Analysis of a Disney Production - Literature review Example

Made by Disney, watched across the world: The case of a Disney production Student’s Name Professor’s Name Subject Code and Name Date Submitted Abstract The Western media, more specifically the US based conglomerates, have been accused of dominating the global market through promotion of values that appeal to the mass market outside of America. These conglomerates, which include Disney at the top, have maximized on their profits by ensuring that they treat viewers and citizens as consumers. They portray content that is not aimed at achieving quality,, but rather content that will ultimately satisfy their economic needs through manipulations of viewership. As a result, most of these conglomerates have been accused of compromising journalistic integrity as they immerse themselves into media politics. What we now see, as a result of this conglomeration, is continued vertical integration, where the companies at the top continue to merge with smaller companies or build new ones from the ground in order to develop further. As a result, smaller corporations have no choice but to merge with these companies or operate in line with them to avoid risking being run out of business. Media and Globalization Globalization, which is a relatively new phenomenon, has spread it roots in the entire world. With the now instant news dissemination, especially through the internet, media companies are now merging into global firms. These mergers, also known as conglomerations of the media, have had powerful and far-reaching effects the world over. This is due to the fact that the media decides what is aired in the news, it determines political agendas, and it even decides how and when the public may be entertained. According to Esin (2002) conglomeration means that a company (like Disney) can be joint to a movie network, a television broadcast (like ABC), a distribution company, a music company and hence they accumulate wealth. The deregulation of media laws in the early 1980s is what created opportunities for companies like Disney to conglomerate. The catch is, though that where media conglomerates are concerned, the focus is easily lost on profits and instead of treating viewers as citizens, they treat them like consumers. Today, the world’s most powerful and influential media corporations are only a handful; actually they are barely four: Disney, Viacom, AOL/Time-Warner and News Corporation (Esin, 2002). Fifteen years ago, none of these companies existed in the media market and yet today, they are the most recognized companies that carry global issues (Leary, 2005). These corporations have one distinct, dangerous thing in common: they control several media branches that extend from the US to Europe, to Australia and all the way to East Asia. Given this prevalence, it seems that the power of globalization is unstoppable, and is bound to grow to vast lengths. Human beings will always feel the need to connect with the rest of the world through being informed, and also through entertainment. And therefore, whether they may like it or not, they are in one way or another supporting the economic interests of these conglomerates they love to hate. As a result, the most powerful corporations will only continue to develop further, while others will keep sprouting year in year out. If you need any proof of this, just take a look at how Hollywood is currently thriving even in the midst of global recession. That only shows how these media conglomerates like Disney have found ways to stay on top despite any circumstances. Even with all the positive implications that come with media globalization, such as the fact that the media has created awareness and made the world a global village, negative aspects of media globalization cannot be ignored. Corporate ownership is no necessarily the problem. The issue is that when media ownership becomes concentrated, avenues of views and opinions also become limited. Bagdikian (2000) points out that narrow control of the media is the best method out there, and despite its weaknesses, it work out well. Even so, he states that narrow control can be tricky because no small group with concentrated power can be flexible and open enough to reflect the society’s needs and values. He advocates for continued privatization of media, and restoration of diversity and genuine competition to the process. The fact that some of the media giants, such as those owned by media moguls like Rupert Murdoch, have great influence over politicians, only goes to show that they also influence media laws, and therefore have control over their own regulations. This control enables the media to tell the audience what to think about, and this can easily infringe on their personal values. There is also the profit-driven media to contend with-now that competing conglomerates are aiming for maximum profits, the focus has been driven from providing quality news and entertainment, to fighting for larger masses in order to gain economic power and thus monopolize the market (Miller 2002). As a result, the few existing genuine small sized media companies that actually provide meaningful information to the public are either forced out business or they have to merge with the bigger conglomerates to avoid being smashed into oblivion. This study shall focus on Disney, which is the second most powerful media corporation in the world, only after AOL Time Warner. Background of Disney Corporation The Walt Disney Company, which is an American-based company, is one of the world’s largest entertainment conglomerates. Founded in the early 1920s, it first established itself as the top American animation company before branching out into television and film production. Ketterer (2010) stated that Disney has marketed itself worldwide, and created big revenues which have firmly established it as a global brand. He adds Disney has achieved this through merchandizing, which has helped put the brand on the map. Disney currently generates 23% of its income from theme parks, 31% from broadcasting. According to Advertising Age, Disney has positioned itself to fulfill any marketing position in any place worldwide. Currently, Disney owns the US based ABC television and radio stations, it also owns ten US television stations and 21 US radio stations, television channels such as ESPN and Disney Channels, magazines and book publishing firms, music recording companies, to mention but a few. In the past, Disney has operated on its own, but recently announced that it has plans to go into joint ventures with local media firms as well as other international players. This plan of action only means that Disney’s power, especially in the entertainment aspect, will continue to be felt throughout the world. Disney and Globalization From the mid 1980s, when Disney reworked its production and organization, it has intensified its global reach (Bondebjerg and Golding, 2004). All through the 90s, the company’s business has been diversified and its corporate branding has further been intensified. During this same 90s period of international success and increase in revenue from the ‘outside markets,’ the Walt Disney International was born, and according to Bondebjerg and Golding (2004), the international revenues have grown by a staggering 24%. That is to say that at the moment, the external market alone accounts for Disney’s 20% revenue, with Europe being a prime expansion area. Given that Disney has made a reputation for itself as the wholesome family entertainer, it is hard to imagine that Disney is profit driven, and that they have capitalized on the most effective business strategies to expand and grow. McChesney (1999) points out how Disney, as compared to other media giants, has figured out how synergistic ways of acquiring and merchandising content. Historically, Disney’s strength in entertainment and animation has been prevalent. A case in point is the famous 1994 animated film Lion King, which has generated over 1 billion dollars in profit to date. The movie has since been turned into successful television series, a Broadway feature, and several other media spin-offs. Disney is obviously capitalizing on the global success of this film to maximize as much of the public’s interest in the Lion King film as possible. It is interesting to note how a film will extend beyond a box office hit, but still make so much more overall profit as compared to the revenue. Disney has found clever ways to tap into entire globe sentiments for over eight decades. And just to get a feel of how global Disney is becoming, it launched a Chinese-language Disney channel recently. It plans to do the same in France, Germany, the Middle East and Italy, all with the respective countries’ languages being used in these channels. This will outdo Viacom, which is currently centrally dominating the international lucrative market, but is yet to reach such vast lengths. Beside its underlying appeal for children, which works its way up to the parents, Disney is now dominating the televised world sports through its acquisition of ESPN. Through this channel, Disney has found ways to provide maximum sports entertainment, according to the needs of the market in focus. For instance, in India, ESPN provides hours of cricket sport viewership; in Asia, the emphasis is in table tennis while in South America, the focus is on football (Bagdikian, 2000). This way, Disney is able to control world viewership by tailoring its productions to suit the local needs of viewers, wherever they may be at. With all these vast ownerships, Schechter (1998) states that with the increasing size of Disney, which has enabled it to own ABC, and the vertical integration as a result, Disney has been accused of influencing major news stories that are aired. Besides that, they have in the past been accused of also spreading their gender and racial bias in their depictions of cartoons in various cartoon channels. Be that as it may, Disney’s ability to internationally popularize any feature they place their hands on cannot be ignored. A case in point is the hugely popular Japanese animation: Howl’s Moving Castle. The animation, which is based on Japanese themes and cultural practices, was barely heard of until Disney published the film and released it to an international market. Needless to say, the animation became an instant international success, especially in Canada, Europe and Australia, thanks to Disney (Lyons, 2006). Such ventures are clear indications of just how globally phenomenal Disney has become, and how effective their merchandising strategies are. Garnering International Audiences For Disney to be able to achieve such international success, i.e. make films and feature stories which can be watched globally, they have to find ways to make films that all audiences, despite race or nationality, can identify with. In their quest to achieve this, Artz and Kamalipour (2003) have accused them of industrializing cultures by absorbing smaller players, weakening local and national cultures and enterprises. As was the case with lion King, the scholars point out that they de-Africanized African wildlife, motifs and landscapes and reduced them to stereotypes and clichés in order to appeal to the international audience. Such globalization and merchandising is obviously not intended for African audiences, but are cases of films and other productions that are strategically made to entertain the whole world. Another case of incorrect portrayal of cultural traits was seen in the popular animation, Aladdin. If you remember, the main character, Aladdin, is clearly Arabic, but speaks with a fluent English accent. This controversial movie revealed how incorrectly the Arabic culture was portrayed, but that factor was taken into consideration by Disney and ignored. Why? Because having the character speak with an English accent translates to having a larger English audience, which is likely to bring in much more revenue as compared to the Arabic audience. This goes to show that when making productions, Disney has to consider the balance between the international benefits they will reap versus the losses they are likely to make if they pay attention to smaller audiences instead. Another point worth noting is that in this feature, only the antagonistic characters speak in fluent Arabic. This obviously casts a negative notion in children’s minds that Middle- Easterners are evil. What is interesting to note is that such domination of international media interests and their preference for Western materials, such as The Lion King, has not been achieved though any form of coercion. Rather, these interest have been reached through terms agreed upon by global media conglomerates such as Disney, and several Western and non-Western investors (Artz and Kamalipour, 2003). In other words, manipulation by Disney is achieved by reaching agreements with various governments and multinationals involved in ensuring the success of their ventures, wherever and whenever that may be. This is where media politics come into play. For Disney to succeed without interruptions, they reach agreements with politicians in order to surpass any media laws that might restrict or regulate them in any way, and in exchange, the politicians probably get more air play or favor in any of the Disney news television channels, such as ABC, especially during crucial times like elections. They also bring propositions to government officials in other states which will benefit their respective economies, through the public’s spending. Also, for Disney to get the much needed corporation of other media firms, they are likely to but them out, like they did with ABC. This will ensure that they can spread their agendas, and also use any necessary means to spread their influence and capitalize on as much profit as they can, not only in the entertainment aspect, but also in the news, as well as sports ventures (like ESPN). Disney is fully aware that in order to stay at the top and maximize on consumer power, they need to monopolize the market as much as they possibly can. If their power can be felt in all the media aspects, be it movies (with Touchstone Pictures), or television (ESPN and ABC), then they can cater to all sorts of audiences, and thus stay on top. Greg and Richards (1998) write that Disney has been successful in integration of their products, through having synergies between television and film (like they did with Lion King), and between media and the theme parks, like Disney World, which has branches in America, various parts of Europe and Asia. It ensures that the magic lives on beyond just television, and into daily lives of children, who are a major part of their audience. Not to be forgotten is animation, which is vital for Disney’s worldwide cultural influence and economic strength. From these animations, they have built theme parks based on these characters in various parts of the world, as well as toys based on characters from cartoons and animations (Artz, 2002). Even with its ventures into movie studios like Miramax and Touchstone, the animation economic ventures still take the cake, in terms of local and international revenues. Artz (2002) mentions that animations dominate international success because in comparison to film and television, animations do not need any subtitles, and cartoon characters can be multilingual. Disney has taken full advantage of this, given that international distributions of animations are inexpensive, and cross-cultural receptions are high. Look at how the Japanese animation Howl’s Moving Castle, got a warm reception in English speaking nations like Australia and Canada. Also with reference to this, animations like Pocahontas and Aladin can be played in German, or Italian, depending on the country of display. Artz (2002) adds that in order for Disney not to jeopardize its sales and commit to market diversity, it avoids any culturally unfavorable as is the case with Pocahontas and Aladin. This is in order to have non-controversial films that can maximize their profits (Ostman, cited in Artz, 2002). Disney also ensures that its genre, unlike the rest, will long outlive the audiences and still thrill several generations to come. Features such as Snow White, Peter Pan, and Bambi have been in play for decades and are likely to be replayed for more decades to come, which will ensure international profits for Disney for as long as possible. Animations will continue to have international success, according to Artz (2002) because audiences are eager to pay for every new release. As mentioned, Disney takes advantage of successes of blockbusters and makes less than stellar sequels, which still manage to fill their cash registers to the brim. For instance, the Lion King resulted in the production of its sequel, The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride, which was produced and sold out to audiences in DVD format. This alone, raked in profits of over 300 million worldwide (Kennedy, 2002). The film was not even released in theatres, but still managed to rake in this much amount. This idea of making sequels is ironically in contrast to Walt Disney’s plan for Disney. He stated clearly in the 1960s that he never believed in doing sequels, because it is a waste of time, which he would have used to make something new. Be that as it my, his dream has since been readjusted to suit the immense global needs that Disney productions now has to meet, if it has to remain successful and continue to make vast amounts of profits in this media conglomeration and globalization era. The Future of Disney in the Globalization Era Reel (cited in Artz, 2002) determines that Disney has replaced churches, schools and families when it comes to teaching wrong and right. This has been achieved through its permeation of culture, not just in America, but in the rest of the global society through its ‘appealing’ child-like messages in animations. In conclusion, the Walt Disney Company has to intensify marketing strategies and innovate product lines and extend the range of their services globally if they have to remain at the top. The continuous merging and conglomeration cannot stop, if Disney is to continue foreseeing its dream of making money, and more money. Because of this, the world is likely to continue to see Disney increasingly flooding the global market. A time will come when theme parks like Disney Land, which until the 1990s were a rare fete, will now be accessible to even third world countries. What started as an animation venture meant to entertain the world and popularize Mickey Mouse has now turned into a profit making venture. Disney no longer only appeals officially to children (or the children in us) so to speak. It has infringed all manner of audiences, and all forms of media, including publications, and radio stations. It has moved from Americanized versions of entertainment to all other forms of entertainment by catering to the needs of non-English speaking citizens, because it is all about the profits for them now. What is worth noting is that Disney has achieved global capitalism through the use of the power of culture in its animations, entertainment and narrations (Artz, 2002). Unfortunately, this is bound to continue unabated, as Disney has found ways to animations and narrative myths that are in favor of the corporate culture. Democracy and concern for the community’s interests and needs is its least priority, as is perceived in the way that they take cultural themes and Americanize them in order to suit the needs of a larger audience. Conclusion Through vertical integration, large media companies like Disney will continue to thrive businesswise, with the expansion of their various brands throughout European and East Asia. While this is going on, the audience should expect opinion diversities to be greatly compromised and issues that are discussed by Disney will not be well covered. That 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. For instance, Disney cannot be expected to focus on sweatshop labor, because this is an issue that has been crippling their reputation for a while now (Bagdikian, 2000). Though Disney was before vertical integration not appreciated by various western governments because of its negative implications, it is now being tolerated by governments. As a result, various media corporations such as Disney have total control over their processing from raw materials to sales, and their genuine motives are currently compromised by the need to force mergence or wipe out any competition (Bagdikian, 2000). Western governments now allow these vertical corporations to run on unrestrained Bibliographies Artz, L. 2002. Animating Hierarchy: Disney and the Globalization of Capitalism. Available at artz@calumet.purdue.edu Artz, L, Kamalipour, P.2003. The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony. Chicago. Sunny Press Bagdikian,B. 2000. The Media Monopoly. NewYork. Beacon Press Bondebjerg, I, Golding, P. 2004. European Culture and the Media. Chicago. Intellect books Esin, B. 2002. Unsystematic Ideas. Available at http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/archives/2002/fall/opinion/v10n12-med.shtml Greg, R, Bill R. 1998. Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: A Globalised Theme Park Market? The Case of Disney in Europe. Ney York. New York Publishers. Ketterer,J.2010. Marketing the Brand. Available at http://filmtvindustry.suite101.com/article.cfm/disney-and-globalisation#ixzz0maPIkuGK Leary, C. 2005. Globalization in the Media. Available at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/14523/ Lyons, J. 2006. Globe Media. Available at http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/ McChesney,R. 1999. The New Global Media; It’s a Small World of Big Conglomerates, The Nation Magazine, November 29, 1999 Miller, M. What’s Wrong with This Picture? The Nation, January 7, 2002. Schechter, D. 1999. Peace Journalism and Media War: the Fight to Reform Journalism: What Are Journalists For? Available at http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/archives/2002/fall/opinion/v10n12-med.shtml. Read More