The Diversity Challenge: Changing Television Markets and Public Service Programming in Finland, 1993-2004 Minna Aslama Fordham University, [email protected]
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Donald McGannon Communication Research McGannon Center Working Paper Series Center 4-2006 The Diversity Challenge: Changing Television Markets and Public Service Programming in Finland, 1993-2004 Minna Aslama Fordham University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/mcgannon_working_papers Part of the Broadcast and Video Studies Commons, and the Communication Technology and New Media Commons Recommended Citation Aslama, Minna, "The Diversity Challenge: Changing Television Markets and Public Service Programming in Finland, 1993-2004" (2006). McGannon Center Working Paper Series. 8. https://fordham.bepress.com/mcgannon_working_papers/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Donald McGannon Communication Research Center at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGannon Center Working Paper Series by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. T H E D ONALD M C G A N N O N C OMMUNICATION R ESEARCH C E N T E R W ORKING P A P E R THE D IVERSITY C HALLENGE : C HANGING T ELEVISION M ARKETS AND P UBLIC S ERVICE P ROGRAMMING IN F I N L A N D , 1 9 9 3 - 2 0 0 4 Minna Aslama Visiting Research Fellow Donald McGannon Communication Research Center Swedish School of Social Science University of Helsinki, Finland [email protected] April, 2006 Donald McGannon Communication Research Center Faculty Memorial Hall, 4 t h f l . Bronx, NY 10458 718.817.4195 www.fordham.edu/mcgannon [email protected] The author acknowledges the support of the Academy o f Finland and the Centennial Foundation of Helsingin Sanomat which made possible the Visiting Research Fellowshi p at the McGannon Center 1 Introduction: The Diversity Paradox? AsinmostEuropeancountries,alsoinFinlandthepastdecadehas witnessedfundamental transformationsinthetelevisionmarket, includingchangingregulationand,inconsequence, increasingcommercializationandcompetition.Consequently,the changeshaveprompted speculationsontheirimpactontelevisionprogramming,andcreatedtwooppositescenariosthat couldbecalledtheDiversification ArgumentandtheDiversityParadox. AEuropean-wide claim, moreorlessexplicitlystatedbymanymediapolicy-makersandespecially commercialplayersinreferencetothecommercialisationofmediamarkets,couldbelabelledasthe Diversification argument. Essentially,itreadsthat whenastate-governedsystemtransformsintoto acommerciallyfunctioningmarket,programmesupplybecomesmorediverse.Pertainingtomedia structures(e.g.,Napoli,1999;Einstein2004),diversityisoftenunderstoodas havingthree dimensions:diversityofthesources(mediaoutlets),diversityofmediacontents,anddiversityofthe audience exposure. Abasic variationofthisargumentisthemediaeconomic‘simpleprogramme choicemodel’,accordingto which diversityinbroadcastingdependspositivelyonthenumberof channels(e.g., vander Wurff2005,253). Thediversificationscenariothenimpliesthatacompetitive marketsituationcreatesmoreoutlets,andthistranslatestoamore variedprogramming,ifnotin termsof verticaldiversity (i.e., withineachchannel) thenatleast whenthetelevisionsystemis examinedasa whole(horizontaldiversity ).(Hellman2001.) Theotherclaim,ofconvergence ,couldbecalledtheantidoteofdiversification. Theterm convergence hasmanyusesintoday’sacademicandprofessionalparlanceonbroadcasting(e.g., Hujanen&Lowe2003;Meier2003;Murdock2000) butinthiscontextitisusedtorefertoa tendency whereina competitivebattleforaudiences,televisioncontents –andthusprogramming strategies,particularlythoseofpublicservicebroadcastingandcommercialchannels –becomealike (e.g.,DeBens1998&2000,Hellman&Sauri1994, 1996;Meier2003). Thisisatleastthecaseinthe fiercemarketcompetitionsituations wherethetendencyistocompeteforaudiencesandadvertisers byofferingthemajority’spreference.(See,e.g., van Cuilenburg2000; vander Wurff& van Cuilenburg2001).Sincesourcediversitydoesnot,accordingtothisargument,equal content diversity,theclaimhasalsoaptlybeennamedasthe DiversityParadox (vanCuilenburg1998,44). Therearealsoafewadditional‘sub-claims’thatseemtosurroundtheconvergenceofprogramming. Oneissometimesreferredto withtheslogan‘dumbingdown’or‘overcommercialization’(McQuail 2 2000,260)ofprogrammesupplysothatitoffersincreasingsharesof(cheaply bought) entertainmenttoattract viewers. Thishasbeentheorizedtobeaspiralmovement:more competitionandmorefragmentedaudiencesequal lessresourcesequalmore cheaplyproduced and/oracquiredprogrammes,thusproducingadownwardcycleoflowering qualityandnarrowing programmeofferings(e.g.,Picard2000). Anotherrelatedclaimisthatof Americanizationthat which pertainstotheoriginof‘trivial’programming(e.g., deBens&Smaele2001). Thedownwardcycle hascertainlybeenone vainofpublicdiscussionon thestatusofFinnishtelevisionoutput. i WhetherthetransformationofprogrammesupplyfollowstheParadoxpathorevolvestowards diversification,itstillposesachallengeforpublicservicetelevision. Traditionally,forEuropean publicbroadcasters,diversityisthemaindefiningnotionoftheirremit.Itisaprincipledconcept,a normativecriterionofqualityandadeliberatelysoughtpolicygoal aimingatpluralismat various levels:inreflectingthe varioussectorsof society,servingthemultiplicityofaudiences,andsupplying a widerangeofchoice in programmecontent.(Blumler1991;Hellman2001;McQuail1992.). The contradictoryclaimstranslateintocontradictoryaccusationsagainstpublicservice:Eitherithas failedbybeingtooelitistandunabletoattract viewersorbyadjustingtothemarketdemandsof lighteningoutput(e.g., Collins2002). Thechallenge couldbestatedmoreneutrallyasfollows: With convergence,publicservicetelevisionmightloseitsdiversitymissionorbecomesoalikeother channelsthatitsremitcouldbequestioned; withdiversification,thechallenge becomesifandhow publicserviceshouldcontributetodiverseoutput. WiththelegitimisationcrisisofpublicservicebroadcastingalloverEurope,theissuehasbeenmuch discussed,but verylittlesystematicempiricalresearchexistsontheextentto whichtheoutputof publicservicetelevisionconvergesordivergesincompetitivemarkets(e.g.,Iosifidisetal.2004). OneinsightfuloutlookhasbeengivenbyMeier(2003) whenhediscussesconvergence andpublic serviceprogrammingstrategiesusingtheGerman situationasanillustration. Thispaperaimsto continuethediscussion withanempiricalmulti-dimensional,multi-methodcasestudyonFinnish televisionprogrammingin1993-2004. Atcoreis whetherandto whatextentchangescanbe depictedinthetelevision supplyofthenation-wide analogue channels,especiallythoseofpublic service,andwhatthedevelopmentsmeanintermsofdiversityofatelevisionsystem.Under examinationareprogrammetypestructuresoverallandbychannelas wellassystemandchannel diversityanddissimilarity. TheFinnishtelevisionprovidesatestcaseforconvergenceand diversificationclaimsfromthebirthtothefirstindependentcommercialchanneltothefirstyearsof thedigitalmulti-channelsystem. 3 Contextualizing the Change: Finnish Television Market 1993-2004 WhilemostEuropeancountriesinthemid2000soperatebydualsystemsofpublicserviceand commercialbroadcasting,inFinlandthishadbeenthecasealmostfromthebeginningoftelevision broadcasting.Since1957, therehadexisteda‘comfortableduopoly’(Hellman &Sauri1994,51), as Mainostelevisio(thepredecessorofMTV3)sentits ownprogrammesas well asadvertisementsinits ownprogramming windowsinthetwochannels TV1andTV2ofthepublicserviceFinnish BroadcastingCompany(YLE).Liberalisationofthemarketbegan,asinmanyEuropeancountries, inthe1980s,andin1985 Kolmostelevisio,ajointcompanyofMTVandYLE wasestablishedto operateathirdchannel. Anewchannel wasneeded, inpart,toprovidedomesticterrestrial alternativetoapossibleinvasionofforeignsatellitechannels.Italsolaidthebasisforthefurther commercialisationofthetelevisionsystemin1993 whenMTV3became anindependentchannel operator(Hellman1999). Asatsummer1997,thesecondnation-wideanaloguecommercial channel Nelonenenteredthemarket. Theaim wasnowtoconsolidatethestructureof TVbroadcastingin Finland,keeping commercialbroadcastingstillasnationalaspossible,butalsotoeaseoutthe wayto terrestrialdigitalisationtocome. Thelicence wasgrantedtoRuutunelonenLtd,asithadgained previousexperience asacablebroadcasterandhadeconomicallysoundowners(Hellman1999; Wiio 2003). Thesedevelopmentsresultedinamajorchangebothinsupplyanddemandoftelevision programmes. Timespent withtelevisionisstillsignificantlylowerintheNordiccountriesthan elsewhereinEuropeorintheU.S.(Tilastokeskus2005),buttelevision viewinghasgrownnotablyin 12years,fromtheaveragetwohourstenminutesperdayin1993totwohours47minutesperday in2004. Yet,thechangeintelevisionprogrammeoutputhasbeenmuchmoredramatic:Duringthe researchperiod,Finnishanalogueprogrammeoutputmorethandoubled,from133hoursper week inthreechannelsin1993, to389hoursper weekin2004infournation-wide channels. Theincrease inprogrammingtime wasnotonlyduetoNelonen’sentry,butallchannelsexpandedtheirsupply significantly(AslamaandWallenius2005). Thelate1990salso witnessedcross-mediaconcentrationandsince2001,thethreelargestmedia corporationsbyturnover, inthefollowingorder, weretheoperatorsofthenation-wide TV channels:SanomaWSOY (Nelonen), AlmaMedia(MTV3)andthepublicserviceFinnish BroadcastingCompany. Yet,despiteofthegrowthindemandandsupply,theshareofthenation- widebroadcastingoperationsofthetotalFinnishmassmediamarketincreasedonlyslightly,partly sinceFinlandis wellbeyondEuropeanaverage whenitcomestoshareoftelevisionadvertisingin 4 totaladvertisingexpenditures.(Sauri2002) Thisfact,combinedwiththerealityofasmallmarket thatcouldnotgrowendlessly,putprivatetelevisionoperatorsinafinanciallydifficultsituationinthe