Ownership advice and structure

The last question was Discuss the issues raised by media ownership in the production and exchange of music products in the music industry.

Whilst the focus of the question is OWNERSHIP, it is how this impacts upon the methods of production and exchange (sales, streaming, merchandising, piracy, downloads etc).

Introduction to ownership, what it is and how it has been changed in recent years. Oligopoly vs independence. Conglomerates. Has the playing field been levelled through web 2.0 or is this a misconception? Big 4 has recently become Big 3. Good for consumer/producer?

Areas to discuss:
horizontal/vertical integration/lateral integration and the benefits for large labels in terms of mass production and exchange. Has it led to more choice or a shrinking of the market. Cannibalisation? 
Can independent labels compete?

Synergy- is this only accessible to large labels? How does this affect production and exchange and access to consumption of product?

Mass audience vs Niche Audience... Long-tail? Is the long tail a myth?
360 deals-pros/cons http://www.musicindie.com/news/1270
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2013/07/02/threesixty/
Are there advantages/disadvantages in terms of producing and exchanging products by being an independent/subsidiary/big label? What about piracy, copyright, rights management, DRM and artistic freedom?

Is it possible to achieve a global reach without being a part of a major label? How so/not?

What does the future hold?

Conclusions

You need to support your argument with a range of major/independent examples and use media terminology throughout.



Examiner advice:

The question has been approached by candidates in a number of different ways. Some candidates chose to examine a media area with a range of examples of ownership, whilst others focused on a single institution and the range of products produced across different media. The most frequently occurring method was to compare two or three different companies, usually a mainstream and an independent media company. Where candidates were focused on the set question and were able to discuss the impact of media ownership on a range of products they found themselves able to articulate a discussion of the contemporary media in relation to ownership. Those who took this approach were able to discuss the forms of ownerships and discuss differences between mainstream, conglomerate led institutions and independent smaller scale companies. Within these responses candidates could quite rightly discuss the impact of horizontal and vertical integration and cross media ownership. As a result candidates got to grips with the range of products and services available, the importance of an institution’s scale and size in relation to its marketing, distribution and its access to local and global markets, and to an extent, how the online age and changing technologies have affected opportunities in the areas outlined above. Lesser performing candidates had little to say on media ownership, many appeared under prepared and could simply describe ownership without any form of discourse on the question set, omitting the use of key evaluation skills. At the bottom end there were many brief responses to question two (or no response offered at all to the question) and at times there appeared to be a common misconception of what was meant by media ownership.

Most candidates’ responses focused on film and music. The strongest responses were derived from detailed case studies of specific institutions with examples of particular texts/artists to illustrate institutional practice, particularly where the case studies offered contrast. The best responses were well focused on the question and were able to shape their case study material accordingly. Many weaker candidates simply presented pre-prepared answers which regurgitated learned material with little actual consideration of the question set - this particularly appeared to be the case where issues of piracy were discussed without any real sense of how this had an impact on the range of products offered by institutions.
Too many candidates are still offering historical accounts of their chosen industries or companies. Equally problematic are the number of candidates focusing on texts rather relationships between institutions and audiences. A significant number of centres are using examples that are no longer contemporary; This Is England (2006) was a common example.