Strategic Management of Crossmedia Production at Estonian Public Broadcasting

BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2014 / VOLUME 2 / ARTICLE Article Strategic Management of Crossmedia Production at Estonian Public Broadcasting INDREK IBRUS, Tallinn University Baltic Film and Media School; email: [email protected] ASTRA MERIVEE, Estonian Public Broadcasting; email: [email protected] 96 DOI: 10.1515/bsmr-2015-0017 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2014 / VOLUME 2 / ARTICLE ABSTRACT This article investigates the strategies behind the production of crossmedia content at Eesti Rahvusringhääling (ERR), Estonia’s public broadcaster. The empirical work that supports its analytic objectives consists of multiple methodologically varying sub-studies: a textual analysis of ERR’s existing online presence and crossmedia content; 32 semi-structured interviews with its various top- and mid-level managers; and a documentary analysis of its associated strategies, guidelines, and communications. The paper suggests that, despite ERR’s advanced presence on digital platforms, it notably lacks a more compre- hensive strategy for crossmedia content production and for achieving better inter-organisational cooperation that would enable new production processes. Although a few more advanced crossmedia productions have taken place, these have tended to emerge ad hoc – out of initiatives from individual employees. The article, however, suggests that, despite the current lack of an organisational strategy, the experiences acquired by its employees are creating a timely momentum for using interpretative and adaptive approaches to developing its new crossmedia production strategies. INTRODUCTION interdependent, mutually conditioning, and This article is about how the Estonian Pub- co-evolving, however, in complex and non- lic Service Broadcaster (Eesti Rahvusring- linear ways. Therefore, Fagerjord and Stor- hääling, ERR) is transforming itself in the sul (2007) suggested that the term should era of media convergence. However, as has be understood as a useful rhetorical device been successfully demonstrated by Anders that denotes the complexities of modern Fagerjord and Tanja Storsul (2007), con- media evolution. For a media institution to vergence is a concept with many impli- manage its continuance in such an envi- cations. They have been distinguishing ronment it must manage complexity, both between “network convergence”, “terminal outside as well as inside the organisation. convergence”, “service convergence”, “rhe- Institutions normally respond to complexi- torical convergence”, “market convergence”, ties by developing various kinds of strate- and “regulatory convergence”. Also “indus- gies, either top-down or bottom-up, in more try convergence” is often referred to in the or less formal ways. One strategic response dedicated academic discourse. All these rather commonplace in Europe and else- dimensions of the convergence processes where in recent years is multiplatform pub- could be understood as being autonomous, lishing, or, as it is also known, crossmedia but only to a certain extent. They are also production. In this article we will take a 97 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2014 / VOLUME 2 / ARTICLE closer look at how ERR is implementing its iour and preferences across platforms and crossmedia strategies and what the related formats, provides a potential competitive objectives, rationales, challenges, and reali- advantage. Related to this is the elicitation ties are. of “product spillovers”, which occur when goods and services “increase demand for PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA complementary goods in other sectors, AND CROSSMEDIA PRACTICES which is an established merchandising and Firstly, what do we mean by “crossmedia”? branding strategy in the cultural economy” Crossmedia (also written as cross-media or (Chapain et al. 2010: 25). cross media) is a term that surfaced in the In the internet economy a similar diver- fi rst decade of the 21st century to denote sifi cation strategy fi rst became known as the evolving strategies and practices used the COPE strategy: Create Once, Publish/ by global media industries to develop con- Play Everywhere (for instance, Huntsberger tent across multiple channels, especially 2008). The idea behind COPE was that, by including the new digital media platforms circulating the same items of content, users that enable new forms of interaction and could choose how, when and where they audience participation. The technical con- consumed the content. The approach has vergence of communications networks and also been criticised for being a cause of staff protocols has made it increasingly easy to downsizing by “doing more with less people” repurpose or modify intellectual property for (Deuze 2004: 143) and for “cloning” (Dailey multiple media and, in this way, create new et al. 2005), or so-called “shovelware” (Bocz- meaningful connections between distinct kowski 2004: 55), rather than producing new media platforms or associated “experiences”. outputs offering unique medium-specifi c It is the experiments with such connection- experiences or insights. However, such criti- making, motivated by both poetic potential cism on its own illustrates what these strat- (new storytelling techniques or other content egies have meant in economic terms – to presentation possibilities) as well as eco- build on the synergies of the economics of nomic benefi ts that have been termed cross- scope and cut the marginal cost relative to media strategies in contemporary culture. output. As Gillian Doyle (2010: 445) demon- When it comes to economic rationales, strates, private media fi rms, especially com- crossmedia strategies can be understood mercial broadcasters, will continue to look as one of the practical applications of what for ways to improve returns from online dis- in media economics are known as ““diversi- tribution, complex windowing techniques fi cation” strategies” (Chan-Olmsted, Chang – that is, the careful planning and sequenc- 2003, 2006; Kolo, Vogt 2003; Küng 2008; ing of the release of content across multi- Ibrus, Scolari 2012) that in turn are based ple outlets to maximise audience value and/ on the “economies of scope and scale” logic or commercial returns. But she also sug- of media economics. By building on the gests (ibid.) that the transition from a sin- economies of scope logic, diversifying the gle-media to a multi-platform organisation forms and expressions of the existing intel- involves notable additional costs. Audiences lectual properties, and spreading these have come to expect ever more dedicated across horizontal media markets, fi rms can and sophisticated transmedia tie-ins, but generate additional revenue streams and meeting these demands can be costly (Soun cross fi nance product lines, thus providing Chung 2007: 55). The production of interac- themselves with an important instrument tive content is labour- intensive and pre- to manage market risk – i.e., spreading the sumes signifi cant investments in specialist risk across the media (Aarseth 2006; Küng skills. As a result, fi rms end up hiring ever 2008: 133; Ludwig 2000). As demonstrated growing numbers of dedicated staff for pro- by Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted (2005), “con- ducing and reproducing content for increas- sumer media scope”, or the ability to knowl- ing numbers of platforms, while only some edgeably cater to media consumers’ behav- of these will be successful in generating 98 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2014 / VOLUME 2 / ARTICLE incremental revenues to a level that enables across popular, as well as high, culture gen- marginal costs to be covered (Erdal 2009). res. The implementation of “quality” as diver- Still, when it comes to motives that condi- sity and innovation is given an advantage by tion change, then, as suggested by Doyle the intrinsic traits of digital media – person- (2010: 440), moving to multi-platform distri- alisable, interactive, searchable, shareable, bution is usually traceable to expectations mobile, and available on-demand (Debrett of long-term profi t maximisation. 2009: 812). Debrett also stresses that mul- However, it should be noted that for tiplatform projects tend to extend the shelf- public service media (PSM) institutions the life and reach of publicly funded produc- primary concern is public value and audi- tions, building on virally evolving publicities ence welfare rather than profi ts and so on social networking sites, and thereby help strategic motives are more wide-ranging. to maximise the value of public investment. Historically, it is universal coverage, the Furthermore, due to convergence and digi- provision of a free service accessible to all tisation, television itself is changing in ways that has been considered to be one of the that make it increasingly diffi cult to consider most important PSM principles because linear broadcasting in isolation from other of the social value of mass audience reach modes of distribution to audiences, such as – understood to condition the emergence the internet and mobile (Trappel 2008; Cree- of a shared public space for public dis- ber, Hills 2007; Caldwell 2006). course. In the digital era a new consen- Consequently, many public service sus has emerged that on-demand, cross- broadcasters are motivated to follow their platform access is the new universality. As audiences wherever they are, or whatever explained by Mary Debrett (2009: 810), in platforms or media technologies they may the digital era, when media services and be using. This is even truer as the interac- the media habits of the fragmented audi- tive and participatory affordances of digital ence are increasingly

Load more