertisers cherish, were growing for reality shows, while older
adult viewers were continuing to watch scripted comedy and drama series.
Specically, reality programs on televisions broadcast channels received
top ratings among adults ages 1849 in six of the top 10 and 11 of the top
20 shows.4 So, although cable programming now had more total primetime
viewers than the major networks, reality television was drawing young viewers back to the broadcast television. This was the audience that had been
drifting away to cable channels before reality came along.5
144
Television
There is business logic behind the foregoing statistics and executive tactics, and that will be examined later in this essay. But rst, simply put, the
broadcast networks had three signicant problems early in the new millennium. They needed to lure back younger audiences because viewers under 35
had turned away from comedies.6 Next, the networks had to shed overhead
because the expense of producing comedy and dramatic shows was increasing up to 10 percent each year.7 And as always, the networks needed to make
a prot, and the trend was not positive. NBC, for example, once the king of
network comedy, saw its 20052006 season ad sales fall by $800 million from
the previous year.8
The networks found a silver bulletone change they hoped would solve
their three problems: reality television. During the 20052006 television
season, broadcasters added 51 reality programs to their schedules and lower
cost, unscripted television programming became the life-blood of free TV in
the United States.9 Ted Magder, who studies the international trade in media
products, concludes, Reality TV may have captured the attention of audiences, but it also looks good on the books and balance sheets of those whose
business is television.10
This chapter examines reality television from an economic and business
perspective. It tracks the business reasons for the initiation of reality television in the 1950s, the economic reasons for its growth and success from the
1980s forward, and nally the reason there is an international element in
almost every new reality program today. The chapter concludes that television is moving toward a two-tiered system: In the near future the broadcast
and cable networks will primarily offer lower-cost reality shows, sports, and
game shows, while premium pay services such as HBO will continue to become the home of scripted drama and comedy.
REALITY PROGRAMS NECESSARY
FOR TELEVISIONS EARLY GROWTH
From the 1950swhen the NBC, CBS, and ABC oligopoly emergedand
into the 1980s, there were two dominant program forms: the sitcom and the
drama.11 Modest innovations occurred from time to time, as when the sitcom
stretched the denition of family (such as Threes Company and Will & Grace),
and the drama added serial elements (Hill Street Blues, Greys Anatomy). But
Harvard Professor Emeritus Richard Caves, who examines entertainment
economics, explains that this overall sameness in broadcast network schedules occurs because nobody knows. Caves borrows the phrase from the
screenwriter William Goldman, suggesting that television industry executives know a great deal about what has succeeded and failed in the past, but
their future predictions are no better than a roll of the dice.12 Therefore, as
The Economic and Business Realities of Reality Television
145
long as tried-and-true formats continue to work, there is little incentive to

try anything totally new. Particularly when there were only three networks
for viewers to choose from and only 22 hours of primetime per week, broadcasters enjoyed demand premium as the U.S. economy grew concurrent
with the number of advertisers. Fixed supply and growing demand equaled
higher advertising prices.13
The origins of reality television go back to the late 1940s when broadcasters needed to attract viewers willing and able to purchase TV sets that averaged $800 in postWorld War II dollars.14 Reality-based programming lled
time until network shows were accessible to larger audiences.15 Candid Camera
(1948) and Truth or Consequences, starting in 1950, used hidden cameras and
articial realities to capture the reactions of ordinary people. Whats My Line?
in 1940, Ive Got a Secret in 1952, and To Tell the Truth in 1956 brought real people into the broadcast studio.16 Most of these programs were either owned or
invested in by advertisers during the 1940s and 1950s. In the late 1970s, Evening Magazine and PM Magazine (the same series using different titles in different television markets) utilized newly developed portable tape equipment to
create a daily video magazine featuring ordinary people doing extraordinary
things and extraordinary people doing ordinary things.17 PM and Evening
Magazine also fullled a business objective: to program the primetime access
period at local stations, while providing enough public affairs material to satisfy the FCCs requirement for renewing the licenses of broadcast stations.18
REALITY SHOWS LAUNCH A NETWORK
In the late 1980s, the rst recognizable wave of reality-based series
emerged.19 Fox redened U.S. network practices by producing cheap reality programming, which could compete in a competitive environment of
network, cable and independent broadcasting.20 Fox rst introduced Americas Most Wanted in 1988, a program similar to the successful British series Crimewatch UK.21 The ride-along reality series Cops followed in 1989.
The cost of producing each was less than half that of scripted programs,
according to Richard Kurlander, a former vice president of station programming for Petry Television. Each used the fast-evolving, portable videotape
technology pioneered by Sony, did not employ professional actors, and hired
nonunion story shapers rather than script writers.22 These reality shows
got extra traction with viewers when a 22-week Writers Guild of America
(WGA) strike in 1988 shut down all other scripted comedies and dramatic
programs.23 As a result, network ratings for NBC, CBS, and ABC were down
9 percent, and it was estimated that the strike cost a half billion dollars in lost
revenues and wages. When an agreement was nally reached 22 weeks later,
it looked similar to a deal that could have been brokered before the walkout
146
Television
began.24 The edgling Fox network gained viewers during the ve-month
strike primarily because of the unscripted Americas Most Wanted.25
The WGA strike was only the tip of an economic restructuring taking
place in U.S. television in the late 1980s. With the growth of cable television,
home video recorders, the new Fox network, and additional independent
television stations going on the air, the existing television audience began to
fragment. With advertising revenues spread over a larger number of distributors, the networks needed to cut programming costs. And two more business developments in the industry added to the pressure on programming
overhead. Each of the big-three networks was sold in the mid-1980s, resulting in large amounts of corporate debt. Simultaneously, changes in audience
measurement techniques were implemented to identify specic market segments, resulting in lower ratings for the broadcast networks.26
Reality television became a viable economic option in the 1990s.27 By
putting some reality shows in their programming mix, broadcast networks
could average down the cost of programming across the entire primetime
schedule. The networks could keep ordering the higher priced and more popular comedies and dramas but still contain overall program costs.28
IMPORTS, HYBRIDS, AND AMATEURS
Americas Funniest Home Videos premiered on U.S. television in 1990. While
production expenses were kept moderate through the use of viewer-provided
video, more signicantly, the series was inspired by the Japanese variety
show Fun Television with Kato-chan and Ken-chan. Starting with Americas
Most Wanted, continuing with Americas Funniest Home Videos, and soon to
follow with The Real World and then with Survivor, these fresh U.S. reality TV programs were actually the result of an increased international
circulation and recirculation of products through globalized media markets.29 This reality programming trend would become more obvious from
the year 2000 on, and its economic signicance will be discussed later in
this chapter.
Nummer 28 aired on Dutch television in 1991, the rst show to put strangers together in the same environment for an extended period of time while
taping the resulting drama.30 One year later, The Real World debuted on the
MTV cable network. As of 2008, The Real World is the longest continuously
running reality television series in the United States. The landmark series
combines (seemingly) hidden cameras with contrived situations (all pioneered by Candid Camera), while adding the personal revelations of Whats
My Line?, the videotape techniques of PM and Evening Magazine, and the
voyeuristic appeal of Cops. The combination of techniques resulted in a format that is more structured and crafted than any that had come before.31 It
also ts reality television scholar Annette Hills astutely critical observation
147
that television creates fresh programming by cannibalizing itself.32 The modest expense of creating a controlled environment in which young, nonactors
experience living on their own together made the series affordable to MTV,
which was venturing into nonmusic video programming.
Over the years, the talent show, another form of reality television, has
been a highly popular format, perhaps because viewers can witness a seemingly average person become a star. The rst TV talent show, The Original Amateur Hour, moved from radio to TV in 1948 and discovered Pat
Boone and Gladys Knight. Starting in 1983, Star Search found such stars as
Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake.33 By 2008, American Idol, modeled on
the British series Pop Idol, had added Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood
among others to the popular music scene. Idol incorporated a twist to the
talent show format by including the audition processalthough this idea
had been used before on Chuck Barriss series The Gong Show, which aired
from 1976 to 1978. From a business perspective, talent shows with amateur
performances have signicantly less overhead than ones totally scripted and
acted by professionals.
RESOURCE PRICES INFLUENCE PROGRAMMING
If you teach a parrot to say demand and supply, the old joke goes, you
will have trained an economist. And textbooks on economics would probably
agree because the tools of demand and supply are key to understanding economic issues. In the case of television programs, demand and supply determinants help to explain the signicance and impact of reality television.34
Costs, particularly resource prices, are a major factor affecting the supply
of a product. When costs change, it will affect the supply of a product. In
virtually every expense line of a reality television shows production budgetfrom game, reality/game, talent/audition shows, to newsmagazine,
talk, cooking, and home makeover showsresource prices are lower than
traditional scripted programming. Fictional programs such as comedies and
dramas require highly talented writers, actors, sets, studios, and specialized
production personnel. By comparison, nonction reality shows use smaller
crews, have fewer paid performers, and require less studio and set time. In
2008 dollars, a scripted one-hour network program can cost $3 million per
episode, compared to $1.5 to $2 million for a one-hour reality show.35 Cable
network episode costs are moderately lower (they generally reach smaller audiences than the broadcast networks), but the differentials between scripted
and reality programming are similar.
Following economic theory, lower resource prices reduce production costs
and increase protsin this case, for the television networks when they buy
or produce reality programming. But while the economic advantage offered
by nonscripted shows is obvious, until the end of the 1990s, reality programs
148
Television
were not consistently drawing large numbers of viewers or advertiserfriendly demographics.36

REALITY TAKES OFF
Spooked by the chance of another devastating writers strike, in 1999 CBS
ordered two unscripted, strike-proof shows: Survivor, based on the Swedish
show Expedition Robinson; and Big Brother, a series already a success in the
United Kingdom. When the strike was averted, CBS aired both series anyway in
the summer of 2000.37 Survivor was an immediate success. Drawing 51 million
viewers for the nal August episode, it was the second most-watched program that year. A whopping 59 percent of the advertiser-attractive adult
demographic ages 1849 were tuned to Survivor. With a rst season cost
of $700,000 per episode, advertisers were charged $600,000 for each commercial during the nal showtwice the rate charged at the beginning of
the Survivor season.38 While Big Brother had a slower start that summer, it
gained popularity in subsequent seasons. One year later, with the possibility
of both writers and actors strikes, CBS, Fox, and ABC execs moved more
reality series into production.39
NBC, however, decided to emphasize comedy programming because it had
a strong track record with shows such as Frasier, Seinfeld, and Friends.40 But
even NBC, which touted 16 half-hour comedies in the late 1990s, had shrunk
its comedy lineup to just four by the 2004 2005 season.41 Perhaps because
NBC had not moved aggressively enough from comedy to reality, as previously noted, its 20052006 ad sales were down $800 million from the previous year.42
Many important advertisers were slow in warming to reality television
programming. The reality genres excesses in the 1990s were unattractive
to prestige advertisers because shows such as Foxs When Good Pets Go Bad
tarnished the image of reality shows. The gross-out stunts on NBCs Fear
Factor, which began airing in 2001 following the success of Survivor, made
it an unfavorable buy as well. And reality series prior to 2003 demonstrated
they attracted lower-income audiences and didnt score signicant numbers
of 1849-year-old viewers.43 But big reality hits such as American Idol and
Joe Millionaire turned that around, pulling in both large numbers of upscale
and younger viewers.44 In the winter of 2003, Joe Millionaire and American
Idol gave the Fox network its rst February ratings victory ever for the
key 18 49-year-old demographic.45 When season two of Idol debuted on
January 21, 2003, drawing 26.5 million viewers, it gave Fox its highest ratings ever except for a sporting event.46 Then the nale of Joe Millionaire on
February 17, 2003, drew 34.6 million people to Fox, the highest rating in the
networks 17-year history.47
149
Coming off these amazing performances, why then, as described earlier,

did network executives belittle their upcoming reality shows as schedule
llers and bad for the business in May 2004?48
REALITY TV HURTS VERTICALLY
INTEGRATED COMPANIES
This brings us to the elephant in the boardroom. Each of the major broadcast networks is part of a larger production studio that seeks to control the
production, distribution, and exhibition of their products. This is vertical integration. And these studios have historically depended on scripted dramatic
and comedy series to make their operations protable.
In May 2004, network executives needed strong sales during the upfront
selling season because the traditional fall lineup of comedies and dramas had
always brought higher ad rates than reality shows.49 So, intentionally deemphasizing the rising popularity of reality shows, the network executives
continued to push their scripted product. From a business perspective, reality television shows on a network schedule can actually hurt companies that
are vertically integrated.
The large conglomerates that own the broadcast networks depend upon
scripted programs to provide long-term prots once a program series
reaches 90 to 100 episodes. Thats the point when backend sales to individual TV stations (known as syndication), cable networks, and international
markets generate secondary prots. In addition, tertiary prots could come
from music, books, and other merchandising tie-ins, video games, Internet
exploitation, and even theme park attractions.50 Scripted shows such as Seinfeld and Friends, for example, had billion-dollar back-end revenue. One Wall
Street analyst calls this the huge lollipop at the end of the rainbow.51
By contrast, reality shows garner less revenue from advertisers, and even
the most popular series dont repeat well. Reality burns out much more
quickly than conventional series, so reruns dont sell well to cable or in syndication.52 Additionally, the overseas market for fully produced reality programs is small because countries that purchase nonction series prefer to
purchase formats and produce their own culturally specic versions.53
With the networks generally resistant to reality television programming, how did it nally come to dominate primetime schedules? And why do
cable networks such as MTV and Bravo build their original program lineups
around reality programs? The abundance of reality programming today is
best understood by looking at the determinants of demand, classically put
forward by economists Alfred Marshall and Paul Samuelson.54 Two demand
determinants in particular deserve examination: tastes/preferences and the
availability of substitutes.
150
Television
YOUNG VIEWERS CHANGING TASTES

AND PREFERENCES
Economic theory posits that all markets are shaped by collective and individual tastes and preferences. These patterns are partly determined by culture and partly inuenced by information and knowledge of products and
services (including advertising).55
MTV has studied the under 25-year-old audience and dubs them mediaactives because they have never known a world of limited options and
forced choices: therefore they take an active role in their media experience.56
In 2003, Betsy Frank, MTV Networks executive vice president of research
and planning, suggested that reality television is a preview of the impact
these younger audiences will have on television. Events since 2003 support
her point. For example, a 2006 Nielsen Media Research report on the top 10
regularly scheduled broadcast television programs revealed that 60 percent
were unscripted. This shows that the popularity of scripted television
sitcoms and dramashas been declining, and reality television shows are
taking their place.57
MTV discovered that relevance is everything to the media actives. They
are the rst generation to grow up with cable, particularly channels created
just for them such as Nickelodeon, Disney, and MTV. Videogames have given
them their own reality. And the Internet has customized a world with specic
relevance for their interests. Frank suggests anything irrelevant will not be
on their media menu for long.58 By example, MTV discovered that most of
their best shows only last two or three seasons. While The Real World is an
exception, the location and the cast still change every year to keep it fresh.59
TV historian Tim Brooks comments that the MTVs program schedule is
purposely slapdash. For them to imitate the structure of a traditional network would be negative, he observed. That would remind teens that the
network is really run by grownups.60
These teens are bringing their media-active habits into adulthood. A 2003
study by the media research company Bolt, Inc. found that 80 percent of
1224 year-olds say they are often online while watching television.61 Reality television capitalizes on this interest by creating Web sites that offer
their viewers online experiencessome interactive both before and after
episodes appear on television.
Todays viewers under 35 are bored with the network comedy format
pioneered by Lucy and Ricky that features the setup and joke sequence.62
Networks have tried tweaking the format in various ways, with only limited
results. The most recent assortment of sitcom failures was the Friends spinoffs featuring young single people quipping sardonically to one another.63
Traditional television drama has also declined in popularity with younger
viewers. This chapters author discovered the discontent viewers ages
151
23 to 38 have with actors and scripted series when he moderated several

focus groups of Survivor viewers in 2003. Expressing the opinion of most
group members, one participant said Survivor is,
way more interesting than a committee of writers, trying to write a
show . . . If somebody wrote that a woman Boy Scout leader would decide a
guy is so annoying (that) shes not only going to deprive him of $100,000,
but is willing to lose $900,000 in order to keep him from having that, it
would be hard to believe . . . in a sitcom or drama.
When the group participants were asked, What do you like about Survivor? more anecdotes like the previous one were offered. In this research
study, multiple young adult viewers clearly stated they were tired of predictable, scripted shows with actors that conveniently resolve at the end of each
episode.64
In economic terms then, the tastes and preferences of television consumers under 35 have increased the demand for reality product. And a corresponding decrease in this groups taste/preference for traditional sitcoms
and drama has decreased demand for scripted programming.
AVAILABILITY OF PROGRAM SUBSTITUTES
Consumption choices are inuenced by the alternative options facing
users in the relevant marketplace. Prior to the mid-1980s, television distribution channels were scarce. Then, as the number of cable and satellite subscribers grew, the audience for the major broadcast networks grew smaller.
According to Harvard economist Richard Caves, the decrease in the share of
broadcast viewing has been in direct proportion to the gain in audiences by
basic cable networks. The broadcast networks response was to reduce the
cost of their programming and, thereby, the quality. At the same time, cable
was upgrading their programs to serve an expanded audience.65
Three overlapping distribution systemsbroadcasting, cable, and satellite TVdene television networking in 2008. And six multimedia transnational corporations actually own a majority of the important network
properties across all three of these industrial sectors. With this consolidation
in networking, televisions newest business model no longer favors the major
broadcast networks.66 None of the broadcast networks attract more than
20 percent of the primetime audience today.67 The cable networks alone have
several advantages over broadcast networks: They deliver higher quality signals (vs. over-the-air signals), they have two revenue streamssubscription
and advertising vs. advertising-only for broadcast, and they target smaller
niche audiences, program and promote their brand identities to viewers all
year long, and aggressively cater 24/7 to consumer needs across a wide array
of programming choices.68
152
Television
With the availability of these attractive alternative goods, the demand

for the major broadcast networks programs continues to decrease. In 2004,
broadcasters began to actually repeat episodes of popular programs within
the same week, usually on Saturdays, the lowest-rated night of the week.69
At the end of 2007, NBC announced it would purchase a block of realitytype programmingup to three consecutive hoursfrom a well-known
cable show reality producer to be telecast one evening in primetime each
week.70
Another reason reality television has become attractive to the broadcast
networks is that it permits the scheduling of new, inexpensive programming
year-round. The cable networks had successfully counter-programmed them
for many years by premiering new shows and offering new episodes of continuing programs during the summer. Most of the broadcast networks now
use reality television to level the playing eld in the summer, so that they
also schedule new programs year-round.71
It appears that in the future, the broadcast networks will look more like
the larger cable networks and vice versa, and an abundance of modest-priced
reality television programs will continue to appear on all of them.
NETWORK TRENDS FOR REALITY,
COMEDY, AND DRAMA
There are now signs that the habits of the Tivo culture those viewers
with digital video recorders (DVRs)are working against scripted programming. As previously noted, Nielsen Media Research reported in 2006
that 6 of the top 10 regularly scheduled TV programs were unscripted (reality shows, game shows, and football). Nielsen has added another category as
well: the top 10 time-shifted primetime TV programs. Scripted programming may be slowly disappearing from the most popular program list, but 9
out of the top 10 Tivo-ed shows that year were scripted comedies or dramas.
This suggests that viewers with DVRs watch reality and game shows live,
as they do with sporting events, while recording scripted shows for later
viewing.72 Networks and advertisers must now be concerned that, in addition to low ratings for scripted fare, commercials in certain shows are being
skipped as well. If audiences for unscripted shows watch live, they have a
better chance of seeing the commercials.
And the future will probably get worse for scripted programming on the
broadcast networks. Nielsen is now also reporting the top 10 broadcast programs for product placementthat is, commercial mentions or visuals of
products purposely integrated into program content. Nine of the 10 shows
receiving the highest number of product mentions were reality and game
shows.73 This additional benet that unscripted programs can offer to their
sponsors may help win over any previously dubious advertisers.
153
Meanwhile, premium cable channels such as HBO and Showtime are freed
of the need to please advertisers because their economic model is based on
monthly fees. Unique and distinctive scripted programs are appearing regularly on these networks because there is less pressure to generate nightly ratings. Some of these programs have shown they can reach signicant numbers
of viewers. In 1999, for example, HBO was the rst cable channel to develop a
series that received larger audiences than the leading series on the broadcast
networks. The same seriesThe Sopranosoutpaced network competition
many Sundays in adults ages 28 to 49 during its eight-year run. This is an extraordinary achievement because HBO is only seen in one-fourth to one-third
of American homes.74 These channels attract creative writers and producers
by offering greater freedom to go beyond traditional broadcast concepts.75
HBO in particular has developed a strong counter-programming strategy
to ll some of the openings for scripted shows that the broadcast networks
have created. HBO has offered its subscribers The Larry Sanders Show, Sex
and the City, and Curb Your Enthusiasm, which, like The Mary Tyler Moore
Show, All in the Family, and Seinfeld, are comic commentaries on contemporary
American manners and culture.76 The network regularly creates made-forTV lms that rival the quality and scope of those normally shown in movie
theaters, and its high-quality dramas, such as The Sopranos and The Wire,
receive praise from critics and subscribers alike. From his study of HBOs
programming, Al Auster concludes, there seems little doubt that along with
dominating the Emmy Awards each year, HBO will continue to be the venue
where the must-see shows will be found.77
While one current programming trend is the production of high-quality,
scripted programming on the premium cable services, another is the import
of proven reality television formats from international markets. When a reality series is successful in one country, sometimes the cultural aspects can be
stripped out, the template sold to the United States, and the product can be
made to look like any other U.S. production. From an economic perspective,
this helps mitigate the nobody knows conundrum: reducing uncertainty
and increasing the probability of success. In comparing U.S. and international media products, Magder found that four out of ve original U.S. productions fail after one season or less, whereas three out of four imported
formats succeed here.78
Two of the large international syndicators of reality television to the
United States are Freemantle and Endemol. Freemantle Media, the U.K.
company that brought Pop Idol to the United States as American Idol, operates in foreign markets the same way as the U.S. fast food giant McDonalds.
It has subsidiaries in some countries and franchise-holders that produce local
versions of product in others.79 The Dutch company Endemol has sold reality formats to many countries, including Big Brother, Survivor, and Fear Factor to the United States. Magder describes Endemol as crafting a television
154
Television
format to become an international brand with distinctive and carefully modulated local variationsthe formula tweaked from country to country, like
the sugar content in Coca-Cola.80 These companies will continue to bring
overseas products to the United States because the problems of new reality
series can frequently be avoided by purchasing a program format that has
already been successful in another culture.
ADDING IT ALL UP
It is conceivable that reality television could eventually go the way of the
western, a TV genre hardly seen anywhere today, even here in its country of
origin. But right now the economics of television favor inexpensive programmingand todays advertiser-prized audience of adults 18 49 doesnt seem
to mind the less costly looking shows. They say they are getting original stories and seeing original characters that professional writers cant dream up.
The quality of scripted programs on televisions premium services such
as HBO suggests television may be moving toward a two-tiered system for
programs. The broadcast networks, and even cable services, may continue to
primarily offer lower-cost reality shows, sports, and game shows, while the
premium cable services become the places that viewers can consistently nd
high-quality, scripted TV drama and comedy.
With reality television programs elbowing scripted shows out of TVs
schedules, the Hollywood studios will not reap the large rewards that
scripted TV brings with its potential for multiyear back-end sales. Because
vertically integrated companies owning broadcast television networks makes
less sense when the amount of scripted programming declines, one or more
of the major networks could eventually be sold. But a veteran media nancial
analyst doesnt believe that long-term media values will diminish signicantly because the syndication business is just one of the many assets that
contribute to studio prots.81
The economic and business realities point to reality programming being
much more than a fad. Compared to traditional scripted programming, reality television is regularly delivering shows that appeal to younger, more
upscale audiences. At the same time, reality TV can cost about half as much
to produce. As far as what may someday do a better job of reaching the next
young generation and meet future business and economic realities, nobody
knows. But all signs point to reality television having a very long and dominant run on broadcast and cable networks in the United States.
NOTES
1. Bill Carter, Reality Shows Alter the Way TV Does Business, The New York
Times, January 25, 2003, 1.
155
2. Bill Carter, Even as Executives Scorn the Genre, TV Networks Still Rely on
Reality, The New York Times, May 19, 2003, Business.
3. Denise Martin, Cables Neat Sweep Claims First Primetime Win Over Broadcasters, Variety, December 8, 2004.
4. Eric Schmuckler, Facing Reality, Mediaweek, May 31, 2004, 32.
5. Carter, Reality Shows Alter, 1.
6. Bill Carter, The Laughter is Fading in Sitcomland; Reality Shows, Costs, and Innovative Comedy Threaten a TV Staple, The New York Times, May 24, 2004, Arts.
7. Richard E. Caves, Switching Channels: Organization and Change in TV Broadcasting (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 12.
8. Lynette Rice, The Incredible Shrinking Network, Entertainment Weekly, November 3, 2006.
9. Gary Levin, Simple Economics, USA Today, October 20, 2007, 3d.
10. Ted Magder, The End of TV 101: Reality Programs, Formats, and the New
Business of Television, in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray
and Laurie Ouelette (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 138.
11. Gary R. Edgerton and Kyle Nicholas, I Want My Niche TV: Genre as a Networking Strategy in the Digital Era, in Thinking Outside the Box: A Contemporary
Television Genre Reader, ed. Gary R. Edgerton and Brian G. Rose (Kentucky: The
University Press of Kentucky, 2005), 249.
12. Caves, Switching Channels, 5.
13. Ibid., 113.
14. Tom Genova, TV Selling Prices, Television History The First 75 Years, 2006,
http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm (January 4, 2008).
15. Claudine Morgan, Reality Bites: The Truth Behind Reality TV, Xpress Magazine, April 17, 2007.
16. Charles B. Slocum, The Real History of Reality TV or, How Alan Funt Won
the Cold War, The Writers Guild of America West, http://wga.org/organizesub.
aspx?id=1099 (November 20, 2007).
17. Richard Crew, PM Magazine: A Missing Link in the Evolution of Reality Television, Film & History, 37.2 (2007): 30.
18. Richard Kurlander, interview by author, November 13, 2007.
19. Slocum, The Real History.
20. Annette Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television (New York:
Routledge, 2005), 17.
21. Chad Raphael, The Political Economic Origins of Reali-TV, in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouelette (New York: New
York University Press, 2004), 131.
22. Kurlander, interview.
23. Jose Adalian and Michael Schneider, Writers Strike: Reality Sets In, Variety,
October 30, 2007.
24. James Surowiecki, Striking Out, The New Yorker, November 19, 2007, 42.
25. Jim Rutenberg, Reality Shows May Undercut Writers Strike, The New York
Times, April 23, 2001, Movies.
26. Raphael, The Political Economic Origins, 121.
27. Hill, Reality TV, 39.
156
Television

30. Morgan, Reality Bites.
34. Campbell R. McConnell and Stanley L. Brue, Microeconomics (McGraw-Hill/
Irwin, 2005), 39, 46.
35. Bill Carter, NBC to Pay Outsiders for Blocks of Programs, The New York
Times, December 3, 2007, Technology.
37. Morgan, Reality Bites.
38. Lori Reese, Big, Top Attraction, Entertainment Weekly, August 24, 2000.
39. Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood, Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2003), 6.
40. Joe Flint, How NBC, Out of Sync With Viewers Tastes, Lost Top Ratings
Perch, The Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2000, eastern edition, 1.
41. Carter, The Laughter is Fading.
42. Rice, The Incredible Shrinking Network.
43. Paul Farhi, TVs New Reality: Hit Shows Are Here Today, Gone Tomorrow,
The Washington Post, February 17, 2003, A section.
44. Bill Carter, Even as Executives Scorn the Genre, TV Networks Still Rely on
Reality, The New York Times, May 19, 2003.
45. Wayne Friedman, Sweeps Victory Whets Foxs Appetite, Advertising Age,
February 24, 2003, 1.
46. Wade Paulsen, American Idol Ratings Rocking the Television Industry, Reality
TV World, January 25, 2003.
47. Gary Susman, Evan Sent, Entertainment Weekly, February 19, 2003, TV
48. Carter, Even as Executives Scorn.
50. Jody Simon and Arnold Peter, Facing Reality: A New Era of Deal Making Requires Strong Negotiating Pressure by Attorneys Representing Talent in the Television Industry, Los Angeles Lawyer, 44 (2005): 11.
51. Schmuckler, Facing Reality, 35.
52. Farhi, TVs New Reality.
54. Chris Rodda, Determinants of Demand, Economics for International Students,
2001, http://www.cr1.dircon.co.uk/TB/1/determinantsdemand.htm (December 3,
2007).
55. McConnell and Brue, Microeconomics, 43.
56. Betsy Frank, Check Out Why Young Viewers Like Reality Programming,
Broadcasting & Cable, July 7, 2003, 7.
57. Stephen Speicher, Tivo and TV Programming, Core Economics, 31 December
2006, http://www.economics.com.au/?p=567 (November 20, 2007).
58. Frank, Check Out, 7.
157
59. Allison Romano, MTV Operating Without a Net, Broadcasting & Cable, May 27,
2002, 22.
60. Ibid., 23.
61. Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, Richard Campbell, and Anny Rey, Media &
Culture 5: An Introduction to Mass Communication, Instructors Resource Manual (Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2006), 73.
62. Carter, The Laughter is Fading.
63. Flint, How NBC, 1.
64. Richard E. Crew, Viewer Interpretations of Reality Television: How Real Is
Survivor for Its Viewers? in How Real is Reality TV: Essays on Representation and Truth,
ed. David S. Escoffery (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, Inc., 2006), 67 68.
66. Edgerton and Nicholas, I Want My Niche TV, 248.
68. Edgerton and Nicholas, I Want My Niche TV, 248.
70. Carter, NBC to Pay.
72. Speicher, Tivo and TV Programming.
73. Ibid.
74. Gary Levin, Sopranos Muscles in, USA Today, March 10, 2004, 3d.
75. Walter Cummins and George Gordon, Programming Our Lives: Television and
American Identity (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006), 168.
76. Al Auster, HBOs Approach to Generic Transformation, in Thinking Outside
the Box: A Contemporary Television Genre Reader, ed. Gary R. Edgerton and Brian G.
Rose (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2005), 245.
77. Ibid., 245.
78. Magder, The End of TV 101, 147.
chapter 9
Reality Television: The Business

of Mediating (Extra)Ordinary Life
Valerie Palmer-Mehta and Alina Haliliuc
It is commonplace to assert that television exists to bring audiences to advertising. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two, as popular programming produces a higher level of engagement with advertising, while
poor television content negatively affects an audiences perception of ads.1
Consequently, both television and advertising executives closely monitor
ratings information and actively try to predict and capitalize on growing
trends within the industry. Although some argue that demography is a poor
predictor of behavior,2 this has not deterred networks and commercial leaders from attempting to reach the most sought after demographic today, 18 to
49 year olds. Currently one of the most successful ways to connect with this
age group is through reality television.
Once considered revolutionary, reality television has become a staple in
television programming. Although the inception of the medium may be traced
back to 1948 with the introduction of Allen Funts hidden camera show Candid Camera, and it achieved contemporaneous esteem in the late 1980s and
early 1990s with shows such as Cops, Americas Most Wanted, and Real World,
the recent upsurge in reality television was prompted by the hit CBS television show Survivor: Borneo (2000). The program amassed 27 million viewers, and its last three episodes garnered $50 million in advertising revenue.3
Without heavy-hitting stars or unionized writers to remunerate, CBS enjoyed a nancial windfall at a time of economic difculty in the industry and
served as a model for other networks to emulate. The industry has since
successfully capitalized off of spinning generic conventions in new ways, of
160
Television
which Annette Hill states, Reality programming is an extraordinary success story, an example of televisions ability to cannibalize itself in order to
survive in a commercially uncertain media environment.4
Reality television is now traditional fare on both broadcast and subscription networks, and it regularly traverses international borders. For example,
a program such as Big Brother, developed for Dutch television, has been licensed in 18 countries and is a hit in the United States and Britain. The
hit British reality show Pop Idol was translated into American Idol, which
has been a ratings juggernaut in the United States. The content of reality
television vacillates between information and entertainment as unscripted
nonstars are lmed in various contexts, such as shows involving eliminations
(e.g., Survivor, Flavor of Love, Dancing with the Stars, The Apprentice, American Idol, So You Want to be a Superhero), makeovers (e.g., The Swan, Extreme
Makeover: Home Edition, The Pickup Artist, Beauty and the Geek, Dr. 90210), and
docu-soaps (e.g., Real World, Miami Ink, American Chopper, Sunset Tan). Ironically, the success of reality television shows featuring nonstars spurred the
creation of reality programming starring celebrities, referred to as celebreality. The celebrities featured, however, are typically what one would refer to as
C-list; that is, those whose fame has faded or those who are seeking to boost a
edgling career. No station capitalized on this trend as much as VH1, which
has signicantly increased its viewership with its celebreality offerings.5
Reality television has proven to be a force in the television industry. But
how long can this genre maintain its position in the market? What does
the future hold for reality television? In order to make sense of what lies
ahead, the contemporary state of reality television must be assessed. In what
follows, we provide an overview of the most pervasive subgenres of reality
programming: elimination shows, makeover shows, docu-soaps, and celebreality shows.6 We address their form and content, ratings information, and
revenue generating capacity to provide a foundation for discussing the future
of the genre.
ELIMINATION SHOWS
The elimination show is one of the most persistent and provocative forms
of reality programming, from Big Brother to The Pickup Artist to Americas
Next Top Model. Each program has its own unique niche, but the focus is on
defeating ones competitors and surviving stress inducing environments in
order to win the competition. Often, signicant prizes are attached to triumphing over ones competitors. A winner of Americas Next Top Model, for
example, receives a modeling contract and the opportunity to be featured in a
nationally circulated magazine or advertisement. The elimination shows that
have had the broadest impact on the subgenre to date in the United States
are Survivor and American Idol. Both programs generated substantial ratings
Reality Television
161
and advertising revenues and have served as major assets to their respective
networks.
The unexpected breakout success of the rst season of Survivor (Survivor:
Borneo) was the rock that started the avalanche of reality programming in
the United States. As Bob Francis states, Survivor demonstrated the broadcast networks were still alive, kicking, and drawing audiences. And it generated something CBS hadnt seen in some time: buzz.7
The rst season of Survivor was scheduled to air during the summer
months (MayAugust 2000) when scripted television was running repeats.
However, after the program proved successful, its air time was moved more
closely to the time frame of the traditional television season, which runs
from September to April, with one exception: a new Survivor season is introduced each fall (September) and winter (January), resulting in the production
of two seasons of Survivor per one season of traditional programming.8 In its
fteenth season, running from September to December 2007, Survivor: China
looked similar to other Survivor seasons produced by reality television guru
Mark Burnett. Sixteen cast members from different walks of life are dropped
into an undeveloped and isolated location where they must forage for food
and build shelters in order to survive the elements and each other in hopes
of winning $1 million in prize money. They are given challenges through
which they may achieve immunity from elimination at the tribal council, at
which time cast mates vote each other off until two people are remaining.
A nal vote determines the winner of the competition. Rather than being
a test of leadership, strength, or character, those who are deemed the most
viable are often voted off quickly because they are seen to pose the greatest
threat to winning. Cast mates essentially remain on the program based on
their abilities to scheme and make alliances; this approach gave birth to the
Survivor mantra, Outwit. Outplay. Outlast. This survival of the cunning
perspective, or what some have called Machiavellian backstabbing, provides the program with the drama necessary to give force to the competition
narrative and draws viewers in droves.9
The program was, from the start, a marketing experiment. According to
Anne OGrady, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Events for CBS, we
were more involved in Survivor than any other show launched at the network. It was a marketing project from the beginning.10 Mark Burnett, executive producer and co-owner of the show with CBS, took an active role in
pitching the show to nine sponsors before the show aired and earned a portion of the advertising revenue,11 establishing a new business model for television. Marketing strategies included enticing advertisers with the prospect
of product and logo placement in on-air promotions, a desirable option in a
cluttered media environment where the traditional commercial can be easily
turned off. For example, Dr. Scholls insoles were the prize of one challenge,
and rst-season winner Richard Hatch was seen driving away in the newly
162
Television
launched Pontiac Aztek. Early advertisers were paid off for their faith in the
potential of the program. Buzz for the rst season was so great that the twohour season nale was the eleventh most-watched network broadcast of all
time, and new advertisers were asked for as much as $600,000 for a 30-second
spot.12 The ratings eclipsed every show on television that year except for the
Superbowl.13 In 2006, the programs top 50 sponsors spent $80.7 million in
advertising.14 However, the fteenth season of the program is seeing a decline in audience and advertising interest, although it continues to generate
impressive ratings. The premiere of Survivor: China experienced a 25 percent
decrease in audience from the thirteenth season (Cook Island, 2006) and a 15 percent decline from the fourteenth season (Fiji, February 2007), making it the
weakest premiere in the shows history. Yet, it still garnered over 15 million
viewers and was the highest rated program of the evening, an amazing feat
for a program in its fteenth season.15
Similar to Survivor, American Idol has been enormously successful with
U.S. audiences. And, like Survivor, audiences have started to show signs of
fatigue with the series even as it continues to outperform competing programming. The show features everyday Americans trying out for a spot on
the show using their singing ability and star quality. They are subjected to
the verbal barbs of judges Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul, and Simon Cowell,
which is perhaps the most interest-generating portion of the show. Unlike
Survivor, this time it is viewers who get to decide who will remain on the program through a vote they cast via phone or text messaging after the judges
have made the initial cuts. Those who win the competition earn a recording
contract, but a popular runner-up may also be presented with a contract
from a record label unafliated with the show. Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, winners of season one and season four respectively, have achieved
signicant commercial success and artistic recognition, winning Grammy,
Billboard, and American Music Awards and selling millions of records.
Debuting in the summer of 2002, the initial success of American Idol was
attributed to its positioning in the off-season, as other networks ran repeats
of their standard programming. When the ratings of the second season exceeded the rst during the regular season schedule, the television industry
was rocked. The second season nale on May 21, 2003, drew over 34 million
viewers. Industry insiders predicted the program could not retain its popularity over the seasons, but the ratings continued to increase, peaking with
the fth season nale, which on May 24, 2006, drew over 36 million viewers
and 63 million votes, the largest in the shows history.16
The program runs in a nontraditional format, taking up several hours on
multiple nights during the week while maintaining its juggernaut ratings.
As a result of its unprecedented popularity, NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker has stated, Idol is the most impactful show in television
history.17 In terms of revenue, this assertion is supported. Mike Brunker
Reality Television
163
reports that the shows franchise is valued at $2.5 billion, with the program
earning $500 million a year in television advertising.18 Product placement is
a central component of the programs advertising business. On July 17, 2006,
Mediaweek reported that the program featured 3,052 occurrences of product
placement, which is three times as many placements as the second leading
show with regards to such placement, NBCs The Biggest Loser.19 Less than a
year later, Nielsen Media Research reported that product placement on the
show increased to 4,086 spots.20 While the sixth season witnessed a decline
in ratings, the show is not likely to go away in a hurry; in its decline it still
drew over 30 million viewers. Additionally, the program has been renewed
up to and including a ninth season.
The popularity of the Survivor and American Idol series was a surprise to
most in the television industry, even their sponsoring networks. These and
other similar programs have achieved success in part through casting interesting, accessible characters that are able to cultivate a sense of intimacy with
audiences. Regarding the centrality of casting to reality programming, Ron
Simon states, casting is the most crucial element in the success of a reality
series. In fact, reality producers refer to their cast as characters, not real
people.21 Producers go to great lengths to select just the right assortment
of people. Failure to do so can result in declining ratings. Indeed, some have
argued that the decline in American Idol s ratings in the sixth season was
the result of a stale, lackluster cast. In addition to selecting captivating cast
members to whom audience members can relate, intimacy with audiences is
cultivated through self-disclosure in the form of the confessional, where
cast members are asked to share how they are feeling about recent events on
the program.22 Audience members become further involved in the program
and begin to root for their favorite character when emotion is promoted
through rapport-building events such as the confessional. In programs such
as American Idol, this intimacy can be translated into votes. For instance, in
the fth and highest-rated season of American Idol, 500 million votes were
cast in the duration of the season.23 The interactive nature of the program
allows viewers to inuence the outcome of the program, a novel concept in
U.S. television, which is often beset by the norms of genre that can produce
insipid and predictable programming. Audiences have demonstrated an afnity for shows whose ends cannot be predicted and for inuencing the outcomes of their favorite programs.
Television executives make full use of contemporary technology in promoting interest in their programs and in generating revenue for partners. Fans
of American Idol, for example, are able to text message their vote, rather than
simply making a call, if they are customers of Cingular Wireless, which has
exclusive rights with Fox. In the fourth season, 41.5 million votes were cast
using text messaging, and the total climbed to 64.5 million in the fth season.
Customers who call may utilize a toll-free number, however, those who text
164
Television
message a vote are charged applicable fees. In March of 2006, Vice President
of Marketing at Cingular, John Burbank, had this to say about Cingulars alliance with the program: Our expectations for a record-breaking year with
American Idol is not based solely on high hopes; it is grounded in actual
results that weve realized so far. Since we rst launched much of our Idolthemed content six weeks ago, Cingular has realized a signicant increase in
messaging results.24 The fact that the industry has found a way to create revenue through interactive television formats, such as voting, suggests that this
facet of reality programming will proliferate until it is no longer protable.
One can only expect that the partnerships between television and related
industries will continue to expand, with or without American Idol and Survivor. These programs have demonstrated that audiences are interested in
unpredictable and fresh programs whose endings are not already set by the
norms of a genre. The very fact that such programming has achieved success
by being fresh suggests that eventually these programs must fade away in
favor of new ideas and innovative approaches to programming. Yet, this does
not mean that competition-based reality programs will go away; however,
they will need to be continually reinvented to remain relevant. Reinvention
also will assist in generating syndication value. The ratings success of programs such as American Idol Rewind, a repackaged version of earlier seasons
of American Idol, suggests that reality television programming might have
appeal in syndication if updated to include such things as previously unseen
footage, new interviews, and fresh behind-the-scenes information.
MAKEOVER SHOWS
The makeover show is a versatile subgenre powered by a strong value in
the American mythos: the desire for reinvention or, at least, improvement.25
The range of transformations that viewers can witness is impressive: from
individual, to family, home, and even neighborhood makeovers. In shows
such as Extreme Makeover, The Biggest Loser, The Swan, Starting Over, What
Not to Wear, or Ambush Makeover the body is transformed through more or
less intrusive techniques ranging from haircuts and makeup, through diet
and exercise, to cosmetic surgery. For example, in Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy, one of the earliest and most successful style makeover shows, the target
is ones style as visible in ones clothing and grooming, knowledge of food
and wine, or apartment decoration. Released on July 24, 2003, on Bravo, at
that moment a recent NBC acquisition, the show gathered record-breaking
ratings for the station (3.34 million viewers at its peak in September),26 won
Emmy, GLAAD, and PGA awards,27 and brought NBC over $15 million from
the initial sale of the show.28 The show features in each hour-long episode
a self-proclaimed heterosexual male whose apartment is in chaos, who does
not groom or dress himself properly, and who cannot cook or entertain a
Reality Television
165
culturally sophisticated conversation. All these aspects of his style are critiqued and then changed by a team of ve gay men who specialize in fashion,
food & wine, grooming, culture, and interior design.29 What adds to the
success of the show, besides the audiences penchant for witnessing transformations, is the charm of the permanent cast whose members win hearts
through their genuineness. As Adam B. Vary comments, simply by being
themselvesopenly gay men who are commanding, funny, whipsmart, and
disarmingly personable, the Fab 5 enter American homes as friends who
help straight men help themselves.30
The business potential of the Fab 5, and that of makeover shows in general, is particularly high. Product placement is not only easy but is required
by the transformation process, especially when it comes to style. Jon Lafayette, for instance, notes how such things as Crest White Strips, Bosch appliances, Target Stores, and the Denali SUV are incorporated into episodes.31
For the 2005 Australian version of the show, companies such as 3 mobile,
Volvo, and David Jones paid an estimated A$800,000 each to be associated
with the program.32 Being a subgenre that capitalizes on advice, there is also
room for a spillover of the show into other media, such as the publication
of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: The Fab 5s Guide to Looking Better, Cooking
Better, Dressing Better, Behaving Better, and Living Better.33 The various hosts
also have published books focusing on their particular specialty. Ted Allen,
for example, has capitalized on his role as the programs food specialist by
publishing a recipe book.34
The limited run of the twin show, Queer Eye for the Straight Girl, during
the 2005 season suggests that, although there is room for success with style
makeover shows, there is also room for failure. The latter was credited to
the insufcient variation from the parent-show, as well as to a cast whose
charisma does not parallel the Fab 5. People magazine, for instance, states,
[Robbie] Laughlin appears ticketed for the chief quipsters role, though he
lacks the waspish wit of Straight Guys Carson Kressley . . . The cast is adequate, but the show comes off as a calculated Queer Eye brand extension.35
Such comments suggest that, as in elimination shows, the charm and genuineness of the cast is crucial for the shows continuing success. It also points
to the importance of the shock value in a show, ensured in our rst example
by the general project: a show featuring a gay cast advising heterosexual
men how to be more heterosexually desirable.
Makeover shows that do not run short of shock value are those regarding bodily transformation through cosmetic surgery. Extreme Makeover, The
Swan, or I Want a Famous Face all use surgeries to transform chosen patients
into physically improved versions of themselves, beauty-pageant material, or
an alias of a particular celebrity. The shock in these shows is ensured not
only by the radical transformation of its participants but also by scenes of
the actual surgeries. In Extreme Makeover, for example, an Extreme Team
166
Television
of doctors (dermatologists, eye and plastic surgeons, cosmetic dentists); fashion, hair, and makeup stylists; and personal trainers present to the viewers
a shortened version of a lengthy (sometimes around six months) process of
bodily transformation. The experience of Jim, a 35-year-old groom featured on episode four of the fourth season, demonstrates the extensive nature
of the typical makeover. The ABC Web site for the program, which lists the
procedures Jim endured, does not hesitate to incorporate product placement
when possible: Upper and lower eyelid lift, rhinoplasty, brow lift, hernia repair and lipo[suction] on face, abdomen, waist and love handles, LASIK eye
surgery, laser hair removal, skin tag removal, 14 porcelain da Vinci crowns
and veneers, gum repositioning and Zoom whitening, hair transplant and
hair restoration.36 But while the shock value may be what attracts viewers in
the rst place, it does not seem to do the job of maintaining their interest, as
the short life of these shows testies. Extreme Makeover ran for four seasons
(20022005), The Swan for two, and MTVs I Want a Famous Face only for
one (2004).37 For advertisers, the appeal of this type of makeover show is also
limited both in terms of opportunities for product placement and because,
due to the potentially disturbing content of the program, the age range of
the audience is reduced. Perhaps this is why makeover shows that feature
plastic surgery, such as Dr. 90210, are turning their spotlight toward the
doctors personal life and the pleasant outcomes of cosmetic reconstruction
and do not show the struggles patients endure in the long, drawn-out process of recovering from major surgery.
The drawbacks of product placement and audience age range do not exist,
however, for shows that have expanded their focus from the individual person to the couple (The Beauty and the Geek), the whole family (Wife Swap,
Supernanny, Nanny 911), their household (Extreme Makeover: Home Edition),
and even the neighborhood (Extreme Neighborhood Makeover). Most of these
shows have maintained and, in some case, even increased their popularity. Maybe the most instructive example of the business resourcefulness
of makeover shows is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Running continuously since 2003 with an average of 15.8 million viewers per episode,38 this
Emmy-award-winning show tapped into the remodeling trend fueled by
cable networks such as HGTV (Home and Garden Television) and TLC (The
Learning Channel) and by a hunger for security in the postSeptember 11
era [combined with] a growing middle class sense of entitlement.39 Rather
than doing partial home makeovers, the show engages in a full transformation. Aided by construction rms that volunteer products and a workforce, the house of a desperate and deserving family, as Denise Cramsay, the
shows executive producer explains, is torn down and a new, fully furnished
one is built in its stead.40 The emotional appeal of this show is ensured by the
heart-wrenching family story provided in the beginning of the show and by
the familys reactions to their transformed home.
Reality Television
167
But while emotions run high, so does the pragmatism of viewers, producers, and volunteers. As Shabnam Mogharabi notes, the show not only taps
into the publics interest in home improvement but also fuels it, remodeling
not only houses but the remodeling industry itself. Coordinating producer of
the show, Diane Korman, states, the rst year that Sears was with us, their
business went up 35 percent. . . . We featured a company that makes misting
cacti, and they had more calls than they could fulll. Craftmaid Cabinets
literally shuts down their factories for one week to make our kitchens.41 Examples are numerous of how the volunteer companies prot nancially from
the exposure that the show offers them. A more enduring prot that they
make, though, comes in a less quantiable, yet nancially relevant form: corporate citizenship. Whether the volunteering rms really are good corporate
citizens for their communities, we do not know. But according to the program, they are our good neighbors and, as any public relations professional
knows, such ethos has long-term nancial value. The shows long-term business value becomes even more evident if we consider that, unlike HGTV and
TLC do-it-yourself niche programs, Home Edition targets a broader audience
by focusing on the drama of doing a four-month gutting overhaul of a rundown home in just seven days, while families take a trip away from the construction site, sometimes to Disneyland.42 The shows openness to younger
audiences increases the possibility for diverse product placement (such as the
Disney park) as well as for building brand delity among its young viewers,
while maintaining the interest of middle-class, middle-aged audiences.
In connecting with its middle-class buying audiences, the Home Edition is
taking the rst steps toward an interactive approach that starts to approximate a platform marketing strategy.43 Thus, one can go to the shows Web
site in order to nd what and how a company contributed to the show and
how it can be contacted. More room for interaction remains, nevertheless.
Similarly, the show has started to create merchandise tie-ins, selling on its
Web page a few T-shirts and mugs, but again, this also remains an avenue to
be further explored.
The considerable number of makeover shows, even if they do not all survive, indicates that the fascination with the topos of reinvention (whether
we consider it as an American or universal one) is powerful and that shows
that know how to tap into it will continue to air and to make a prot for television stations and advertising businesses alike. The previous analysis has indicated that, once again, the cast is a crucial component for success, ensuring
theatricality and the emotionalhumane appeal of the show. For advertising
companies, the makeover shows can be oases for product-placement and rm
exposure, and the openness to broader audiences only increases the business
possibility for brand delity. What has remained relatively unexplored in
makeover shows so far are the merchandise tie-ins, as well as an interactive
approach to audiences.
168
Television
DOCU-SOAPS
The characterization of the documentary soap opera is not uncontroversial and allows for an understanding of the genre as a locus of change rather
than one of stability.44 While the issue of line-drawing remains alive for
each individual show, it is generally accepted that a docu-soap draws on its
documentary and soap opera parents when it comes to lming and editing,
respectively. The shows combine the documentary shooting techniques of direct cinema (unsteady shots and unharmonious composition with a focus on
mundane activities) with the editing techniques of soap operas (short narrative sequences, intercuts of multiple plot lines . . . the use of musical sound
track, and a focus on character personality), which emphasize the entertaining potential of the show.45 Susan Murray and Stella Bruzzi point out that it
is the entertainment versus the educational binary that best serves as a criterion for genre classication, rather than the naturalness of the settings,
for example.46 This criterion allows us to include in the docu-soap category
not only the British classics Vets in Practice and Driving School, which document the life of people in their usual settings, but it also enables the genre
cohabitation of U.S. classics such as MTVs Real World, documenting the
life of a few ordinary people brought to live together, and An American Love
Story, following the daily life of an African American family as it unfolds in
different locations in the early 1970s.47
Real World is the uncontested champion of the docu-soap subgenre and,
arguably, a pioneer of todays conception of reality television as a whole. In
the words of Marc Peyser, Would Survivor or The Mole have made it on
the air if The Real World hadnt proved that turning a camera on a bunch of
nonactors without a script could be as entertaining as many sitcoms and dramas?48 Launched on May 21, 1992, MTVs Real World has aired 18 seasons,
has the nineteenth in production and is casting already for its twentieth.49
Over the rst decade, the shows popularity has increased steadily so as to
triple in 2001.50 The shows longevity seems to be attributable to the diverse
character traits of the cast, which serve as the feeding ground for compelling
stories. Although the shows creators, Mary-Ellis Bunim and Jonathan Murray, deny any attempt at choosing particularly controversial demographics,51
the audiences have seen gay weddings, women going through abortions, racial mini-wars, touching stories of a cast members death,52 struggles with
substance abuse, and a cast member living with HIV.53 While the age requirement, which is 18 to 24 years, prevents the program from attracting an even
more diverse cast, it also ensures that youth-lled antics maintain ratings.
As in the other previously discussed subgenres, the cast seems to be the
cornerstone for the success of the docu-soaps, in this case, a cast with strong
potential for the confessional and the dramatic. Such potential is missing in
docu-soaps such as Sunset Tan, The Hills, or Nashville. Nashville, produced in
Reality Television
169
2007 by Fox, builds on the format of the other two in following the daily life
of white, rich, young people who, this time, try to make their way into the
country music industry rather than work in a tanning salon or intern for Teen
Vogue (as in Sunset Tan and The Hills, respectively). But audiences seem to have
gotten enough of cast members [who] sit around and complain about their
problems despite being absurdly wealthy, [who have] forced, awkward, pauselled dialogues.54 After the shows premiere broadcast nished in last place
in its 9:00 P.M. (ET/PT) time period, averaging only 2.72 million viewers, and
did not take off in the following two weeks, Fox decided to put the show on
hiatus a couple of weeks earlier than originally intended.55 The lack of drama
beyond the usual breakups and crushes, which did not bring anything else
new to what The Hills, for instance, was already offering viewers through a
more charismatic cast, was not enough to keep the audiences watching.
In search of more original dramatic content, A&E (Arts and Entertainment) and the Discovery-owned TLC turned to ink docu-soaps. Inked and
Miami Ink are these networks respective products, dueling in similar content
for audiences. Both shows bring audiences into the relatively unknown life of
tattoo parlors situated either inside a major Las Vegas casino or on Miamis
South Beach. The attraction comes from more than fullling our voyeuristic
desires. In Miami Ink, Ami James and three world-class tattoo artists face the
challenges of running their own business, while Inked also delights the viewers with the mounting tensions among the saloons colorful staff members.
Furthermore, the drama in these shows is ensured by the clients stories.
Many see tattoos as modes of self-expression, and consequently, people dont
get tattoos for no reason, as Matt Gould, Miami Inks executive producer
comments.56 There is a story behind each tattoo, and these docu-soaps capitalize on the drama in these stories. Chris Garver, senior tattooist at Miami
Ink, tells how Yesterday I had the most incredible experience. A father came
in with his family and he had a 9-year-old daughter who beat cancer. He
wanted to commemorate that shes alive.57 The tattoo artists not only give
clients the desired souvenir but also a compassionate ear, transforming the
salon into a place of healing through intimate confession. As the producer
Matt Gould notes: To be a tattoo artist, you not only have to have technical
skills, but you have to be imaginative and be a psychiatrist as well.58 As the
clients of Miami Ink range from celebrities to tourists and regular people,
the range of stories to be told and confessions to be heard have the potential
to keep alive audiences interest in this unusual show.
Although Miami Ink was blamed for damaging Discoverys erudite brand
identity with its sensationalism, the show is well and alive.59 Its producers
are also capitalizing on the dynamism of its audiences by using a Web page
to keep them involved in the show: One can submit their own tattoos, rank
existing ones, take tattoo IQ tests, or write their comments on the message
boards.60 Beside an increased interactivity, the lesson that the tattoo TV
170
Television
has to teach the docu-soap is important for the survival of the subgenre: A
multilayered drama is key. A well-chosen permanent cast, the value of which
Real World has proven, is crucial in providing good drama. But when the
interactions between members of the permanent cast cannot hold viewers
interest, such as in Nashville, the temporary cast, the tattoo clients in this
case, can enliven the show and keep alive the audiences curiosity.
CELEBREALITY
The celebreality subgenre moves away from the everyday person to feature
faded or C-list celebrities seeking to jump-start their careers. This kind of
programming is based on the notion that a faded celebrity can still generate
interest among their fans, who are curious to see how the celebrity has fared
through the years as well as how they act in supposedly nonscripted situations. Lesser-known, current celebrities can generate interest as well, if their
programs are engaging, such as Jessica Simpson and Nick Lacheys Newlyweds, which focused on the couple trying to adjust to married life. A successful program will not only generate interest among an established fan base, it
will ultimately create new fans. Some of the programs are heavily planned, as
is the case with a program such as Scott Baio is 45 and Single, whereas other
programs, such as Shooting Sizemore, which features a substance abusing Tim
Sizemore, are tragically real and unpredictable. Celebreality programming
has given new life to struggling networks because it is relatively inexpensive
and quick to produce, while it generates meaningful ratings.
Although many networks produce reality shows that feature celebrities,
VH1 has done much to make this type of programming their signature style.
In 2004, VH1s ratings had reached a low point. The success of The Osbournes
on sister station MTV prompted a change of approach. In 2005, VH1 offered
three celebreality programs: Hogan Knows Best, Breaking Bonaduce, and Surreal Life. The experiment was successful, and the station increased its viewership by 20 percent.61 In 2006, the ratings continued to climb, increasing
14 percent from 2005.62 VH1s performance in 2006 marked the networks
most-watched year ever. Christopher Rocchio reports, Due to the success
of its Celebreality reality programming lineup, VH1 now ranks in the top
ve basic cable networks in primetime on Sundays.63 Motivated by the success of their celebreality experiment, parent company Viacom International
requested trademark status for the word celebreality and started using
the word to refer to its block of programming featuring C-level celebrities.
VH1 later expanded its offerings to include such shows as Celebrity Fit Club,
Strangelove, My Fair Brady, Flavor of Love, I Love New York, Charm School, Rock
of Love, Scott Baio is 45 and Single, and Americas Most Smartest Model. The
network even has aired the program 20 Greatest Celebreality Moments, which
features comedians commenting on clips from VH1 celebreality shows.
Reality Television
171
When a celebreality program is successful, there is an effort to reproduce

its success to commercial exhaustion. The commodication of Flavor Flav,
hype man of the rap group Public Enemy, demonstrates this notion. In 2004,
Flavor Flav was one of the celebrities featured in the VH1 celebreality program Surreal Life 3. His relationship with Brigitte Nielsen on the program
generated so much interest that the network scheduled them both to appear
in Strangelove, a 2005 show that focused on the couple trying to integrate
into each others very different lives. Flavor Flavs appeal continued to be
so strong that the network next decided to have him star in his own dating show, similar to the reality program The Bachelor, in which one man has
a bevy of women vying to be selected as his potential mate. The program
was named Flavor of Love and, at rst, critics evinced disparaging comments
about the program. One reality television magazine referred to the program
as, the rst reality tv vomit of the year.64 However, fans were not deterred.
The season nale became the highest rated program in VH1s history at the
time, drawing nearly 6 million viewers, and it was ranked rst in basic cable
programming in the highly desired 18 to 49 age group demographic.65 Attempting to capitalize on the popularity of the program, the network showed
Flavor Flav being dumped in the reunion program by the woman he selected
in season one, creating space for a second season of Flavor of Love. The nale
of the second season drew even more viewers, nearly 7.5 million, again making ratings history for the network.66 Not surprisingly, a third season and
various spin-offs were subsequently developed. The short-lived series Charm
School featured rejects from Flavor of Love being schooled in etiquette and
manners by the comedienne MoNique. The multiseason series I Love New
York features Tiffany Pollard, who was given the nickname New York by
Flavor Flav in season one, looking to nd love on her own reality dating
program. The relentless spinning off of new programs derived from other
popular shows demonstrates the networks almost desperate attempt to capitalize off of the trend of the moment.
The spin-off phenomenon suggests that celebreality programming can
be invigorating for edgling networks, but it also is helpful in restarting a
forgotten celebritys career or recouping a famous persons marred image.
Even stars whose careers peaked more than 30 years ago have been shown
to provoke interest, such as Christopher Knight, the middle son from The
Brady Bunch, who appeared on Surreal Life 4. His romance with rst-season
winner of Americas Next Top Model, Adrianne Curry, peaked sufcient fan
interest that two seasons of the subsequent program featuring Knight and
Curry, My Fair Brady, were produced. The example of Adrianne Curry shows
that an unknown person can develop into a celebrity through, and have their
fame based entirely on, reality television. The MTV program The Newlyweds
essentially gave life to the careers of Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey, even
as it showed their nascent marriage falling apart. Heather Mills, who was
172
Television
demonized upon her divorce with Paul McCartney, used her role on Dancing
with the Stars in an effort to recoup her embattled image.
The celebreality genre feeds into a viewers voyeuristic desire to peer into
the lives of celebrities, seeing how they live their day-to-day lives or how they
have fallen apart through the years. Although this type of programming can
produce record-breaking ratings, it also can be difcult to sustain because
once the shock value of the program has worn off, audiences can become easily bored. One approach television producers have employed to address this
problem is featuring a rotating cast. Rotating cast members who appear in
similar situations breathe new life into a potentially stale situation. Dancing
with the Stars, for example, features different stars every season trying to win a
dancing competition, thus keeping the interest level higher. Even the popularity of such commercially viable celebreality stars as Flavor Flav will eventually lose luster. Anticipating that fans will eventually tire of this character, the
network introduced Rock of Love, which features Bret Michaels, lead singer
of the band Poison, in a similar reality dating show situation. One can only
imagine that yet another faded star will follow as audiences tire of the person
featured. As celebreality stars become overexposed and pass, as their antics
become predictable and their situations mundane, they must be replaced with
the next star of the moment in a setting that provides variety and novelty.
THE FUTURE OF REALITY TELEVISION
Many have predicted the demise of reality television. As this analysis indicates, it is no doubt difcult for individual programs, as well as entire genres,
to maintain a high degree of interest among media-savvy consumers in a
competitive environment lled with choices. Yet, economic interests drive
the market. As long as the production of reality television remains attractive
to investors and inexpensive, easy, and quick to manufacture, there will be an
important place for the genre in the industry. Crucial elements for investors
include keeping the genre appealing and innovative so that it continues to
attract a broad cross section of the American public and keeping costs down
while generating ample advertising revenue.
There is no doubt that the reality television genre has been protable for
networks and those who have chosen to advertise with them. The ability of
reality television to draw in diverse audiences is unusual in todays media environment. The growth of cable offerings in the 1980s fragmented audiences,
making it more difcult to reach a wide range of consumers. Additionally, the
increasing pluralism of the United States has meant that advertisers have
to be strategic in connecting with diverse populations. Distinct cable channels have been developed to address particular demographics (e.g., Spike for
men, Oxygen for women, Logo for the gay and lesbian community, BET for
the black community) or particular kinds of interests (HGTV and the Food
Reality Television
173
Network for home and garden, and food, enthusiasts, respectively). The only
programming that has been able to consistently attract a broad cross section
of viewers is sports. The 2007 Super Bowl, for example, drew an average of
93 million people, and 139 million people either watched all or part of the
game.67 These kinds of numbers enabled CBS to charge up to $2.6 million for
a 30-second commercial spot.68 The surge of reality television, while protable and interest generating, still pales in comparison to the ratings and revenue of sports. However, it has been the next best thing at this time.
What the most popular reality television shows have in common with
sports is the ability to draw a broad cross section of people. Survivor and
American Idol have themes that are interesting to people across gender, race,
sexuality, and age; thus, they attract a diverse audience and achieve high ratings. Reality programs that are able to draw on universal themes, or at least
themes that appeal to a nation-states entrenched cultural values, will be successful in the future. Reality television is well-suited to making the changes
necessary to remain appealing over time because the content or form can be
poached from other genres, such as drama and comedy, while simply reinventing it using real people in real places in real time. This relates to Hills
comment in the introduction that reality television demonstrates televisions
ability to cannibalize itself. Reality television simply takes forms that television, lm, and literature have already produced countless times and situates
real people in real places parroting essentially the same themes. Survivor is ultimately a derivation of the story of Gilligans Island (1964 1967),
Castaway (2000), and Robinson Crusoe or The Swiss Family Robinson (there
are countless lm and television adaptations of these literary works), but it
features everyday people who have chosen to live in such an environment for
a nite amount of time. This age-old story is alluring because it speaks to
our desire for adventure and Americans desire to control (or survive) nature.
The Bachelor is simply The Dating Game (19651973) with people living in a
house for a couple of weeks instead of on a stage in a chair for half an hour.
The love story theme, while perhaps not as universal as the desire for adventure, still resonates with broad audiences. Consequently, the possibilities are
endless for reality television. It is the creative capacity of television writers
and producers to excavate the essentially endless mine of ideas that already
exist, and perhaps add a few of their own, that will ultimately determine the
genres ability to remain engaging for audiences.
The form itself is attractive to people in the industry because it provides
ample opportunity for advertising revenue, while it is comparatively inexpensive to develop and produce. Advertisers desperately seek to reach consumers in a media environment lled with clutter. The remote control combined
with countless network and on-demand options enables viewers to easily
tune out ads, while technology such as DVR recorders, TiVo, and downloadable programming can completely eliminate the traditional commercial.
174
Television
Product placement opportunities on reality television enable alternatives to

the traditional ad. The potential advertising prot for television networks
is appreciable because reality television can be relatively easy and inexpensive to produce, particularly because popular personalities do not have to
be remunerated. A one-hour drama such as 24, for example, costs approximately $2 million to produce, while at the same time a show like Real World
costs only $300,000.69 Additionally, because reality television writers are
nonunionized at this time, reality television programming can provide ller
while unionized writers are on strike, thus solidifying its place in a market
driven by nancial interests.
Previously, a drawback to reality television was its lack of appeal in syndication. Because it thrives on shock value and unpredictability, it makes sense that
once the show has been aired and the audience knows the ending, it is not as
enticing to watch in reruns as a program such as Seinfeld, whose comedy continually draws laughs. Executives have been strategic in nding ways to create
value for reality shows in syndication by repackaging the programs. Including
new narration and interviews as well as unseen footage generates fresh interest in old programs. Programs such as American Idol Rewind are demonstrating that with some retooling, repeats of favorite shows may draw impressive
ratings. Even programs that have not been altered are nding a place in syndication. Americas Next Top Model, for example, has gone into syndication in
its original form, and while the program is not in daily syndication, it is used
in television marathons. One can only expect that television executives will
become even more creative in adapting reality programs to syndication.
Long term, whether reality television production will be able to keep
costs down while also maintaining interest in the genre, is another matter. Grainger David points out, Though reality began its assault on network television as the poor mans sitcomshows were generally thought
to cost about $300,000 for a half-hour, vs. one million dollars for a scripted
showthat gap has narrowed, if not disappeared.70 Of course, cost depends
to a certain degree on who is producing the program and is relative to how
much revenue the show is expected to generate. Mark Burnett, who has been
responsible for producing such hits as Survivor and The Apprentice, can command higher revenues to produce his programs because his track record has
been so successful. However, when the margin between the cost and revenue
begins to close, the genre, the producer, and the various facets of the show
will have to be re-examined.
Benchmarking and reassessment are essential for the success of any product, process, or company. Consequently, we should expect industry leaders
and television critics to continually question the efcacy and endurance of
television programs, producers, and networks. But, is it realistic to suggest
the demise of the reality television genre itself ? Would one predict the end
of the action adventure genre? The crime drama? The comedy? All genres
ebb and ow according to the conventions established by their generic form,
Reality Television
175
the creative capacity of those who seek to use it as a vehicle for their ideas,
and the willingness of audiences to accept changes to the generic forms to
which they have become accustomed. We predict that the reality television
genre is here to stay, and it will be subjected to the same struggles that other
generic forms face, the most pressing of which is the ability to remain relevant, imaginative, and interesting. Because the reality television genre can
poach other generic forms, we predict that the genre has the ability to have a
greater shelf life than others if its creative potential is exploited.
The reality television genre continues to draw record number audiences,
even as individual shows may fade. Each season there are winners and losers,
shows that surge and shows that fade, yet, the genre itself remains intact. It
is dubious that reality television will disappear, but in order to retain the ratings this genre has enjoyed, industry leaders will need to grapple with the
challenge that vexes every artist: the ability to remain a creative force.
NOTES
1. Todd Cunningham, Amy Shea Hall, and Charles Young, The Advertising Magnier Effect: An MTV Study, Journal of Advertising Research 46 (2006): 36980; Carl D.
Marci, A Biologically Based Measure of Emotional Engagement: Context Matters,
Journal of Advertising Research 46 (2006): 38187. Cunningham et al. report that emotional engagement with television programs positively inuences audiences liking of
strong advertising. In other words, if advertising is strong, it receives an extra boost
from popular programs; this is referred to as the magnifying effect. However, weak
advertising does not experience a boost even if it is shown within the context of a
popular show (37879). Marci similarly found that commercials experience higher
levels of engagement when shown in the context of successful television shows.
2. Ted DAmico, You Can Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: Strategies for Including
Older Consumers When Selecting Media Vehicles, Journal of Advertising Research 47
(2007): 109.
3. Annette Hill, Reality TV: Factual Entertainment and Television Audience (New
York: Routledge, 2005), 3.
5. Gary Levin, VH1 turns C-Listers into Retro-Cool Reality, USA Today, March
20, 2005, http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/20050328-vh1-realityshows_x.htm.
6. Although there is obvious overlap between the subgenres, it is important to
group the programs to study them further.
7. Bob Francis, CBS Survivor: Immunity Champion, Brandweek, March 12, 2001,
http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BDW/is_11_42/ai_71766811.
8. For example, the second season ran from January to May 2001, the third ran
October to January 2001, the fourth season aired between February and May 2002,
and the fth during September and December 2002.
9. Francis, CBS.
10. Francis, CBS.
11. Bill Carter, Survivor Puts CBS in Land of Superlatives, New York Times, August 25, 2000.
176
Television
12. Francis, CBS.

13. Carter, Survivor Puts CBS.
14. Edward Wyatt and Stuart Elliott, G.M. Drops Survivor but Says Racial Format Isnt the Reason, New York Times: Media and Advertising, August 31, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/business/media/31adco.html.
15. Paul J. Gough, Survivor: China Works Wonders for CBS, The Hollywood
Reporter, September 22, 2007, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_dis
play/news/e3i5a8c311e231b3e885325163c46ce445d.
16. Mark Sweney, American Idol Outvotes President, The Guardian International,
May 26, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,1783339,00.html.
17. Bill Carter, For Foxs Rivals, American Idol Remains a Schoolyard Bully,
New York Times. February 20, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/arts/
television/20idol.html.
18. Mike Brunker, Idol Empire Conquers New Multimedia Worlds, MSNBC.
com, January 15, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16580677/.
19. Katy Bachman, Media Ad Revenue Up 5.6% in 1Q, Mediaweek, July 17,
2006, http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_
id=1002840287.
20. Brunker, Idol.
21. Ron Simon, The Changing Denition of Reality Television, in Thinking Outside the Box: A Contemporary Television Genre Reader, ed. Gary Edgerton and Brian G.
Rose (Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 2005), 191.
22. The confessional can take various forms. For example, some programs provide a
specic, private room where the cast mate reveals his/her feelings about happenings
on the show, whereas other shows will feature a person (usually a host) asking the
cast mate questions backstage in a less private setting.
23. CNN, Underwood the New American Idol, CNN.com Entertainment, May 27,
2005, http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/25/american.idol/.
24. United Press International, Text Messaging Partners Mobile and TV, Physorg.
com, May 25, 2006, http://www.physorg.com/news67784572.html.
25. Jack Z. Bratich, Programming Reality, in Makeover Television. Realities Remodelled, ed. Dana Heller (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2007), 622.
26. Adam B. Vary, Pride, Patriotism and Queer Eye, The Advocate, June 22, 2004,
http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_June_22/ai_n6146743.
27. The show won an Emmy and a GLAAD Award for Outstanding Reality Program in 2004 and 2005, respectively, as well as a Television Producer of the Year
PGA Award in 2005. The Internet Movie Database (IMDB), http://www.imdb.com/
title/tt0358332/awards (accessed October 10, 2007).
28. Chris Pursell, James Hibberd, and Grego Meliss, Fab Fives Fortunes Rise,
Television Week, September 29, 2003.
29. IMDB.com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358332/plotsummary (accessed
October 10, 2007).
30. Vary, Pride, Patriotism and Queer Eye.
31. Jon Lafayette, Bravo Tying In Products, Television Week, November 29, 2004.
32. Andrea Sophocleous, TV sponsors fork it out, Australasian Business Intelligence, February 2005, http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4692/is_200502/ai_
n17494267.
Reality Television
177
33. Ted Allen, Kyan Douglas, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley, and Jai Rodriguez,
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: The Fab 5s Guide to Looking Better, Cooking Better, Dressing Better, Behaving Better, and Living Better (New York: Clarkson Potter, 2004). Also
available on CD and cassette.
34. Ted Allen, The Food You Want to Eat: 100 Smart, Simple Recipes (New York:
Clarkson Potter, 2005).
35. People Magazine, Queer Eye For The Straight Girl, People, January 17, 2005.
Robbie Laughlin is The Look specialist for the program, assisting women with the
way they look from head to toe. Carson Kressley assists the men on Queer Eye for the
Straight Guy with their wardrobe. His vivacious personality is often cited as a cornerstone of the program.
36. Patient biographies from the Extreme Makeover Web site. http://abc.go.com/
primetime/extrememakeover/bios/127047.html (accessed October 9, 2007).
37. Information drawn from the Internet Movie Database available at IMDB.com.
38. Shabnam Mogharabi, Going to Extremes: The Remodeling Industry Is Abuzz
with Activity, and ABCs Extreme Makeover: Home Edition Leads the Charge,
Pool & Spa News, October 31, 2005.
39. Dana Heller, Reading the Makeover, in Makeover Television: Realities Remodelled, ed. Dana Heller (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2007), 15.
40. Andy Dehnart, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition Returns; [Desperate] and
Deserving Families Are Chosen, Reality Blurred, September 30, 2007, http://www.
realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/extreme_makeover_home_edition/2007_
Sep_30_fth_season.
41. Quoted in Mogharabi, Going to Extremes.
42. A House Becomes a Home Makeover, USA Today, February 12, 2004, http://
web.ebscohost.com/ehost/search?vid=2&hid=4&sid=47fede79-b1734bff-873c
92ee1d78b5e6%40SRCSM1.
43. Ted Magder uses the concept of platform to refer to the marketing strategy
used by the European Corporation Endemol in promoting the Big Diet reality show
together with a Diet Magazine and an interactive Web site. Ted Magder, The End of
TV 101: Reality Programs, Formats, and the New Business of Television, in Reality
TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette (New York:
New York University Press, 2004), 13756.
44. Susan Murray, for example, maps out the difculties of drawing the line between
documentary and docu-soaps in I Think We Need a New Name for It. The Meeting
of Documentary and Reality TV, in Reality TV. Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan
Murray and Laurie Ouellette (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 40 56.
45. Ibid., 42. See also Jonathan Bignell, Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty-First
Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
46. Susan Murray, I Think We Need a New Name; Stella Bruzzi, New Documentary: A Critical Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2000).
47. An American Love Story aired in 1972.
48. Marc Peyser, Real World After All, Newsweek, July 2, 2001, http://web.ebsco
host.com/ehost/search.
49. Andy Dehnart, The Real Worlds 15th Anniversary Is Today, Reality Blurred,
May 21, 2007, http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_real_world/
2007_May_21_15th_anniversary.
178
Television
50. Peyser. Real World After All.

51. Ibid.
52. Christopher Rocchio, The Real World: San Diego Cast Reects on Frankie
Abernathys Death, RealityTVWorld, June 15, 2007, http://www.realitytvworld.
com/therealworld/.
53. Peyser. Real World After All.
54. Andy Dehnart, FOX debuts docu-soap Nashville tonight, Reality Blurred, September 14, 2007, http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/other_shows/2007_
Sep_14_fox_nashville.
55. Christopher Rocchio, Fox Gives Nashville an Early Hiatus. Series to Return at
a Later Date, RealityTVWorld, September 26, 2007, http://www.realitytvworld.com/
news/fox-gives-nashville-an-early-hiatus-series-return-at-later-date-5830.php.
56. Tattoo parlors: Indelible reality TV? USA Today, July 19, 2005, http://web.
ebscohost.com/ehost/search.
57. Quoted in Tattoo parlors: Indelible reality TV?
58. Quoted in Tattoo parlors: Indelible reality TV?
59. Abbey Klaassen, This is the Discovery Weve Been Looking For, Advertising
Age, October 16, 2006, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/search.
60. Miami Ink Web site, http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/miami-ink/miami-ink.
html (accessed October 12, 2007).
61. Levin, VH1 turns C-Listers, paragraph 2.
62. Christopher Rocchio, Reality TV Shows Power VH1 to its Best Ratings Year
Ever, RealityTVWorld.com, January 2, 2007, http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/
reality-tv-shows-power-vh1-its-best-ratings-year-ever-4496.php.
63. Ibid.
64. Joe Reality, Flavor of Love Offers Up First Reality TV Vomit of the Year, Reality
TV Magazine. January 2, 2006, http://www.realitytvmagazine.com/blog/2006/01/
avor_of_love_.html.
65. Joe Reality, Flavor of Love Finale was VH-1s Fighest Rated Show Ever, Reality
TV Magazine, March 14, 2006, http://www.realitytvmagazine.com/blog/2006/03/
avor_of_love__1.html.
66. Teresa Wiltz, Love Him, or Leave Him? Flavor Flavs Popular Show Sets
Off Passionate Debate on Comedy and Race, Washington Post, November 2,
2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/
AR2006110103414.html.
67. Paul R. La Monica, CBS Scores with Super Bowl Ratings, CNN Money.com.
February 5, 2007, http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/05/news/companies/super
bowl_ratings/index.htm.
68. Paul R. La Monica, Super Bowl Ads, Like the Game, Disappoint, CNN Money.
com, February 5, 2007, http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/05/news/companies/super
bowlads/index.htm.
70. Grainger David, Hollywood Hitman Reality-TV Czar Mark Burnett has
Changed Television for Goodthe Business Model, that is, CNN Money.com, August 23, 2004, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/
08/23/379373/index.htm.
chapter 10
The Way of the Gay:

Bravo TV, Lifestyle Consumption,
and Promotional Culture
Amy M. Corey
The way of the gay, a phrase commonly used in Bravo TVs Queer Eye for
the Straight Guy, refers to a sense of style and a sense of humor that gay men
are thought to possess. Playful, witty, and clever, their lifestyles are both polished and fashion forward. Here, the way of the gay does not explicitly refer
to sexuality but instead to a way of stylizing life. The way is not limited
to a specic sexual practice but is also a way of describing more urban and
rened tastes. Such tastes are commonly referred to as a metrosexual style in
which men are now encouraged to use a whole set of beauty and body care
products that were traditionally associated with women.1 Here, straight
men explore their inner girlie guy through more sophisticated practices and
products.2 Spa treatments and scents, manscaping and manicures, as well as
fashion and food create a style of life through a style of consumption. However, just as gay men are commonly regarded as more polished, straight men
are commonly regarded as style decient. They must be initiated into the
way of the gay in order to upgrade their lifestyles. In need of guidance in
both product and practice, straight men are trained in the art of consumption
in order to cultivate a lifestyle.
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and other Bravo TV programming, such as
Tim Gunns Guide to Style, Top Chef, Project Runway, and Work Out center on
creating a stylized life. This chapter rst explores how consumption in these
reality-based television programs is situated within the televisual landscape
and then through the lens of lifestyle manuals. Second, some of the problems
180
Television
that arise from lifestyle consumption, including ideology and stereotyping,

are addressed. Finally, Bravo TV programming is placed in the context of a
larger promotional culture.
REALITY-BASED TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
While casual observers and critics alike were prone to dismiss realitybased television as banal and a passing fad, the fad has not passed. To the
contrary, reality TVor unscripted drama, as it is sometimes calledhas
become an accepted program genre for prime-time network TV.3 Although
reality-based television has a pervasive presence within the televisual landscape, it occupies a precarious position in television culture. Celebrated by
some as more democratic and authentic television,4 it is more often criticized
even reviledby others who regard it as thoroughly commercial and thus
debased and contrived.5 Remaining hotly contested in both the academic
and popular imaginations, there is no consensus on the value or function of
the programs. While consensus regarding the merit of reality-based television programming may not be possible, or even desirable, these programs
clearly have a tremendous impact on television culture and culture at large.
In fact, such programming is an important site for negotiating meanings
and values in contemporary culture. However, these programs are not simply sites for generating ideology and identity but also sites for generating
considerable revenue. In this way, reality-based programs herald signicant
changes in subjective, consumptive, and promotional practices.
With this in mind, reality-based television programming is an extremely
complicated genre. At base, its programs are hybrid, borrowing from established genres such as documentary, drama, soap opera, and game show.
Within the genre itself, there are also a series of often overlapping subgenres
such as game-doc, docu-soap, dating programs, and lifestyle programs.
Here, the lifestyle subgenre holds particular importance because it is a signicant, yet contested, site of culture, consumption, and identity. Included
here are Bravo TV programs such as Tim Gunns Guide to Style, Top Chef,
Project Runway, and of course, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. As these programs borrow generic conventions, they can also be situated within larger
webs of promotional culture and cultures of self-help. The dening feature
of lifestyle programs is that they are dedicated to cultivating a style of life.
However, not just any style of life will doin order to be proper a lifestyle must be healthful, rened, and cultured. In order to achieve the proper
lifestyle through these programs, experts impart wisdom and dole out advice for every area of life. From diet and exercise to grooming and hygiene,
from fashion to etiquette and to even interior design, these programs provide training in order to help individuals cultivate a proper self. Here, it is
also important to recognize that lifestyle refers to much more than simple
The Way of the Gay
181
attitudes or tastes but also to specic habits and chosen practices. In this
way, lifestyle specically refers to the exercises and procedures that go into
constructing an artful life.
Not simply individual programs but also entire networks are devoted to
lifestyle programming. For example, The Food Network, DIY, and Style
Network each dedicate their programming to lifestyle through the elements
of food, fashion, and design. As well, Bravo TV devotes its programming to
the elements of lifestyle. For a network that began life more than twentyve years ago as a pay channel devoted to performing arts programming,
Bravo has come a long way.6 Bravos original programming now includes
popular competitions such as Top Chef and Project Runway; docu-soaps such
as Work Out and Flipping Out; and makeover shows such as Queer Eye for the
Straight Guy and Tim Gunns Guide to Style. The competitions, docu-soaps,
and makeover programs all focus on the art of lifestyle. From how to get
physically t (Work Out), what to wear (Tim Gunns Guide to Style), what to
eat (Top Chef ), how to live and even how to bathe (Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy) they provide representations, motivations, and instructions toward a
properly cultivated style of life.
LIFESTYLE MAKEOVERS: PROPER LIVING
THROUGH PROPER CONSUMPTION
Bravos rise from an artsy pay channel to a network of the hip and smart
was achieved by marketing a distinct style of life.7 As Bravo TVs agship
program, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has been credited for Bravo TVs
success.8 In fact, Queer Eye changed the network from head to toe, says
Amy Introcaso-Davis, Bravo VP of Production and Development.9 Debuting
in 2003, in the rst quarter, its prime time audience climbed 75%10 and
turned a critical hit into a cultural phenomenon.11 As a cultural phenomenon,
Queer Eye binds proper living and proper consumption in ways that have had
signicant impact on promotional and consumptive practices. For instance, in
its early stages, Bravo TV began experimenting with alternate advertising
deals, such as corporate sponsorships, ad exclusivity and cross-promotions
with other media.12 Queer Eye itself was launched with small product placement deals . . . along with small salons and restaurants that dont normally
advertise on TV.13 This kind of product placement and small business sponsorship opened new markets for lifestyle consumption, new sources of revenue for Bravo, and new potentials for sponsored product sales. In addition
to being touted as the textbook study in product placement,14 Bravo TV
was also among the rst television networks to shift online content from a
cost center to a revenues generator.15 These factors mark Bravos place in the
vanguard of lifestyle promotion with Queer Eye at the forefront. According to
Queer Eyes micro site on BravoTV.com,
182
Television
They call themselves the Fab Five. They are: An interior designer, a fashion stylist, a chef, a beauty guru and someone we like to call the concierge
of coolwho is responsible for all things hip, including music and pop
culture. All ve are talented, theyre gay and theyre determined to clue
in the cluttered, clumsy straight men of the world. With help from family and friends, the Fab Five treat each new guy as a head-to-toe project.
Soon, the straight man is educated on everything from hair products to
Prada and Feng Shui to foreign lms. At the end of every fashion-packed,
fun-lled lifestyle makeover, a freshly scrubbed, newly enlightened guy
emergescomplete with that new man smell!
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is a one-hour guide to building a
better straight mana make better series designed for guys who want
to get the girl, the job or just the look. With the expertise and support of
The Fab FiveTed Allen, Kyan Douglas, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley
and Jai Rodriguezthe makeover unfolds with a playful deconstruction of
the subjects current lifestyle and continues on as a savagely funny showcase for the hottest styles and trends in fashion, home design, grooming,
food and wine, and culture.
Queer Eye provides style upgrades for straight men. Life-styling involves
detailed attention and is motivated by the care of the self. In other words,
the guys are guided through a variety of practices in order to learn how
to take care of themselves as they are trained to use an assortment of lifestyling products.
In this way, such programming can be considered among manuals for
proper living. While reality-based television programming is a fairly recent
phenomenon, guides concerning lifestyle and the care of the self have quite
a long history. In fact, the idea that one ought to attend to oneself, care for
oneself (heautou epimeliesthai ), was actually a very ancient theme in Greek
culture.16 For instance, Greco-Roman philosophers such as Seneca (4 B.C.E.
65 C.E.), Epectitetus (55 C.E.135 C.E.), Marcus Aurelius (121 C.E.180 C.E.),
and Athenaeus (c. 190 C.E.) were rather preoccupied with the proper care of
the self. Each focused diligent attention on all aspects of life in ways that
helped to dene, in the form of knowledge and rules, a way of living, a reective mode of relation to oneself, ones body, to food, to wakefulness and
sleep, to the various activities, and to the environment.17 Here, a style of life
is cultivated through attention to and care of oneself.
In discussing Greco-Roman modes of living, Foucault identies technologies of the self.18 Technologies of the self are the activities and practices
that individuals choose to perform; individuals select certain practices over
others in an effort to cultivate a certain body, a certain identity, a certain lifestyle. Even during Greco-Roman times, technologies of lifestyle manifested
in regimes for diet, exercise, grooming, sexuality, meditation, sleep, and so
The Way of the Gay
183
forth. In this way, technologies of the self are technologies of lifestyle in

which taking care of the self is paramount.
Cultivating a lifestyle involves both training and expert advice. First, lifestyle implies certain modes of training and modication . . . [in which] . . . every technique of production requires modication of individual conductnot
only skills but also attitudes.19 In order to ensure proper conduct, skills, and
attitudes, individuals are in need of the advice of experts. For instance, Athenaeus stated that whether we are walking or sitting, whether we are oiling our body or taking a bath, whether we are eating, drinkingin a word,
whatever we may do, during the whole course of life . . . we have need of advice for an employment of this life that is worthwhile.20 With the guidance
of experts, individuals develop a careful regimen to support the art of living
in which technologies of the self, which permit individuals to effect by their
own means, or with the help of others, a certain number of operations on
their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to maintain a certain state of happiness, purity,
wisdom, perfection, or immortality.21
Although Greco-Roman and contemporary systems both operate on a
principle of the care of the self through lifestyle training, they differ greatly
in terms of the ethics at work. For instance, Greco-Roman lifestyle regimens
operated on an ethic of moderation. In other words, a proper lifestyle was a
moderate lifestyle.22 Individuals should be careful not to over indulge in any
area of life: food, drink, rest, activity, sexual practice, and so forth. Here the
choice of a moderate lifestyle formed a state of happiness, purity, wisdom,
perfection, or immortality.23 In contrast, contemporary lifestyle manuals
operate on an ethic of excess in which a proper lifestyle is developed through
the purchase and use of consumer products. The choice of certain hair products over others, certain fashion designers over others, certain foods or beverages over others are what form this state of happiness, purity, wisdom,
perfection, or immortality. In this way, contemporary manuals for proper
living are actually manuals for proper consumption in which individuals
must carefully select from an excess of consumer products.
In sum, current lifestyle manuals differ from historical lifestyle manuals by employing an ethic of excess instead of an ethic of moderation. They
comprise manuals for proper consumption rather than manuals for proper
temperance. Herein lies the implication that consumer choice, rather than
individual restraint, is the proper way to care for oneself and thus the path
to happiness. It is also signicant in that contemporary lifestyle consumption is intimately bound to contemporary television programming. At base
a commercial medium, television culture is itself a culture of consumption.
Viewers consume programming in ways that link programming choices
to lifestyle choices. The relationships between program consumption and
184
Television
lifestyle consumption, as well as the relationships between product placement, ideology, and narrative content, set the stage for this discussion of
promotional culture.
QUEER EYE: A MANUAL FOR LIVING,
A MANUAL FOR CONSUMPTION
While the Fab Five may not be considered among the great philosophers
of our time, they effectively serve as the experts who guide hapless straight
men to the art of living through the art of consumption. More than a simple
male makeover, participants undergo a transformation of requiring the
modication of individual conductnot only skills but also attitudes surrounding their consumptive practices.24 Consider BravoTV.coms description
of Vincents Queer Eye makeover, titled For Better and For Verse: Sweet
Music (episode 106):
Vincent is a studio manager by day, keyboard player and back-up vocalist
for The Cleftones by night. In his heart, Vincent yearns to step out of the
shadows and into the spotlight as a solo vocalist. Hell need a little help
in the areas of grooming, fashion and performance technique to get there,
and along the way he hopes to surprise his wife with a less-cluttered, more
livable home decor. The Fab Fives mission: bring enough order to the
chaos and polish to the performance to earn Vincent a standing ovation.
Vincent is ready to break through the clutter of his apartment, enhance
his fashion sense and go from back-up singer to solo star. All he needed
was the help of ve talented, smartly dressed queersand honey, I aint
talking about the Village People.
The Fab Five arrive at Vincents home to assess their mission. Immediately revealed is a dirty, messy, cluttered apartment. They describe his home
as pretty lthy a pig sty, a disaster, tragic, and Carson even asks have
you ever seen such a clutter-fest in your life!?25 Clearly, the clutter-fest
supplies ample evidence of Vincents consumption. From unemptied trash
bins to stacks of CDs, from childrens toys strewn about the oor to unwashed dishes in the sink, from closets bulging with outmoded clothes to
spoiled food in the refrigerator, Vincents consumption is carefully displayed
for the viewer. However, while Vincent is already a consumer, it is clear that
he does not consume properly. As the Fab Five playfully critique all areas
of Vincents lifestyle, they assess the food he eats, his shaving habits and
grooming, his home environment, and his design sense. The Fab Five set
out on their mission to transform Vincent from a clueless consumer to a
cultivated one.
The transformation focuses on training Vincent in new consumptive practices. Each member of the Fab Five has a specialty to educate Vincent.
The Way of the Gay
185
Queer Eyes micro site on BravoTV.com lists Kyan Douglas as the grooming
guru, Thom Filicia as the design doctor, Jai Rodriguez as the culture
vulture, Carson Kressley as the fashion savant, and Ted Allen as the food
and wine connoisseur. Also according to Queer Eyes micro site on BravoTV.
com, Vincent begins his transformation with Kyan on grooming:
Another straight guy, another rst-ever trip to the spa. There, Vincent
gets his head professionally shaved and his scalp treated with an essentialoil mask. Aloe for the eyes, mud for the face and an impeccable manicure
complete the treatment. Back home, Kyan alters his usual shave-aftershowering advice to a shave-while-showering strategy for Vincent so that
his head and beard remain their softest.
Kyan brings Vincent to Paul Labrecque, a posh day spa in Manhattan. During the course of his treatments, he is taught to use various products for
proper grooming. As Kyan names the benets they provide, he is also careful to name the product itself. Not simply incorporating product placement
into the program but specic product use into the narrative, Queer Eye became
the perfect vehicle for retailers.26 Intensifying traditional notions of brand
integration, Bravos research and ad-sales team . . . weave advertisers brands
within the fabric of the show.27 Throughout Vincents makeover, the product
content of the program is indistinguishable from the narrative content of the
program. Also keeping their involvement going during commercial breaks
through traditional advertising spots, this form of promotional storytelling
is the height of brand integration.28 This move is also signicant in that it
transforms the relationships between promotion, advertising, and questions
of control over creative content because, quite simply in Queer Eye, promotional content is narrative content.
Queer Eye continues promotional storytelling as Vincent continues his
transformation. According to BravoTV.com,
Ted and Jai take Vincent to T Salon in search of a brew that might calm
his nerves and soothe his throat. Added heat therapy comes in the form
of a personal steamer, frequently used by professional singers to clear up
congestion, and all-natural lozenge.
Following, we join the boys at T Salon, an upscale Manhattan tea house.

Here, Vincent learns about teas to soothe the throat before a performance
as well as the differences between black teas, rooibos, tisane, and more. They
go to a posh sitting room for a tea tasting, complete with individual tea pots,
delicate cups, and saucers. Ted and Jai also present Vincent with a selection of T Salons throat-soothing teas, Thayers Slippery Elm lozenges, and
a Sharper Image personal steamer for singers. Again, product content and
narrative content are clearly coupled on Queer Eye. In this relationship, Bravo
186
Television
and sponsors such as The Sharper Image engage in mutual exchange. Bravo
exchanges its audience to generate not only revenue but also to receive product and thus material for its narrative content. In exchange, Bravo sells its
audience to the advertisers. Such sponsorships are coveted relationships in
which lots of marketers with products in interior decorating, makeover and
clothing showed interest in getting a piece of the Eye, thus the promise
of generating sales for the carefully placed products.29
On his journey, Vincent moves from spa to salon. As he does so, he receives several hip tips. These are guidelines such as bag the bag, loose tea
is best and are designed to provide advice for future consumption for Vincent as well as viewers.30 With a trip to Bed Bath & Beyond, Thom imparts
another hip tip: lampshades: mix and match to customize.31 He then helps
Vincent with the task of decorating his home. According to BravoTV.com,
A trip to the store yields new sheets, lamps for the bedroom plus towels,
table settings and a new teapot. Back at the apartment, Thom demonstrates
the less is more principle by boxing up huge amounts of accumulated junk
and putting them into storage. New paint, wall sconces and well-framed
photos decorate the walls, and a mirrored headboard is the centerpiece of
Vincents redesigned bedroom.
Under Thoms artful eye, Vincent shops for everything a home could need:
pillows, sheets, towels, area rugs, china, atware, and lamp lighting. While it
is signicant that generic language is used in the previous description, both
visual and verbal narration specically refer to Bed Bath & Beyond during
the episode itself. As well, the named products are listed for each individual
episode on Bravos Web guide to shopping.
All the while, Carson has been busy shopping for fashions to complete
Vincents new look. BravoTV.com describes Vincents next steps as
Carson presents Vincent with a selection of styles including both everyday
looks (with a focus on slimming vertical stripes) and a few sparkly selections for his on-stage wardrobe. The latter options feature bolder colors
and embroidery or ocking to provide eye-catching detail. An extremely
elegant black-and-white ensemble mixing some of his own clothing with
new items hand-picked by Carson is chosen for Vincents big solo debut.
Vincent joins Carson at the shop of designer Beau Goss. Carson picks out
a variety of fashions and teaches Vincent about each piece of clothing. Carson completely redresses Vincent and teaches him what is fashionable, what
is not, and most importantly, how to know the difference. Upon arriving
at home Carson bursts in exclaiming, lets have a fashion show! The Fab
Five then pile on Vincents bed as he displays his new wardrobe. As he does
so, Carson explains his fashion choices via brand names such as Beau Goss,
The Way of the Gay
187
Express, and Hagar. In addition to comprising the narrative content in promotional storytelling, sharing names can also be used as a symbolic system
to communicate with others and to express status along the path of lifestyle
consumption.32
Throughout his transformation, Vincent was trained in a better lifestyle
through better consumption. His instruction concerned which products were
superior to others and how to use those products in order to create a superior
style. During the makeover, product placement was both careful and deliberate. As each expert guided Vincent through the world of life-styling, they
essentially provided him with a series of product pitches. Comprising the
central part of the narrative, you have experts on the show who are recommending products. These experts are anointing brands.33 In this way, Queer
Eye satises a primary concern for lifestyle manuals, the need of advice for
an employment of this life that is worthwhile.34 Most signicantly, Vincent
learned the art of living through the art of consuming. From general products such as loose-leaf teas and mix-matched lampshades to named products
such as Thayers, Beau Goss, and Bed Bath & Beyond, Vincent styles his life
by styling his consumption.
GENDER, SEXUALITY, AND CONSUMPTION
At work in Queer Eye are assumptions regarding gender and sexuality that
complicate traditional notions of consumption. Consumption itself has long
been associated with femininity.35 However, gayness, femininity, and consumption are conjoined concepts in contemporary culture.36 Such denition fuels
the notion that the gay male market . . . is assumed to have an inherent access to
greater degrees of renement and taste than straight men.37 While these are
widespread cultural assumptions, they are problematic because they stem from
stereotypes. Although TV is comfortable with stereotypes because nuance is
too difcult to explain to tens of millions of viewers,38 stereotyping is a dangerous cultural practice. Stereotyping functions by reducing an individual or
group to a few, limited qualities. They fundamentally constrain the range and
complexity of a given identity. Stereotypes are also problematic because they
work to essentialize identity. In other words, they function to make these qualities appear natural (i.e., a result of an innate essence or natural biology) rather
than socially constructed (i.e., a result of cultural creation). According to the
representations in Queer Eye, gay men must care about domestic detail
colour schemes, furniture, the thread count of their linens, etc.39 They also
dash about town snapping off witty, snotty little quips.40 Through these
stereotypes, viewers are presented with only one picture of gay masculinity
when, in fact, there exists a vast range of gay masculinities. Because Queer
Eyes stereotypes never stray too far from what non-gays expect them to
be,41 the progressive potential of representing gay masculinity is curtailed.
188
Television
However, the practice of stereotyping is not limited to marginalized

groups. Ironically, this is score one for equality. The men on both sides of the
sexual divide are presented as stereotypes on this show.42 Dominant groups,
straight men in the case of Queer Eye, are also stereotyped. Here, they are
represented as slovenly, unkempt, and unrened. According to these stereotypes, to be a straight man is to be unable to match a shirt to a pair of pants,
match the color of a wine to the appropriate cuisine, or match a shampoo to
a shower gel.
Also according to these stereotypes, gay and straight men seem to live
in different worlds. Queer Eye, however, appears to bridge this gap. Looking past pure stereotypes, this program features non violent, mutually respectful, cooperative relations between openly homosexual and heterosexual
men.43 Herein lies the potential to displace traditional stereotypes surrounding masculinity and improve the relational and political situations for
gay citizens. This potential, however, is not realized. While television is at its
base a commercial medium, it is important to engage its content and function at the intersection of economy and ideology. In addition to generating
prots, television is also a potentially democratic medium through which to
educate, inform, and foster dialogue.44 Even if falling short of its altruistic
potentials, television programming is a primary source for the production
and circulation of values and ideas. Here, the gap between progressive social
possibilities and economic gains should, at the least, be acknowledged. Ultimately, however, it is clear that displacing gendered stereotypes and generating revenue are incompatible aims for Queer Eye. In fact, rather than working
to improve hetero/homo relations, Queer Eye effectively disciplines them.
While constructs of masculinity are clearly called into question, its traditional denitions are carefully recovered. On one hand, Queer Eye teases
gendered stereotypes by representing men who engage in traditionally feminine cultural competencies. Exemplifying another play on gender, Vincent
is held accountable for the disarray in his domestic setting, while his wife is
absolved of responsibility. On the other hand, the uncertainty surrounding
in/appropriate gender is easily resolved because Queer Eye ensures that the
masculinity of the men being made over is emphasized through their choice
of projects. 45 Recall that the makeover projects focus on building a better
straight man for guys who want to get the girl [and] get the job. In other
words, the projects featured on Queer Eye center on heterosexual romance
and career advancement, which are two very traditionally masculine ideals.
In this way, homosexuality is represented for the purpose of recovering and
reinforcing heterosexuality. Recall that Vincents goals are to surprise his
wife and go from back up singer to solo star. During his transformation
BravoTV.com states that
Broadway pro Jai gives Vincent a few performance pointers, including the
recommendation that before he take the stage Vincent nd a place to relax,
The Way of the Gay
189
tune out all distractions and focusif necessary in the bathroom, if thats
the only private spot he can nd. Their plan is to bring his wife out on
stage at the start of the song, Im So In Love With You, and for Vincent
to insert a little dedication speech to her into the chorus.
Jai, a seasoned performer, brings Vincent to the nightclub where he will be

performing his rst solo. Here he focuses on Vincents career advancement
by teaching him to build condence for his performance. Jai also coaches
Vincent on how to court his wife by bringing her on stage and dedicating a
song to her. Jai focuses on teaching Vincent the art of romance by centering
the heterosexual standard.
The recovery of heterosexual masculinity is complete as BravoTv.com describes Vincents reveal:
The Event
Vincents wife Vivia is oored by the transformation in their apartment.
So oored, in fact, she doesnt even notice his natty new attire until after
no fewer than eighteen oh my gods (we counted) and two thumbs up
for the paint in the hallway. After a few more compliments, the two hurry
out to the club for a Cleftones performance and Vincents solo surprise.
At Jimmys Uptown Cafe, the Cleftones express their enthusiasm for the
Vincents appearances. After the rst set, Vincent changes into his black
and white outt and condently strides out on stage for his special solo
number. His touching performance brings the crowd to their feet and tears
to Vivias eyes.
The Results
Vincent is a guy with a great heart and good intentions who was in need of
a nudge in the right direction. All of his efforts at self-improvement were
geared to making a better life for the two of them. Rather than use his time
on stage as a means to glorify himself and hog the spotlight, he chose to
share the moment with Vivia. The whole makeover process, from shock and
awe start to standing-o nish, was really about their love, not his ego.
With a focus on heterosexual romance and career advancement, hegemonic

denitions of masculinity are centered and rendered normal. Pushing homosexuality further into the margins, it is also extremely signicant that the
Fab Five are not present for Vincents reveal. Instead, they view it via CCTV
from their stylishly decorated New York loft. Hetero and homo alike return
to their separate spheres, leaving the gap between their worlds intact. Queer
Eye may appear progressive through the representation of marginalized
identities and a focus on gay expertise. However, it is not simply lifestyle
products but also gay cultural competencies that are consumed during the
makeovers. While initially blurred, the lines surrounding gender, sexuality,
and consumption are again drawn along the straight and narrow.
190
Television
PROMOTIONAL CULTURE
Lifestyle consumption can be situated within a larger promotional culture. Promotional culture describes contemporary forms of consumption and
commerce as they inltrate other, noneconomic, spheres of life. In this way,
all our contemporary discourse . . . is saturated in the rhetoric of promotion,
which now exists as a generalized social category.46 Promotion is a condition; it is an all pervasive and unstable force,47 for which the world of
goods and their principles of structuration are central to the understanding of contemporary society.48 We not only make sense of the world in
which we live through the products we consume, but promotion becomes
the principle for other symbolic forms of meaning. Elements of commerce
and consumption have inuenced other spheres of life, most clearly the development of life-style. Furthermore, where advertising, public relations,
marketing, branding, and so on were once considered to be separate spheres
of commercial relations,49 they can now be thought of as layers of a singular promotional culture. In this way, promotion crosses the line between
advertising, packaging, and design, and is applicable, as well, to activities
beyond the immediately commercial.50 Regarding Queer Eye, as well as other
Bravo TV programs, the most prominent layers of promotional culture lie in
(1) branded entertainment and product placement as promotional storytelling; (2) sponsored online services such as broadband episodes, pod casts,
and product shopping guides; and (3) lifestyle promotion as self-promotion.
In this way, Bravo TVs lifestyle programs engage in a process of layering techniques and strategies, culminating in a versatile, multi-dimensional
armory for promotional culture.51 In these programs, it is most signicant
to remember that the non-advertising content of such media can be considered . . . as an extension of their ads.52
One of the most striking features of Queer Eye is, of course, product placement. Recall that throughout Vincents makeover, the Fab Five were careful
to identify individual products and retail sponsors in ways inseparable from
the narrative content of the episode. From Bed Bath & Beyond to T Salon and
Paul Labrecque, clothing from Express to Beau Goss and even throat lozenges
from Thayers, no placed product is left unnamed. On Bravo TV, named products are coupled with commercial advertising spots in ways that allow the
network to plug a show, as well as the marketers involvement.53 Other layers
of promotional culture can be found on Queer Eyes microsite on BravoTV.com.
For instance, comprehensive systems of ad-sponsored links to the placed products are available through their Web services along with broadband episodes
and shopping guides. Additionally, Bravo is also offering sponsorable podcasts
of Fab Five Hip Tips. 54 In this way, promotional culture is thoroughly bound
to lifestyle consumption as commercial sponsors take their message from the
30-second spot to something thats directly actionable on the web.55
The Way of the Gay
191
While Queer Eye has been called the single most shameless corporate
tramp on TV,56 this program is not alone. In fact, Tim Gunns Guide to Style
operates similarly. According to BravoTV.com,
In each episode of Tim Gunns Guide to Style, Gunn uses his unmatched
counseling skills, to turn the fashion weary into polished individuals.
While Gunn focuses on the big picture of each subjects transformation,
[Veronica] Webb guides the women through shopping the Tim Gunn way,
by steering their choices and listening to their concerns and offering solutions. The series utilizes several tools to help a diverse set of women make
themselves over, including a list of various fashion icons the subjects
pick from to determine who inspires their style . . . Then, when building
their signature looks, the subjects use Gunns essential shopping list,
which includes 10 basic pieces that no closet should be without. Armed
with Gunns rules . . . Gunn calls on his friends and colleagues to put the
nishing touches on the women, including hair and make-up.
Tim Gunns Guide to Style is also a makeover program that focuses on transformation through lifestyle consumption. Employing taste and style, Gunns
makeover candidates are also instructed in the art of fashion as an art of lifestyle. Not surprisingly, products are carefully placed throughout the makeover. For example, makeover candidates invariably go on a shopping trip
to Macys and meet top fashion designers. Likewise, Gunns microsite on
BravoTV.com provides instructions to Get the Look by using hair products
by Garnier Fructis and makeup by Maybelline. Gunn also features a library
of Video Tips for more detailed lifestyle instructions.
Project Runway differs because it is a competition rather than a makeover
program. However, it also exemplies lifestyle consumption with a focus on
high fashion, taste, and style within promotional culture. According to Project Runways microsite on BravoTV.com,
Project Runway features host supermodel Heidi Klum and a panel of industry luminaries, including judges Michael Kors, top womens and mens
wear designer and Nina Garcia, ELLE magazine fashion director, as they
decide who is in and who is out. The 15 Project Runway contestants
will be whittled down to the nalists who will show their own line in front
of an audience of fashion industry movers and shakers at New York Fashion Week. As part of the winners prize package, an editorial feature on the
winning designer will run in an issue of ELLE, the winner will walk away
with a cash prize of $100,000 from TRESemm professional hair care to
start their own line, and will have the opportunity to sell a fashion line on
Bluey.com. Saturn will award the winner a 2008 Saturn Astra.
Project Runway is also peppered with placements for products such as Elle,
Saturn, TREsemme, and Bluey as well as frequent trips to Manhattans
192
Television
Mood fabric store. Again, this exemplies the condition of promotional culture in which even nonadvertising content is blended into the narrative in
order to function promotionally. However, Project Runway moves away from
purely instructional lifestyle consumption. Rather, Project Runway also belongs to promotional culture via the art of self-promotion. Self-promotion
refers to the ways in which individuals create and present themselves in order
to market themselves to others. Project Runway is a vehicle through which aspiring fashion designers promote their skills, designs, and most importantly,
themselves. Participants in Project Runway may in fact be more engaged in
self-promotion than they are in sewing garments. Here, the designer becomes
an integrated line and a brand. In selling ones designs as oneself, identity
and commodity overlap. In this way, winning the competition means more
than winning a cash prize; it also means winning an endorsed identity.
Top Chef, also a competition program, functions similarly. Instead of couture, however, Top Chef focuses on cuisine. According to its microsite on
BravoTV.com,
Top Chef 3 Miami features 15 of the countrys most impressive rising
chefsall packed in a house in beautiful Miami Beachwhere the sun is
hot and the competition is hotter. Queer Eye s culinary expert Ted Allen
brings his expertise to the judges table this season, joining cookbook author, actress and host Padma Lakshmi; Tom Colicchio, celebrated culinary
gure and co-founder of Craft Restaurants; and returning judge Gail Simmons of Food & Wine. The 15 contestants will reside in the luxurious
beachfront Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, where the seasons production activity will be centered.
In addition to featuring well-placed products such as Glad, Top Chef s microsite is complete with product guides, recipes, and Video Tips. Where Project
Runway features appearances by top designers such as Vera Wang and Donna
Karan, Top Chef features appearances by celebrity chefs such as Sirio Maccioni and Rocco diSpirito. In this way, both programs capitalize on already
branded personalities while also assisting others in developing an endorsed
identity.
Finally, Bravos most blatantly self-promotional program is Work Out.
Work Out is neither a makeover nor competition program but instead is a
docu-soap. According to Work Outs microsite on BravoTV.com,
Work Out, returns to follow the professional and personal life of Jackie
Warner, elite trainer and owner of Sky Sport & Spa in Beverly Hills, CA.
Everything inside of her leading penthouse tness facility is visually impressive, including the state-of-the-art equipment and the most attractive
staff of trainers in the city. Work Out examines how these people work
and play together, inside and outside the gym.
The Way of the Gay
193
First and foremost, Work Out promotes lifestyle consumption by focusing

on the development of a healthful way of life. From Jackies morning health
shake to exercise boot camps, Work Out promotes the elements of a t lifestyle. As a docu-soap, viewers also follow Jackie as she designs and promotes
Sky Sport, as she designs and promotes Sky Spa, and as she designs and
promotes her line of tness apparel. Here, there is no distinction between
Jackie Warner herself and the practices and products she sells. For example,
the success of Sky Sport is solely dependent on successful self-promotion.
Crossing the lines between persona and product as well as consumption and
culture, these multiple forms of promotion interlock.
Also signicant in Work Out is the attention paid to Jackies same-sex love
life. The docu-soap follows her through a tumultuous relationship and subsequent breakup with her girlfriend during season one. Jackie then begins
a scandalous relationship with one of her female trainers at Sky Sport during season two. Unlike Queer Eye, same-sex relationships on Work Out are
highly sexualized.57 However, the way of the gay on both programs focuses
on appropriate living through health and style. Within promotional culture,
gay cultural competence is exploited as a means of cultivating a style of life.
These Bravo TV programs function as lifestyle manuals and operate on an
ethic of consumption.
While promotion may be an accepted element of commercial television,
it is also an endemic cultural condition. Consumption and self-promotion
are simply daily activities. For instance, from dating and clothing shopping
to attending a job interview, virtually everyone is involved in the self promotionalism which overlays such practices.58 However, while promotional
culture may be endemic, it is not democratic. Promotional culture describes
a contemporary consumer condition, and attention should be paid to the
inequalities produced through its forms. First, while lifestyle consumption
may acknowledge gay cultural competence, it also marginalizes those identities by continuing to rely on stereotypes. Additionally, the ability to consume
is not equally accorded to all. In fact, some may be trapped by lifestyle consumption while others are simply excluded from it. In this way, cultivating
a style of life remains a complicated set of practices within layers of promotional culture.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that commercial television will attend to such
complications as long as they remain unprotable. In fact, television networks will likely continue to develop forms of promotional storytelling because they are a lucrative means to increase an advertised products reach
into the lifestyle practices of viewers. Bravo TV has achieved this not simply
by incorporating product placement into its programs but specic product
use into its narratives. This is a signicant layer of promotional culture in
which the product content of Bravos programs is indistinguishable from
the narrative content of its programs. Deeply layered in the stratum of
194
Television
promotional culture, Bravo TV has successfully expanded sponsorship from

the traditional 30-second ad spot through the programs narrative to actionable online content. As lifestyle manuals, Bravo TVs programs specically
provide the expert advice necessary to help viewers select from the excess of
consumer products available. In a promotional culture, the synergistic relationships between sponsors and networks give way to synergy with consumers in which Bravo TV offers its viewers lifestyle training through the art of
consumption. For Better or For Verse,59 this describes the social and economic
conditions of life itself as commercially styled and thoroughly embedded
within layers of promotion.
NOTES
1. Federico Boni, Framing Media Masculinity: Mens Lifestyle Magazines and the
Biopolitics of the Male Body, European Journal of Communication 17 (2002): 474.
2. Ibid.
3. Ted Madger, The End of TV 101: Reality Programs, Formats and the New
Business of Television, in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, ed. Susan Murray
and Laurie Oulette (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 137.
4. Phillip Auslander, Liveness: Performance in Mediatized Culture (New York: Routledge, 1999); Ellis Goddard, Reel Life: The Social Geometry of Reality Shows, in
Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, ed. Matthew J. Smith
and Andrew F. Wood (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2003), 7396.
5. Neil Gabler, Life: The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality (New York:
Vintage Press, 1998); Richard Kilborn, Staging the Real: Factual TV Programming in
the Age of Big Brother (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2003).
6. Anne Becker, The In Crowd: Bravos Rise From Artsy Pay Channel to Network
of the Hip and Smart, Broadcasting & Cable, October 2, 2006, 17.
7. Ibid.
8. Allison Romano, Upfront Buys from the Bravo Guys, Broadcasting & Cable,
April 12, 2004, 6; George Winslow, The Brand is King, Broadcasting & Cable, June 11,
2007, A6.
10. Allison Romano, Upfront Buys from the Bravo Guys, Broadcasting & Cable,
April 12, 2004, 6.
12. Jim McConville, Cable Tinkers with Ad Time Setups, Advertising Age, October 20,
1997, 62.
13. Jeff Nack, Wayne Friedman, and Richard Lynnett, Getting a Piece of the Eye,
Advertising Age, August 4, 2003, 4.
14. Clare Atkinson and T. L. Stanley, Marketers in Fab Five Lovefest, Advertising
Age, September 29, 2003, 3.
15. Dan Oullette, Broadband as Plan B, Media Week, June 5, 2006, 1620.
The Way of the Gay
195
16. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality vol. III: the Care of the Self. trans.
R. Hurley (New York: Random House, 1988), 43.
17. Ibid., 100.
18. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality vol. III: the Care of the Self. trans. R. Hurley (New York: Random House, 1988); Michel Foucault, Technologies of the Self, in
Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth, ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: the New Press, 1994).
19. Michel Foucault, Technologies of the Self, in Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth, ed.
Paul Rabinow (New York: the New Press, 1994), 225.
20. Ibid., 100.
21. Ibid., 225.
22. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality vol. III: the Care of the Self. trans.
R. Hurley (New York: Random House, 1988).
23. Ibid., 225.
24. Ibid.
25. David Collins, Michael Williams, and David Meltzer, Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy, Scout Productions, Episode 106, For Better or For Verse: Sweet Music.
26. Jack Neff, Wayne Friedman, and Richard Linnett, Getting a Piece of the Eye,
27. Andrew Hampp, Why Brands Win in Reality Competitions, Advertising Age,
January 7, 2008, 4.
28. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood, World of Goods (New York: Basic Books,
1979), p. 75; Joan Kron, The semiotics of Home Dcor, in Signs of Life in the USA:
Readings on Popular Culture for Writers, ed. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon (New
York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006), 111.
34. Michel Foucault, Technologies of the Self, in Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth, ed.
Paul Rabinow (New York: the New Press, 1994), 225.
35. This association rests on basic binary distinctions as a primary means of sense
making. A binary consists of two terms that are dened in opposition. For instance,
man/woman, mind/body, production/consumption, heterosexual/homosexual are
binaries. They function in two ways: (1) via hierarchy and (2) via linking. Functioning hierarchically means that of the two oppositional terms, one will be devalued
and the other will be devalued. As a function of linking, all terms on one side of the
binary become associated. In this way, woman, body, consumption, and homosexual
are linked (and devalued). Likewise, masculinity, mind, production, and heterosexual
are also linked (and valued).
36. Jay Clarkson, Masculinitys Makeover: Queer Eye, Consumer Masculinity and
Straight Acting Gays, Journal of Communication Inquiry 29 (2005): 236, emphasis
added.
196
Television
37. Ibid., 235.

38. P. J. Bednarski, Get into a Closet: Queer Eye Message to Heterosexuals, Broadcasting & Cable, July 21, 2003, 47.
39. Liz Morrish and Kathleen OMara, Confounding Masculinity, Feminist Media
Studies 4, 3 (2004): 351.
40. P. J. Bednarski, Get into a Closet: Queer Eye Message to Heterosexuals, Broadcasting & Cable, July 21, 2003, 47.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Dana Heller, Taking the Nation from Drab to Fab: Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy, Feminist Media Studies 4, 3 (2004): 348.
44. Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television Studies (New York, Routledge,
2004) 1619; Bernadette Casey, Neil Casey, Ben Calvert, Liam French, and Justin Lewis, Access, in Television Studies: The Key Concepts (New York: Routledge,
2002), 13.
45. Michele Ramsey and Gladys Santiago, The Conation of Male Homosexuality
and Femininity in Queer Eye, Feminist Media Studies 4, 3 (2004): 353.
46. Martyn Lee, introduction to Wernick, The Promotional Condition of Contemporary Culture, in The Consumer Society Reader, ed. Martyn Lee (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), 300.
47. Ibid.
48. Mike Featherstone, Lifestyle and Consumer Culture, in The Consumer Society
Reader, ed. Martyn Lee (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), 94.
49. William Leiss, Stephen Kline, and Sut Jhally, The Bonding of Media and Advertising, in The Consumer Society Reader, ed. Martyn Lee (Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2000), 92105.
50. Andrew Wernick, The Promotional Condition of Contemporary Culture, in
The Consumer Society Reader, ed. Martyn Lee (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), 301.
51. William Leiss, Stephen Kline, and Sut Jhally, The Bonding of Media and Advertising, in The Consumer Society Reader, ed. Martyn Lee (Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2000), 249.
53. Andrew Hampp, Why Brands Win in Reality Competitions, Advertising Age,
January 7, 2008, 4.
54. Abbey Klaassen, Cashing in on Their Good Name, Advertising Age, June 6,
2005, 2.
55. Ibid.
56. Katherine Sender, Queens for a Day: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the
Neoliberal Project, Critical Studies in Media Communication 23, 2 (2006): 131151.
57. Ibid.
chapter 11
The Real O.C.: Laguna Beach, MTV,

and the Business of Reality
Star Production
Anne H. Petersen
In 2004, the reality craze appeared to be slowly winding down. While still
popular, teens were tiring of The Real World and Road Rules. The O.C. had just
enjoyed runaway success as a summer ller on Fox, highlighting the lavish
lifestyles of Orange Countys rich and incestuous social scene. MTV wanted
a show that would function as a hybrid of The O.C. and MTVs reliable reality
format but recognized the need for participants who looked like teensunlike
those on Beverly Hills, 90210 or The O.C., these kids could look sophisticated,
but they had to be believable. In Laguna Beach, a small, insulated town an
hour south of Los Angeles, MTV found their ideal: a group of teens wealthy
enough to make their lives appear different, interesting, and desirable, yet
living in a small enough town that gossip would run wild. These teens were
raw star material, primed for production as the newest in a long line of MTV
stars.
The success of MTVs Laguna Beach hinges on its incorporation of reality television codes with those of melodrama. Establishing Laguna Beach as
realeach episode begins with an assurance that the people, the locations,
and the drama . . . are realmakes it palatable to MTVs key demographic,
an age-group that, as Richard Siklos emphasizes, is endlessly fascinated
with watching themselves.1 In so doing, MTV has prolonged its remarkable
track record with the famously ckle teen market, redening yet again what
it takes to cater to and succeed with the coveted 12 to 34 demographic. The
show revolves around signs (the rst day of school; the lead-up to Prom) that
198
Television
form a code readily decipherable as high school. MTV further captivates its
viewers by running its raw footage through the sifter of melodrama, a genre
reliable for its potential for star production. Placing emphasis on the hyperbolic, the spectacular, and the extravagant, evident in methods of character
typeage, backdrop, costuming, and plot manipulation, Laguna Beach produces
the newest generation of MTV stars, ensuring future consumption and network devotion. MTVs employment of melodramatic characterization and
narrative devices emerges as an effective, if not entirely subtle, method of
star production and commodication, as well as the root of Laguna Beachs
sensational success. Ultimately, MTVs trajectory may be traced into New
Media forms, with the potential for sustained star production as a new generation of MTV viewers moves from the living room couch to the personal
computer. Since its inception, MTV has repeatedly redened the teen market.
Even after 25 years, it remains both arbiter and merchant of cool, titles that it
wields prominently and powerfully within the business of entertainment.
When MTV launched into the American consciousness in August of 1981, its
rst video declared Video Killed the Radio Star. Twenty-ve years later,
with MTVs programming schedule dominated by My Super Sweet Sixteen,
Made, Pimp My Ride, and the current jewel of its reality crown, Laguna Beach,
reality has effectively killed the video star. MTVs transformation may be
traced to the early 1990s, when the network introduced a number of programs that focused more on youth behavior than pure music videos. In order
to cope with coming-of-age, teens no longer simply needed music. Instead,
they demand images that instruct how to live, how to construct their lifestyle,
where to go on spring break, how to dance, what to ridicule, and so forth.
Starting with the premiere of The Real World in 1992, MTV began its
evolutionary transformation. MTVs new focus was not simply on music,
nor exclusively on behaviorinstead, it concentrated on a hybrid of the two,
both interwoven with a bold capitalist thread. This hybrid manifests most
succinctly in the form of the reality show, itself lled with heavy musical
soundtracks and depictions of lifestyle. These shows exemplify the notion of
melodramamelos, the Greek for song, combined with drama; while so many
complain that MTV no longer plays music videos, in truth, its simply begun
to make their own, coupling songs with dramatic reality footage. While reality television has proliferated across networks and genres, MTV pioneered
the concept, collecting the real stories of young American adults comingof-age in a group scenario. The crux of MTVs overall success may be found
in its creation of demand and subsequent fulllment of that demand. With
The Real World, MTV created the demand for reality television. Ten years
later, with Laguna Beach, it continues to fulll that demand, particularly for
the teenage market.
More than any movie studio, MTV is in the business of star production:
cultivating popular identities for audience consumption. Instead of looking
The Real O.C.
199
to past successes in the teen market, MTV thoroughly examines current teen
society, carefully crafting new stars for whom they can predict success. Historically, the star represents an economic paradox. Stars serve as the most
reliable determination of audience consumption, yet, they also unpredictably
rise and fall from audience graces.
In light of such unpredictability, MTV bypasses established stars, choosing instead to produce stars of its own. As was the case with the traditional
star system, in which studios relied on masses of starry-eyed hopefuls to
cheaply fuel an abundance of lms, MTV depends on hordes of fame-hungry
teens. Whether theyre musicians or simply willing to sell the story of their
sixteenth birthday, these kids are willing to shape themselves into whatever
MTV wants them to be. Plus, theyre free: Why pay for stars when you have
droves of young, desperate, wannabe star material? MTV thus exemplies
the practice of reality star production: hand picking its own stars, molding
and directing them in real life situations, then proting from the resultant
fame. With no real middleman, the prots are nearly entirely theirs.
Stars communicate signicant messages concerning specic societal
ethos: On the level of the subconscious, innate contradictions of society may
be reconciled through the existence of one shining star.2 MTV focuses on
the contradictions of a particular teen era, producing stars that similarly
smooth over the holes in the social fabric of teen existence. Watching a
star successfully navigate society helps a teen to feel less anxiety about his
own struggles. Whether Beavis and Butthead or Johnny Knoxville, Daria or
Martha Quinn, each star was produced by MTV to embody and reconcile the
contradictions of a specic moment in teen history. Stars dont last long on
MTVas soon as the cultural moment passes, the star no longer functions
as intended. MTV simply replaces the star with a new construction t to
embody the contradictions of the new cultural moment. In the late 2000s,
Laguna Beach lled that role.
MELODRAMA
Bob Pittman, cofounder of MTV, has repeatedly articulated the appeal of
his network to teen audiences. In his words, for TV babies who grew up on
rock and roll . . . the strongest appeal you can make (to them) is emotional. If
you can get their emotions going (and make them forget logic), youve got
them.3 As MTV rst discovered with the music video, and continues to
exploit with the reality television show, the best way to get their emotions
going is through melodrama. While Laguna Beach is ostensibly a piece of
reality television, MTV structures its raw footage using melodramatic codes.
Image, tableaux, and excess of expression construct and fortify recognizable character types. The stronger the type, the more readily she may be
marketed as a star: Static identities sustain consumption. Audiences are thus
200
Television
encouraged to emulate such types, constructing identity through consumption in order to recreate the Laguna social scene.
IMAGE AND TABLEAUX
In Laguna Beach, characters are turned inside out and displayed in lavish homes, breathtaking ocean vistas, and trips to Cabo San Lucas. Thomas
Elsaesser has suggested that in melodrama, what is inexpressible in the
narrative overows into the more absorbent, purely aesthetic vehicles where
it assumes an antithetical relation to the action . . . emotion is exteriorized
in the lush mise-en-scene, almost as though characters are turned inside
out and their interiority displayed (in coded form) in the dcor.4 As columnist Bill Keveney points out, throughout Laguna, bonds are formed over
bonres on the beach, tested while foraging for $250 jeans, and broken in
a steamy jacuzzi with hillside views that extent to Pacic horizons.5 The
on-screen image simultaneously emboldens and reects character conict.
As a rule, pivotal discussions take place on the beach: As a couple or enemies
hash out their relationship, the tumultuous ocean serves as a metaphor for
teenage romance, while the sight and sound of the ocean aggravates the
disagreement.
Interiority is likewise displayed in visual tableaux, whose motive Peter
Brooks denes as a means to give the spectator the opportunity to see
meanings represented, emotions and moral states rendered in clear visible
signs.6 The fast pace and cutting style of Laguna Beach distance it from
traditional tableaux vivants, in which characters would stand still for hours
at a time to communicate, like a painting, a singular idea. Yet, Laguna Beach
periodically pauses to create the MTV iteration of the tableaux, in which the
pop/rock soundtrack overwhelms the diegetic sound. In these moments, the
audience is meant to contemplate the signicance of the scene, the words
of the melos amplifying the drama. The female protagonist stands looking toward the beach after saying goodbye to her exboyfriend, the waves
crashing, the sun setting. The words and tone of the song communicate the
wistful and bittersweet emotion of the scene; music usurps speech, rendering characters effectively mute. Peter Brooks explains that in melodrama
mutes may represent extreme moral and emotional conditions . . . [their] very
physical presence evokes the extremism and hyperbole of ethical conict
and manichaeistic struggle.7 The mute thus resorts to teenage gestural vocabularymeaningful looks, hand-holds, the middle-ngerto convey her
moral and emotional condition. Editing and camerawork contribute to this
effect, seeking out and isolating moments of wordless communication. These
imagesthe sea, the beach, the mutefashion a giant iconic tapestry that,
when read collectively, communicates overarching thematic concerns. In the
case of Laguna Beach, we repeatedly receive the intensely high school theme
The Real O.C.
201
of coming-of-age and leaving home. The extravagant ocean backdrop serves

to amplify the protagonists mental state: She is gleefully leaving Laguna for
college, yet sad to leave her long-time boyfriend and hometown. Like the
tide, her emotions ebb and ow; like the setting sun, she is primed to begin
a new portion of her life. The casts yearly trip to Cabo San Lucas serves a
similar function. As one cast member explains, Cabo is partying non-stop,
sleeping about four hours a day.8 The heightened exoticism of the Mexican
coast aggravates emotional tensions, bringing already volatile conicts to a
boiling point. Extreme emotions are externalized in the extreme beauty of
their surroundings: This ocean is bluer than that of Laguna, the sky clearer,
the sand more pristine. Cabo is an intensied version of Laguna, and the
emotions escalate accordingly.
EXCESS OF EXPRESSION
High-own sentiment exemplies melodrama and permeates Laguna
Beach, functioning to further solidify established character types. Being teenagers, the cast of Laguna often struggle to articulate themselves, straining to
straddle the divide between their child and adult selves. Similarly, Gledhill
observes that melodramatic characters faced with the decentered self and
the evasiveness of language, respond with declamatory speech and spectacular sentiment.9 Granted, hyperbolic emotion and expression are no novelty to anyone acquainted with actual teens, yet the manner in which Laguna
edits and replays the drama presents it as constant and denitive. Alcohol
compounds teen speech habits, rening characters and attitudes through reiteration: A party is either so fun or super lame; a boy is either way hot
or stupid; a girl is either a super bitch or so sweet. In reality, these teens
likely discuss, at least to some extent, issues divergent from parties, boys,
and other girls, and perhaps do so in a less denitive manner. In reality,
however, at least in its Laguna manifestation, editing creates the illusion of
repetitive near-histrionic speech, brimming with the sensational sentiment
of melodrama. MTV exploits the melodramatic tropes of image, tableaux,
and declamatory speech as means of creating static, maximized character
types, prime for stardom and fan emulation. Melodrama makes types; types
make starsthis is a tried and true formula long-practiced in Hollywood
and deftly translated to the twenty-rst century in Laguna Beach. This formula for reality star production, rst developed with The Real World, now
permeates the network: From My Super Sweet Sixteen to I Love New York,
from Made to Life of Ryan, MTV has capitalized on the format. And, as testied by the success of shows as various as Dancing with the Stars and Americas
Next Top Model, the model continues to spread. Large networks and specialized cable channels have personalized the model for their own uses, relying on relatively small production budgets to spark massive ratings. Its the
202
Television
twenty-rst-century equivalent of the variety show: Hone in on a market,

hire a genial host, and let the cheap talent do the work.
MAXIMIZED CHARACTER TYPES
Star production has long hinged on the ability to produce and reproduce
recognizable character types. Dyer denes the type as a shared, recognisable, easily grasped image of how people are in society.10 A star is made
signicant, and thus successful, for his or her ability to embody such a type.
In melodrama, the type is hyperbolized and emboldened, a process that facilitates audience recognition and an actors consequent rise to stardom.
Melodramatic types are made to embody maximum states of age, beauty,
strength, revenge, or whatever.11 Such personication allows individual characters to represent greater social forcesgoodness, evil, change, innovation, and so forththat will function as clear psychic and moral identities
amidst the drama.12 Devoid of complexity, the melodramatic star embodies a
singular sentiment: In the eyes of the audience, she becomes goodness, embodies change, personies evil, and so forth. She is transparent, easily digestible,
readily placed within the social sphere, and, as a result, immensely popular.
In the 1950s, types included The Rebel, The Good Joe, The Pin-Up,
The Independent Woman, The Tough Guy, amongst others. Paul McDonald points to the manner in which types transcend decades, as The Rebel,
once embodied by Marlon Brando and James Dean, was personied in the
1980s and 90s by Christian Slater and Sean Penn.13 For Laguna Beach, MTV
has created new, twenty-rst-century types, readily recognizable for teens
navigating the landscape of high school. The Alpha Girl, The Sweetheart,
The Slut, The Diva, The Player, The Rebel, and The Hottie represent the
new teen typeage, in which cliques and their corresponding hierarchy dictate social interactions. Laguna Beach asserts and amplies these types using
myriad methods, especially print PR campaigns and features on its online
component, MTV Overdrive.
The term Alpha Girl, interchangeable with Queen Bee, rst became part
of the vernacular following Rosalind Wisemans 2002 book Queen Bees and
Wannabes, a contemporary update of Reviving Ophelia. Wiseman breaks down
the cliques, gossip, and social hierarchy of the girl world, in which a Queen
Bee/Alpha Girl commands a group of Wannabes/Beta Girls. The Sweetheart, similar to the Alpha Girl but lacking in powers of charismatic manipulation, functions as the social enemy. She generally lacks the malice and social
know-how of the Queen Bee; plainly put, shes a nice girl whod much rather
everyone simply get along. Yet, opposition is as essential to the Queen Bee
as lip-glossif the Sweetheart doesnt exist, the Queen Bee will invent one,
if only to demonstrate her rule. Beta Girls/Wannabes function in accordance
with their titles. Less beautiful, less charismatic, less persuasive, and thus
The Real O.C.
203
unqualied to fulll the role of Queen, these girls are insecure and chronic
gossips, calculating their actions and words to gain approval from their leader.
On the other side of the gender line, boys participate in these cliques as pure
objects to be won or lost, functioning as little more than pawns in the elaborate social game. In each season of Laguna Beach, the show centers on this
exact social set-up, with a Queen Bee as the primary catalyst for action.
THE ALPHA GIRL/QUEEN BEE
In seasons one and two, Kristin lls the Alpha Girl role. A blond-haired
and ippant arbiter of cool, Kristin dictates the interaction between her small
army of Beta girls and the other dominant group of girls. On Overdrive,
Kristins cast info description distills her Alpha Girl status, allowing her to
become the will to party and dominate the social sphere:
No one has more fun than Kristin. Last year she was in the shadow of
the seniors, but this year its her turn to rule the school. All she wants
to do is party and leave behind the drama from last year. [ . . . ] Parties,
bonres, ski trips, and another hot spring break getawaythis is Kristins
year . . . When Stephen comes home from college, how will she feel? And
with so many other boys interested, including the always charming Talan,
its all up to Kristin. Who will she choose?
The language emphasizes her status as superlative: no one has more fun.
The use of possessives is equally suggestivethis is Kristins year; its her
turn to rule the school. The language also streamlines Kristins desires and
emphasizes her agency: All she wants to do is party and go on trips; its all
up to her.
Such construction is further facilitated through the use of supporting
characters. Each main Laguna type has a corresponding best friend to drive
the narrative and elucidate types. Like the literary foil character, the best
friend serves as the backdrop from which the maximized type may distinguish herself. Kristin and her best friend, Alex H., are both snarky, obsessed
with the same boys, and devoted to heavy black eyeliner and blond highlights. Yet, Kristin is clearly the maximization of the type visible in Alex H.
whenever Alex appears on screen, she is labeled, narratively and literally,
as Kristins Friend. The supporting character likewise drives narrative discovery of the maximized type, beginning each scene with a leading question
Did you have fun last night? Do you still like Talan? What do you think
about Stephen? and so forth. Such probing questions allow the Alpha Girl
to express and disseminate her opinions and schemes for the future.
Embodying the type of the Alpha Girl, Kristins role in the melodrama is
rmly established and predictable. In essence, MTV has produced and stabilized her starKristin is now easily marketable through reiteration in other
204
Television
MTV productions, most clearly in her season three replica, Kyndra. Reporting on the premiere of the third season of Laguna Beach, columnist Verna Gay
declares whats amazing, if entirely predictable, is that MTV has fashioned
a near-perfect carbon copy of seasons one and two.14 The season three cast
indeed reincarnates the roles of the past two seasons, with Kyndra lling the
role of Alpha Girl/Queen Bee vacated by Kristin. Kyndra has been described
as a mean girl of the highest order, with a Joan Collins manner that would
seem to belong to someone twice her age.15 Her prole in People asserts
people like her, people are scared of her.16 Entertainment Weekly captions her
The Queen of Snide who does not have . . . what do you call them? Oh, yes,
feelings.17 When Tessa introduces her in the voiceover at the beginning of
season three, she is described as the Queen of Mean. Here it becomes obvious that Kyndra not only fullls the Queen Bee type, but exemplies, even
overlls, itshe is all that Kristin was in terms of manipulation, but while
Kristin possessed some semblance of emotional rooting, Kyndra is portrayed
as feckless and cold, utterly one-dimensional. Her Overdrive bio declares
With the best party house, the right clothes and tons of money to spend,
Kyndra is the reigning queen of Laguna. Her character is a sum of pretty
and conniving parts that combine as a driving force of evil in the show.
Costume further reinforces Kyndras type. In Laguna Beach, despite the
fact that the teens dress themselves, clothing takes on immense signicance.
In her work on melodramatic costume, Jane Gaines has asserted that costume
detail [stands], again and again, for the same thing, and could be counted
on to provide basic information about a character for the spectator, that is,
typied.18 Similar to classic cinema, where costume details were xed,
Laguna Beach expresses essential aspects of a character through clothing,
overcoming the teenage communication barrier through storytelling wardrobes.19 In the publicity shots for season three, Kyndra wears a satiny green
top that hugs her body, gathering at her chest to accentuate her gure. Her
neck is wrapped with gold chains and necklaces that match her golden skin
tone and highlights. The sumptuous silk of Kyndras top simulates skin and
renders a notion of emotional hypersensitivity that further expresses her
capricious nature. Her jewelry connotes an abundance of wealth; her tan
and highlights speak to a life of leisure. Taken collectively, the end effect of
Kyndras outt is one of sumptuous luxury, a key aspect of Kyndras typeage
as Alpha Girl/Queen Bee.
THE SWEETHEART
Kristin and Kyndra function as the counterpart to The Sweetheart, embodied by Tessa in season three. Tessa is super nice to everyone, and although
she and Kyndra used to be friends, shes no longer part of the cool girls
she identies with in the rst episode.20 Tessa is soft-spoken and registers
The Real O.C.
205
every emotion on her face; with a long mane of black hair, she is physically
differentiated from the Alpha Girls of past and present. Indeed, for prom,
Sweetheart Tessa sews her own dress, creating a piece of costume that
distinguishes her from the popular/mean girls. While the rival girls all wear
short, irty dresses, hers is full-length, sleek, and elegant. Tessa accessorizes
with minimal jewelry and wears her long hair down, further distancing her
look from those of the rival clique. Her delicate emotions are externalized
in the ne construction of the dress; its oor length signifying her guarded
heart. However, two long slits reveal Tessas legsshe may be covering herself emotionally but nevertheless remains susceptible to romantic/sexual
appeal, as manifested by her destructive irtation with an ex-boyfriend at
episodes end. Her photobook, available at MTV Overdrive, reafrms her
typed identity through a series of posed glamour shots. In all but one, Tessa
smiles wide, her eyes kind and welcoming. Her set of photos creates a stark
contrast with those of Kyndra and her deputies, Lexi and Cami, whose
photobooks are dominated by shots of each girl looking alternately scornful
and full of mirth. In the one picture in which Tessas smile falters, she looks
sideways at the camera, her face in prole against a bamboo backdrop. In this
photo, Tessas face emanates a ash of vulnerability and tenderness that only
further supports her type. Her Overdrive bio explains that during her junior year, Tessa just wants to nd the right boy, communicating a harmless
desire for companionship and affection. Tessas character is structured as a
force for goodin terms that an MTV viewer can understand, her heart, like
her skin, is clean and pure.
As mentioned previously, through the process of melodramatic characterization, types come to embody ethical forces present in the melodrama
Kyndra becomes a force of meanness, Tessa becomes a force of goodness.21
Characters are essentially wholebut as Robert Heilman emphasizes, such
wholeness implies neither greatness nor moral perfection, but rather an absence of basic inner conict that, if it is present, must inevitably claim our primary attention.22 Put differently, these melodramatic characters are utterly
without internal psychic conict. There is no psychology to melodrama
conict does not occur within the character but between a character and an
external force: another person, a group, an event, or nature.
In this way, melodrama presents everyday life as a theater of Manichean
struggles where the world becomes morally legible. Historically, as the social hierarchy ceased to be the measure of all things, the traditional values
and ethics that had given society its particular cohesion were either lost or
loosened. Melodramatic forms developed as a response to such loosening:
infus[ing] human actions with ethical consequences and therefore with
signicance.23 For Lagunas teen audience, authoritative forces (church,
parental control) have loosened or muddled their attempts at moral guidance, creating confusion and ambivalence. Laguna Beach, however, offers
206
Television
a narrative in which forces of right/wrong and good/evil are clearly delineated. Such moral legibility proves naturally attractivewhile adults and
other authorities, school, media, or otherwise, attempt to trivialize teen experiences, Laguna privileges events as ostensibly meaningless as a social snub,
allowing them to take on signicant ethical consequences. Laguna Beach infuses the teen experience with moral signicance, thus allowing audience
members to imbue their own experiences in similar fashion. Such has always
been the brilliance of MTV within the entertainment worldits understanding that teens oftentimes simply want media, like their elders, to acknowledge and validate their interests. Disney and Nickelodeon follow the same
formula, only for younger teens and tweens; The CW has attempted a similar structure, centering their schedule around Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill, and
Gilmore Girls to moderate success. MTV, however, retains its dominion over
the teen landscape, proting off of the emotional and moral needs of its teen
audience.
Lagunas conict may be morally rooted, but it nevertheless exists purely
on the level f the exterior: Mean Girls are mean to Nice Girls, The Player
plays the Love-Crazy, and so forth. In Laguna Beach, characters remain static,
maintaining a loyalty to their types, evidencing both wholeness and absence
of inner psychology. Kristin begins and ends as an Alpha Girl; Tessa never
deviates from her Sweetheart type. In the majority of reality shows, each
character regularly enters into a private confessional to conde their inner
thoughts, a trope rst established by MTVs Real World. Laguna Beach, however, offers no window into the soulwhatever souls these characters are
meant to possess are externally manifested.
The reasoning behind this supercial characterization is simple: Externalized personality allows for a commodied personality. If a character is
the sum of her external parts, each of those parts may be readily packaged
and sold for audience consumption. We witness the culmination of MTVs
melodramatic characterization in commercial components of Laguna Beachs
Overdrive site: complete commodication of the type. MTV and its advertisers capitalize on these types, insinuating that audience members can replicate
Laguna characters (and participate in their subculture) through consumption. The process is facilitated through Lagunas Overdrive component,
whose hypertexutality and heavy imagery encourages quick linking to easy
purchases. In Overdrive Segment Celeb Picks: Laguna Beach, season three
types of Kyndra (Queen Bee) and Chase (The Rebel) are blatantly reduced to
their product preferences. The sidebar explains that here, Chase, the hardrockin lead singer of Open Air Stereo, and Kyndra, the reigning queen of
Laguna, dish on what keeps them hot and sexy. In the accompanying interactive display, commodities surround the image of Chase and Kyndra. When
a particular commodity rotates to the fronta Land Rover, Kiehls soap, and
so fortha comment from one of the characters endorses it. I love Rock and
The Real O.C.
207
Republic jeans, Kyndra explains, followed by, Im so obsessed with my Sidekick 3! Rock and Republic Jeans are priced between $200$300; the Sidekick 3
sells for between $300$400. Yet again, Kyndra is typied through the possession and endorsement of luxury items. As Aufderheide emphasizes, pop
culture commodities express personal taste, even identity and identication
with a subculture.24 Kyndra is thus dened by her Sidekick 3 and Rock and
Republic jeans, rendering such commodities necessary accessories for audience identication with the subculture of Laguna Beach. Type is further
commodied through style segment Get the Laguna Look, also accessible
through Overdrive. In the slideshow, sponsored by LOreal, Tessas type is
disassembled and made available for purchase in the form of LOreal products. The sidebar questions:
Think Leading Laguna Lady Tessa is the only one that can master the
classic girl-next-door look? Think again. With tips to boost your makeup
regimen and accent your wardrobe with crisp accessories, youll give the
popular, polished ladies in class a run for their money . . . Think all Laguna
beauties were blessed with awless skin and an envious ush? Nope. The
magic is in the makeup. Enlist the help of LOreal Paris to get this look.
The comments are paired with a picture of a teen with Tessa-style makeup, proving that you, too, can use make-up to resemble the girl-next-door
style embodied in Tessa. However, as the ad proclaims, the magic is in the
makeuponly through consumption can Tessas type truly be duplicated.
The business benets of such commodity typage are obvious. Granted,
the Celeb Picks page does not go so far as to directly link to the T-Mobile
(creator of the Sidekick 3) Web site. But T-Mobile certainly advertises with
MTV and other subsidiaries of Viacom, MTVs parent company. In this way,
Kyndras endorsement of the Sidekick 3 works as a thank-you card to TMobile, encouraging continued business. This sort of integrated advertising,
product placement, and courtesy copy characterizes MTV productions, including its stable of reality programs, lms, Total Request Live, and extensive
online content. Realizing that teens hate to be told what to buy, MTV infuses
its products with implicit suggestion. While MTV certainly does not shy from
traditional commercials and advertising, its untraditional, integrated, teenspecic approach serves as yet another facet of its sustained success.
CONCLUSIONS: HERMETICALLY SEALED
Lagunas success hinges on its hermetic closure from the world: These
teens seem utterly disengaged from world events, social troubles, or class concerns. As Heffernan supports in her review, the innovation of Laguna Beach
has been to present hermetic court intrigue with its own logic, sidelining
208
Television
entirely the scullery maids and pageboys who have no chance at the upper
ranks. Leave it to someone else to tell their story.25 In Laguna Beach, money is
not an issue, simply a means to an end. The show is stuck in a holding pattern
its characters may leave Laguna, but a new set of teens will re-enter and
replay their selfsame drama on screen, relling their roles, re-enacting their
ghts.
If Laguna Beach is indeed a bellwether of programming to come, should
we view such a holding pattern with disdain? Can we trace MTVs trajectory past Laguna and sketch the future of MTV programming? In his article on the Beavis and Butthead generation, Robert Kellner questions if there
is indeed no future for post-modern youth. In Kellners conception, postmodern youth, conceived in the sights and sounds of media culture, possibly
weaned on it, and socialized by the glass teat of television used as a pacier,
baby sitter, and educator by a generation of parents for whom media culture, especially television, was a natural background and constitutive part
of everyday life.26 Kellner further asserts that Beavis and Butthead depicts
the dissolution of a rational subject, potentially signaling the end of Enlightenment in todays media culture.27 Kellner wrote those words in 1995,
meaning that today, in the late 2000s, the end days should be upon us. I would
argue, however, that for all of MTVs melodramatic manipulation, despite its
blatant star production and commodication, its audience has become more
enlightened. They have proven increasingly cognizant, if perhaps not critical, of how the network fosters consumption.
Contrary to Kellners conclusion, these postmodern youth, along with
their audience, most denitely do have a future, even if it is one overwhelmingly characterized by conspicuous consumption and surveillance. They acknowledge and encourage such surveillance, reproducing the typed and
melodramatic teenage behaviors normalized through MTV. When Beavis
and Butthead were popular, these teens were but six years old, arguably out
of reach of the pairs destructive nihilism. What they have watched, however, are reality shows. When Survivor began its domination of the ratings
in 2000, Laguna teens were 11 years old, beginning their truly formative
tween years. Their generation has internalized the notion of surveillance as
a form of entertainment and self-expression that effectively democratizes
celebrity.28 In short, these kids like to be watched. Not only do they like it,
but theyre savvy as to how best to conduct themselves in order to further
their own celebrity. Theyve been conditioned by a decade of reality television as to what makes a star: ghts, deception, tears, devastation, triumph.
In a word, melodrama. The excess of expression, declamatory speech, characterization as type . . . while MTV edits to amplify these elements, they were
undoubtedly present in the raw footage. Teenagers are innately dramatic,
no question, but the teens of Laguna feed into the expected and successful
melodramatic formula.
The Real O.C.
209
Heather Havrilesky puts a ne point on this phenomenon, especially in

reference to season three, asking are the girls really that sketchy, or are they
much smarter than they look, smart enough to know that the producers and
audiences at home want a catght more than anything else, perpetuating that
age-old story about how women are nasty and merciless to each other?29 A
Los Angeles Times interview with Kami and Kyndra highlights this behavior:
the current Laguna Beach kids are conscious of the template provided by
their predecessors. Cami is aware that hyperbole makes for better television; Kyndra is quoted defending her bitchy character, explaining if everyone played the nice little girl, then no ones gonna watch the show . . . so Id
rather draw people into watching the show.30 Having watched and internalized seasons one and two, Kyndra and the rest of the season three cast have
come to naturally recreate the roles that MTV previously produced via edits
and plot manipulation.
The Laguna generation has been raised on television but are increasingly
exposed to New Media: the Internet, the cell phone, the iPod, Google. Andrejevic claims that surveillance, as normalized through reality television,
train[s] viewers and consumers for their role in the interactive economy.31
Watching reality television introduces the viewer to the reality of constant
surveillance, exchanging fearful notions of Orwells Big Brother for the
softer, kinder gaze of surveillance displayed in reality television. With surveillance thus normalized, the viewer may feel more at ease in surrendering
his vital information through online transactions. Instead of feeling paranoid
at the prospect of corporate omniscience, the consumer is made to feel grateful, his needs better served through tailorization. The reality show not only
normalizes surveillance and online consumption but makes all other forms
look obsolete, a theory maximized in MTVs newest foray into youth culture,
Virtual Laguna Beach.
A marriage between Laguna and the online role-playing game Second Life,
Virtual Laguna Beach allows participants to adopt an avatar, create a matching
personality, and live in the virtual Laguna Beach community, exchanging
actual currency for virtual MTV dollars, which may then be used to purchase virtual commodities. Richard Siklos elaborates on VLBs advertising
potential: visitors might buy a digital outt for parties using currency they
earned watching an infomercial or checking out a new product for an MTV
advertiser. Then, they might decide that they would like to by the same outt
for their ofine selves, and, with a few clicks of the mouse and some real dollars, have on shipped to their home.32 VLB is a risky venture, and despite an
initial enrollment of thousands, questions remain as to its potential for sustained success. While it fails to draw nearly the audience or participation as
the actual show or MTV Overdrive, it does present a signicant step forward
into the world of interactive New Media. If an MTV audience in Laguna
Beach, California, were cognizant enough of the melodramatic self-typage
210
Television
necessary to render them stars, then whos to say that another MTV audience, this one spread throughout cyberspace, wont prove similarly savvy?
Do virtual worlds serve as the next theater for MTV, melodrama, and star
production?
This seems to be the future of the formerly future-less: coming-of-age
online, where commodities and surveillance are king. In this amorphous existence, where identity becomes uid (albeit based on consumption), teens
can be whoever theyd like, acquiring whatever body, face, or demeanor they
choose. They becomes stars of their own worlds; writers of their own star
texts. In essence, Virtual Laguna Beach allows teens to revert to childhood,
playing dress-up and make-believe all over again. In a candid moment during season three, while the camera focuses on various couples walking to
prom, Kyndra and Cami appear in the periphery of the shot, posing to take
a quick self-portrait. They smile and quickly ip the camera to regard their
digital image: oh my GOD! they scream, who ARE we? One might say
theyre whoever MTV wants them to be. But, perhaps more optimistically,
theyre whoever they want to be, so long as it allows them to achieve their
goals. That, like the best melodrama, speaks to the moral issues of our times:
theyre trying on roles, guring out how best to be adults. Melodrama, like
stars, evolves with the timesand in an era characterized by its reliance
on digitization, surveillance, and consumerism, Laguna Beach and its stars
indeed provide, for better or worse, a salve for the twenty-rst-century teenage psyche.
NOTES
1. Richard Siklos, Not in the Real World Anymore, The New York Times Online, September 18, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/business/media/
18avatar.html.
2. See Richard Dyer, Stars (London: BFI, 1998).
3. John K. Hartman, I Want My AD-TV, Popular Music and Society 11.2 (1987):
1723, 21.
4. Quoted in Jane Gaines, Costume and Narrative, in Fabrications: Costume and
The Female Body, ed. Jane Gaines and Charlotte Herzog (New York: Routeledge,
1990), 204.
5. Bill Keveney, New teens, tension on Laguna Beach, USA Today, August 11
2006, 17D.
6. Peter Brooks, The Melodramatic Imagination (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1976), 62.
7. Brooks, 56.
8. Season Three After the Show: Cabo. Available through MTV Overdrive: Laguna Beach.
9. Christine Gledhill, Signs of Melodrama, in Stardom: Industry of Desire, ed.
Christine Gledhill (New York: Routledge, 1991), 211.
The Real O.C.
211
10. Dyer, 47.

11. Gledhill, 211.
12. Ibid.
13. Paul McDonald, The Star System (London: Wallower, 2000), 12.
14. Vernie Gay, Laguna Rides Wave of Cliques, Newsday Online, August 16, 2006,
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-etlaguna4851904aug16,0,1589125
story?coll=ny-television-headlines.
15. Virginia Heffernan, That Narrator in the Third Season of Laguna Beach
Is, Like, So Lame, New York Times Online, August 16, 2006, http://www.nytimes.
com/2006/08/16/arts/television/16lagu.html?ex1313380800&en74ab532ea3a284
c9&ei5088.
16. Back to the Beach! People, 66.8 (2006): 110111.
17. Jennifer Armstrong, Chicks with Cliques, EW Online, August 17, 2006, http://
www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1228149_3||321057|0_0_,00.html.
18. Gaines, 187.
19. Ibid., 203.
20. Back to the Beach!
21. Gledhill, 210.
22. Robert Heilman, Tragedy and Melodrama: Versions of Experience (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968), 79.
23. Gledhill, 209.
24. Pat Aufderheide, Music Videos: The Look of Sound, Journal of Communication
36 (1986): 60.
25. Heffernan, online.
26. Douglas Kellner, Beavis and Butthead: No Future for Post-Modern Youth, in
Television: The Critical View, ed. Horace Newcomb (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000), 319.
27. Ibid.
28. Mark Andrejevic, The Kinder, Gentler Gaze of Big Brother, New Media and
Society 4 (2002): 251.
29. Heather Havrilesky, I Like to Watch, Salon.com, August 13, 2006, http://www.
salon.com/ ent/tv/iltw/.
30. Robin Abcarian, The Not-So Sunny Side, The Los Angeles Times Online, October 29, 2006, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-laguna29oct29,1,
3027589.story.
31. Andrejevic, 251.
32. Siklos, C2.
About the Editor

and Contributors
EDITOR
Robert C. Sickels is Associate Professor of American Film and Popular Culture at Whitman College. He has made several short lms that have played
nationally at festivals around the country. In addition to publishing numerous
journal articles and book chapters, he is also the author of American Popular
Culture Through History: The 1940s (Greenwood, 2004) and American Film in
the Digital Age (Praeger 2009).
CONTRIBUTORS
Amy M. Corey is a visiting assistant professor at Whitman College. She

holds a PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Denver. She
conducts research in the area of culture and communication with a focus
on representation and identity as constructed and contested in media and
culture industries.
Richard Crew is an associate professor and the chair of the Communications Department at Misericordia University in Dallas, Pennsylvania. Before
entering the academy, he was a documentary television producer, a television
manager, and the national executive producer for the nonction television series PM Magazine. He writes regularly on reality and nonction television.
214
Alina Haliliuc is a doctoral student in the Communication Studies program

at the University of Iowa. Her primary research interests include rhetorical
criticism and cultural-critical studies. Her current work focuses on analyzing
popular discourses of Europeanness as formulated in varying media spaces
of Eastern European and Balkan states.
K. Alex Ilyasova is an assistant professor and the director of the Professional
and Technical Writing Program at the University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs. Her interests and research include composition theory, identity and
literacy studies, and more recently popular culture.
Sue J. Kim is an assistant professor of English at the University of Alabama
at Birmingham, where she teaches cultural studies and literary theory. Her
essays have appeared in Modern Fiction Studies, the Journal of Asian American
Studies, and Narrative.
Wanda Little Fenimore is a graduate student in the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies program at Hollins University. Along with the political economy
of sports, her research interests include popular culture, gender studies, and
fandom.
Beth Mauldin received her PhD in Romance Languages from the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is currently working on a book about
constructions of America in French cinema after May 1968.
Caryn Murphy is a PhD candidate in Media and Cultural Studies at the University of WisconsinMadison. Her dissertation examines contemporary
feminism and teen girls popular culture, focusing on the commodication
of young womens empowerment. Her article, It Only Got Teenage Girls:
Narrative Strategies and the Teenage Perspective of My So-Called Life appears in the anthology Dear Angela (2007).
Valerie Palmer-Mehta is an assistant professor of communication in the
Department of Rhetoric, Communication, and Journalism at Oakland University. Her research has been published in such journals and books as Text
and Performance Quarterly, Journal of American Culture, Reading the Sopranos:
Hit TV on HBO, The Oprah Phenomenon, Black Womens Intellectual Traditions,
and Critical Readings: Violence and the Media.
Anne H. Petersen is a PhD student in the Department of Radio-Television-Film at the University of TexasAustin, where she focuses on the
215
intersections of celebrity culture and New Media. She currently serves as

coeditor of the online journal FlowTV, available at http://www.owtv.org.
Kathleen M. Ryan is a broadcast news and documentary professional, spending 20 years as a journalist working in long- and short-form programming.
She also earned a PhD from the University of Oregon School of Journalism
and Communication. She is currently an associate professor in the Journalism Program and Department of Communication at Miami University in
Oxford, Ohio.
Patricia Ventura is an assistant professor of English at Spelman College
in Atlanta, GA. Her areas of research are American Cultural Studies, Media
Studies, and Visual Culture. Among other publications, she has guest edited
and contributed to a special double issue of Genre titled Circulating America. She is currently at work on a manuscript titled Neoliberal Cultures of the
US 1990s.
Index
ABC, 85, 90 91, 134. See also NASCAR

on ESPN/ABC
Advertising: American Idol, 163; CW
Television Network, 26 28; ESPN, 85;
integrated, 28, 207; MTV Networks,
207; NASCAR on ESPN/ABC,
8789, 90 91; ratings and, 159; reality
television, 17374; Super Bowl, 173;
Survivor, 161 62. See also Product
placement
African American programming, 24 25
Alexander, Jesse, 12
Alex H. (Laguna Beach cast member), 203
Aliens in America, 25, 29
Allen, Ted, 165, 185
Alpha Girl/Queen Bee (character type),
202, 203 4. See also Laguna Beach
Alternate Reality Games (ARGs), 10
American Idol: British origins, 153, 160;
as elimination show, 162 64; impact,
160 61; product placement, 7, 163;
ratings, 148; repackaging of, 164,
174; talent shows, 147; universal
themes, 173
American Idol Rewind, 164, 174
Americas Funniest Home Videos, 146
Americas Most Wanted, 145, 146, 159
Americas Next Top Model: advertising

and, 27 28; Curry, Adrianne, 171;
CW Television Network and, 21; as
elimination show, 160; MySpace and,
5; renewal of, 25 26; syndication, 174;
UPN and, 21
Antcliff, Valerie, 135, 136
Apple, 61, 7375
ARGs (Alternate Reality Games), 10
Art in the Age of Franchising
(Heffernan), 1213
Arvidsson, Adam, 86
Askwith, Ivan, 8
Athanaeus, 183
Avatars, 4
Bachelor, The, 173
Back-end revenue. See Syndication
Bagdikian, Ben, 95, 104, 105 6
Beauty and the Geek, 5, 26
Beavis and Butthead, 208
Bed Bath & Beyond, 186
Bedford, Robert, 108, 110
Big Brother, 6, 148, 153, 160
Blogs, 3 4
Bostwick, Matt, 8
boyd, danah, 4
218
Index
Brabazon, Tara, 62, 63, 65

Branding, 22 24, 45, 87
Bravo TV, 179 94; gender, sexuality,
and consumption, 18789; lifestyle
makeovers, 18184; promotional
culture, 190 94; reality programming,
164 65, 179 81. See also specic
programs
Breaking Up America ( Turow), 26
Bristol NASCAR race (2007), 87, 89, 90,
91. See also NASCAR on ESPN/ABC
Brittain, Carla, 132, 136
Broadcast Era, 7
Brooks, Peter, 200
Bundling, 73
Burnett, Mark, 161, 174
Business School episode (The Ofce),
66 67
Butler, Judith, 129, 134
Cabo San Lucas, 201
Cami (Laguna Beach cast member), 209, 210
Candid Camera, 145, 146, 159
Cars, 93 94
Caves, Richard, 144, 151
CBS, 7, 1718, 29 30, 130, 148. See also
CW Television Network, The
CBS Records, 30
Celebreality, 170 72
Celebrities on The L Word, 11617
Chaiken, Ilene, 115, 118, 119
Champion Spark Plug 400 NASCAR race
(1992), 87, 89. See also NASCAR on
ESPN/ABC
Charm School, 170
Cingular Wireless, 163 64
Clark, Lynn, 52
Coke, 7
Colbert Report, The, 62, 77
Commercials. See Advertising
Confessional creation, 206
Consumption, 18789, 2067
Content wraps, 27, 30
Convergence culture, 10 11
Cooperation strategy, 106
Cops, 145, 146, 159
Cosmetic surgery, 165 66
Couric, Katie, 130
Cross-promotion, 8687
Crowned, 26
CSI: NY, 9 10
Curry, Adrianne, 171
Curtin, Michael, 18, 25
CW Lounges, 23
CW Now, 26, 27
CW Television Network, The, 1731;
advertisers and, 2628; branding,
2224, 45; corporate synergy and
young viewers, 2831, 206; creation
of, 1718; environmental awareness,
2324; Free to Be promotion, 2223;
launch, 19, 2122; lessons from
UPN and WB, 2122; MySpace and,
45, 23; programming, 2426; reality
programming, 2526; social networking
and, 45. See also Gossip Girl
Daily Show, The, 62, 77
Dancing with the Stars, 17172
Daniels, Greg, 64, 72, 75, 77
Daytona 500 NASCAR race (1979), 87,
DC Comics, 30
DeGeneres, Ellen, 11213
Denby, David, 51
Deposition episode (The Ofce), 7172
Deregulation, 84 85
Dirty Pictures, 115
Disney. See Walt Disney Company
Diwali episode (The Ofce), 69
Docu-soaps, 16870
Douglas, Kyan, 185
E! cable channel, 137, 138
Edgar & Ellen, 11
Edison, Thomas A., 108 9
Elimination shows, 160 64
Ellen, 102, 11213
Endemol, 15354
Engagement television, 78
Environmental awareness, 23 24
Escapism, 50 54
ESPN, 83, 85, 90 91. See also NASCAR
on ESPN/ABC
Evening Magazine, 145, 146
Everybody Hates Chris, 22, 25
Extreme Makeover, 165 66
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, 166 67
Index
Fan labor, 1112
FanLib, 3 4
Fans, 113; content and, 8 9;
convergence culture and fan labor,
10 13; engagement television and,
78; transmedia and, 9 10; Web 2.0
and, 2 6
Farmer Wants a Wife, 26
Fast Cars & Superstars, 92 93
Fear Factor, 148, 153
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), 104, 1067
Feminist reception theory, 36
Filicia, Thom, 185, 186
Film festivals, 103, 108, 110 11, 116
Film societies, 109
Financial Interest and Syndication Rules
(Fin-Syn), 104
Flavor Flav, 170, 172
Flavor of Love, 170
For Better and For Verse episode
(Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), 184 87,
18889, 190
Fordism, 61 62
Ford 400 NASCAR race (2007), 87, 89, 90,
Fox, 20, 145 46, 148
Fox Newschannel, 130
France, Brian, 91 92
Fraser, Jill Andresky, 127
Freelance television news workers,
12539; adaptive strategies, 127 29;
appeal of itinerant labor, 127 29; job
insecurity, 127 28; oppositional tactics,
134 35; pay, 128, 131, 132, 134; per
diem producers, 13335; permalancers,
13536; protests, 137; unions and,
126, 130 33, 138; voluntary nature of
work, 128, 137
Freemantle Media, 153
Free to Be promotion, 22 23
Friday Night Lights, 1213
Friends, 148, 149
Game, The, 24, 25
Gay TV history, 11213. See also
L Word, The
Gervais, Ricky, 63, 64
Gilmore Girls, 22, 24
219
Girls, 3638. See also Gossip Girl; Youth

market
Gitlin, Todd, 18
GMA (Good Morning America), 134
Go Fish, 114, 115
Goldstein, Tom, 127
Gong Show, The, 147
Good Morning America (GMA), 134
Gossett, Lori M., 131, 132
Gossip Girl, 3556; community, 46 48;
edginess, 25; escapism, 50 54;
fashion/beauty, 42 46; girls and
fandom, 3637; girls on the Internet,
3738; identication, 4850; New
Media and, 3536, 54 56; ratings,
30 31; romantic individualism, 39 42;
viewing patterns, 5253; Web site and
online bulletin board, 3839
Gould, Matt, 169
Greco-Roman lifestyle regimens, 18283
Greenblatt, Bob, 117, 118
Gunn, Tim, 191
Halpert, Jim (character on The Ofce),
70 71
Hamamoto, Darrell Y., 101 2
Hardin, Melora, 71, 72
Haskins, Rick, 21, 22, 45
Hawks, Howard, 109
HBO, 115, 153
Heche, Anne, 113
Heffernan, Virginia, 1213
Heroes, 10
Hill, Annette, 146 47, 159 60, 173
Hills, The, 168 69
Hilmes, Michele, 20 21
Homestead-Miami NASCAR race (2007),
87, 89, 90, 91. See also NASCAR on
ESPN/ABC
Horizontal integration, 119
Howard, Ryan (character on The Ofce),
65 67
I Love New York, 170
Indie lm industry: lm festivals, 103,
108, 110 11, 116; HBO and, 115;
history, 10811; Showtime/Viacom
and, 1078
Individualism, romantic, 39 42
220
Index
Inked, 169
Inside Prime Time (Gitlin), 18
Integrated advertising, 28, 207
Interlocking strategy, 106
Internet. See Web sites
Islandoo, 6
iTunes, 61, 7375
I Want a Famous Face, 165, 166
Jackie, 40, 42
Jackson, Michael, 133, 138
Jenkins, Henry, 10 11
Joe Millionaire, 148
Jordan, John W., 128 29, 13233, 134,
135, 139
Kapoor, Kelly (character on The Ofce),
68 69
Keds sneakers, 27 28
Kellner, Jamie, 20
Kellner, Robert, 208
Knight, Christopher, 171
Kressley, Carson, 185, 186
Kristin (Laguna Beach cast member),
203 4, 206
Kyndra (Laguna Beach cast member), 204,
205, 2067, 209
Labor unions, 126, 130 33, 138
Lachey, Nick, 170, 171
Laguna Beach, 197 210; Alpha Girl/
Queen Bee (character type), 202,
203 4; character types, 2023;
consumption and, 2067; excess of
expression, 201 2; image and tableaux,
200 201; melodrama, 199 200, 201,
202, 205; Sweetheart (character type),
204 6; Web site, 2067
Lamarre, Giselle, 133, 136
Late capitalism, 61 62, 65
Lesbian TV history, 11213. See also
L Word, The
Levinson-Gould, Jan (character on The
Ofce), 64, 7172
Levy, Emanual, 114, 120
Lewis, Shelley, 134, 136
Life is Wild, 25, 31
Lifestyle programming, 180 81
Lo, Malinda, 112
Local Ad episode ( The Ofce), 71

LOreal, 207
Lost, 1, 10, 63
Lukcs, George, 63 64
L Word, The: celebrities on, 11617; fans
and, 3 4; horizontal integration and,
119; mainstreaming of queer culture,
1023; OurChart.com, 5 6, 119; queer
cinema and, 11516; straight male
characters on, 11718; Web site,
5 6, 119
Magder, Ted, 144, 15354
Makeover shows, 164 67, 18184
Mazzarella, Sharon, 37, 38, 41, 5152
McAllister, Tristan, 134, 136
McChesney, Robert W., 1819, 105, 119
McLuhan, Marshall, 55
Media actives, 150
Media conglomerates, 1037
Melodrama, 198, 199 200, 201, 202, 205
Merchant, Stephen, 63, 64
Meyer, Barry, 19
Miami Ink, 169 70
Michaels, Bret, 170
Michigan NASCAR race (1992), 87, 89.
See also NASCAR on ESPN/ABC
Mills, Heather, 17172
Modernism, 63 64
Moonves, Leslie, 17, 18, 143
MTV Networks: advertising on, 207;
freelancers and, 137, 138; reality
television, 146 47, 150, 198; star
production, 198 99; teens and, 206;
virtual communities for fans, 8. See also
specic programs
Multimedia strategy, 8687
Murray, Susan, 37, 46, 55, 168
Myers, Jack, 5
My Fair Brady, 171
MyNBC, 5. See also NBC
My So-Called Life, 37, 46
MySpace, 4 5, 23
NASCAR in Primetime, 93
NASCAR on ESPN/ABC, 83 97;
broadcast fee negotiations, 91 92;
commercials during races, 8789,
90 91; deregulation and, 84 85;
Index
future, 95 97; implications, 94 95;
motivation for acquiring broadcast
rights, 84; NASCAR broadcast
history, 8384; races, 87 94; ratings,
93; scrolling during races, 89 90;
strategy, 8587; technology used in
broadcasting, 94
Nashville, 168 69, 170
Navarro, Nelson, 131, 132, 136
NBC: ad sales, 144, 148; comedy
programming, 148; iTunes and, 61,
7375; job cuts, 137; reality television,
152, 164 65; social networking site, 5.
See also specic programs
Newlyweds, The, 170, 171
New Media, 3536, 54 56
News freelancers. See Freelance television
news workers
Newton, Gregory D., 84
Nextel Cup races. See NASCAR on
ESPN/ABC
NFL Network, 96
Nielsen, Brigitte, 170
Nightline, 129
Novak, B. J., 72
O.C., The, 35, 197
Ofce, The (American television program),
6178; Business School episode,
66 67; compared to British original,
64 65; Deposition episode, 7172;
Diwali episode, 69; Local Ad
episode, 71; Survivorman episode,
7778; Web episodes, 75; Writers
Guild of America strike and, 7577
Ofce (British television program), 62,
63 64, 65, 76
OfceMax, 28
One Tree Hill, 26, 30
Online Nation, 26, 31
OReilly, Tim, 2, 3, 6
Original Amateur Hour, The, 147
Ostroff, Dawn, 21, 24, 25, 28
OurChart.com, 5 6, 119. See also
L Word, The
Ownership restrictions, 1067
Paramount Network Television, 19 20
Per diem producers, 13335
221
Performativity, 128 29, 13233, 134, 139

Permalancers, 13536
Philbin, Darryl (character on The Ofce),
6870
PM Magazine, 145, 146
Pop Idol, 153, 160. See also American Idol
Post-Fordism, 61 62, 65
Production costs, 147, 174
Product placement: American Idol, 7,
163; CW Television Network, 27 28;
makeover shows, 165, 166, 167; MTV
Networks, 207; Queer Eye for the
Straight Guy, 165, 181, 18587; reality
television, 174; Survivor, 161 62.
See also Advertising
Programming: African American, 24 25;
CW Television Network, The, 24 26;
lifestyle, 180 81; sports, 162, 173.
See also Reality television
Project Runway, 191 92
Promotional culture, 190 94
Puppy Episode, The (Ellen), 11213
Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the
Next Doll, 25 26
Queen Bee (character type), 202, 203 4.
See also Laguna Beach
Queer as Folk, 102, 115
Queer cinema, 114 16
Queer culture, 1023
Queer Eye for the Straight Girl, 165
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: For Better
and For Verse episode, 184 87,
18889, 190; gender, sexuality,
and consumption, 18789; lifestyle
promotion, 18182; mainstreaming of
queer culture, 102; as makeover show,
164 65; product placement, 165, 181,
18587; promotional culture, 190 91;
stereotypes, 18788; Web site, 184,
185, 186, 188 90, 190
Queer-themed media, 120
Ratings: advertising and, 159; American
Idol, 148; Gossip Girl, 30 31; NASCAR
on ESPN/ABC, 93; UPN, 25
Reality television, 143 210; advertising,
17374; Bravo TV, 164 65, 179 81;
celebreality, 170 72; CW Television
222
Index
Network, 25 26; docu-soaps, 16870;

elimination shows, 160 64; future of,
17275; history, 145 48; impact, 180;
live viewing of, 152; makeover shows,
164 67, 18184; MTV Networks,
146 47, 150, 198; production costs,
147, 174; product placement, 174;
syndicators, international, 15354,
160; talent shows, 147; universal
themes in, 173; vertical integration
and, 149; Web sites, 150; youth market
and, 143, 144, 150 51. See also specic
programs
Real World, The: confessional creation,
206; as docu-soap, 168, 170; as hybrid,
146 47; production costs, 174; reality
television creation and, 159, 198;
viewership, 197; youth market and,
150
Reaper, 25, 29, 31
Reception theory, 36
Redstone, Sumner, 17
Reverse compensation model, 21
Rich Media, Poor Democracy (McChesney),
1819
Rock and Republic jeans, 2067
Rock of Love, 170
Rodriguez, Isaac, 131, 132, 136
Rodriguez, Jai, 185, 18889
Romantic individualism, 39 42
Rosen, Jay, 2
Salhany, Lucie, 20
Schooled, 28
Schrute, Dwight (character on The
Ofce), 65, 68, 70
Schwartz, Josh, 35
Scodari, Christine, 38
Scott, Michael (character on The Ofce),
64, 65, 66 68
Scott Baio Is 45 and Single, 170
Second Life, 9 10, 209
Seinfeld, 63, 148, 149, 153, 174
7th Heaven, 24
Sex and the City, 113, 115
Sharper Image, 18586
Sharpie 400 NASCAR race (2007), 87, 89,
90, 91. See also NASCAR on ESPN/ABC
Shields, Cory, 73, 74
Shipwrecked, 6
Shooting Sizemore, 170
Showtime Networks, 1078. See also
L Word, The
Shrek, 86
Sidekick 3, 207
Simpson, Jessica, 170, 171
Sizemore, Tom, 170
Smallville, 22 23, 25, 30, 31
Smith, Kevin, 25, 29
Social networking, 4 5
Sony, 105
Sopranos, The, 153
Sports programming, 162, 173
Star production, 198 99
Star Search, 147
Stereotypes, 18788
Streamed episodes, 28
Sundance Channel, 108
Sundance Film Festival, 103, 108,
110 11, 114
Sunset Tan, 168 69
Super Bowl, 162, 173
Supernatural, 5, 22 23, 23, 25
Surreal Life, 170
Survivor: as elimination show, 160 62;
international syndicator, 153; success
of, 148; universal themes, 173; viewers
and advertising revenue, 159; youth
market and, 151
Survivorman episode ( The Ofce), 7778
Swan, The, 165, 166
Sweetheart (character type), 204 6. See
also Laguna Beach
Syndication, 149, 15354, 160, 174
Synergy, 2831, 8687
Talent shows, 147
Technologies of the self, 18283
Tessa (Laguna Beach cast member), 2045,
206, 207
Thayers, 185, 187
Thomas, Rob, 24
Time-shifting, 152
Time Warner, 1718, 29 30. See also CW
Television Network, The
Tim Gunns Guide to Style, 191
Tivo culture, 152
T-Mobile, 207
Index
Top Chef, 192
Toyota Yaris, 30
Transmedia, 9 10
Troche, Rose, 114, 115
T Salon, 185
Turnan, Kenneth, 110 11
Turner, Ted, 106
Turow, Joseph, 26
TV Without Pity, 47
Tyler Eastman, Susan, 84
Unions, labor, 126, 130 33, 138
UPN, 18, 20 21, 24 25. See also CW
Television Network, The
Ursell, Gillian, 127
Verizon Wireless, 39, 45
Veronica Mars, 24
Vertical integration, 104 5, 149
VH1, 170 71
Viacom, 17, 1078
Victorias Secret, 39, 43, 45
Virtual Laguna Beach, 209 10
Virtual role-playing, 8, 9 10, 209 10
Walt Disney Company, 83, 85, 8687, 90,
223
Warner, Jackie, 192 93

Warner Bros. Television, 19 20, 29, 30
Warner Music Group, 30
WB Television Network, 18, 20 21, 25.
See also CW Television Network, The
Web 2.0, 1, 2 6
Web sites: Extreme Makeover: Home
Edition, 167; Gossip Girl, 3839;
Laguna Beach, 2067; The L Word, 5 6,
119; Miami Ink, 169; Project Runway,
191; Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,
184, 185, 186, 188 90, 190; reality
television, 150; streamed episodes, 28;
Tim Gunns Guide to Style, 191; Top
Chef, 192; Work Out, 192
WGA. See Writers Guild of America
Whats My Line?, 145, 146
When Good Pets Go Bad, 148
Will and Grace, 102, 113
Work Out, 192 93
Writers Guild of America (WGA): 1988
strike, 145 46; 2007-2008 strike, 35,
61, 73, 7577, 126
Youth market, 143, 144, 150 51, 206.
See also CW Television Network, The;
Girls

7v36g The Business of Entertainment 3 Volume Set

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7v36g The Business of Entertainment 3 Volume Set

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Business of Entertainment

This page intentionally left blank

Edited by Robert C. Sickels

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The paper used in this book complies with the

I stop somewhere waiting for you.

This page intentionally left blank

Preface by Robert C. Sickels

The Six Faces of Piracy: Global Media Distribution

KingKong.com versus LOLTheMovie.com: Toward

Reacting Synergistically: Batman and Time Warner

You believe in pirates, of course . . .:

The Business of Race in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Dream Worlds: Film-Game Franchising and

Co-Opting Independence: Hollywoods

Entertainment in the Margins of the American

10 Piercing Steven Soderberghs Bubble

11 Celebrity Juice, Not from Concentrate: Perez Hilton,

12 Big Bucks and Fake Tears: Celebrity Journalisms

About the Editor and Contributors

This page intentionally left blank

Behind the Greenlight: Why Hollywood

CUTTING THE $100 MILLION CHECK

linchpin for a studio lm project. It is the screenplay that inevitably attracts

Behind the Greenlight

It is worth noting that Relativity Media is one of several new private lm

Behind the Greenlight

Filmed entertainment holdings include:

Paramount Pictures Corporation

Behind the Greenlight

Publishing holdings include:

Table 1.1 The Four Quadrants

Behind the Greenlight

$100 in the domestic theatrical market. That number, however, is shrinking.

Behind the Greenlight

to produce more blockbusters. In addition, you have been receiving demands

Behind the Greenlight

6. The Hollywood Reporter, April 11, 2007.

This page intentionally left blank

The Six Faces of Piracy: Global Media

The VCR is to the American lm producer and the American public as

The Six Faces of Piracy

The Six Faces of Piracy

RETHINKING PIRACY: SIX CONCEPTUAL MODELS

The Six Faces of Piracy

also fond of making (frequently unsubstantiated) connections between piracy

Like the music industrys campaigns against illegal downloading, the lm

at reinforcing a deferential relationship to copyright at the level of everyday

The Six Faces of Piracy

The Six Faces of Piracy

what should rightfully belong to us allthe liberating potential of digital

The sentiment expressed here is libertarian in that, like the laissez-faire

other perspectives as well. Postmodern theory, for instance, has critiqued

As a result, copyright tends to privilege those forms of cultural production

The Six Faces of Piracy

Gordon screened a slowed-down version of Hitchcocks Psycho (1960) and

This model of authorship has signicant implications for the categories of

The Six Faces of Piracy

Philip thus suggests that the libertarian reading of piracy exemplied

The Six Faces of Piracy

steal electricity because no ofcial sources exist. According to Liang, the

the issue of lm distribution is as important as access to software or books.

The Six Faces of Piracy