Can you write me a 900-1000 word paper (excluding word limits) for me? Please find the below attachment for the instruction.
Can you write me a 1000-1100 word paper (excluding word limits) for me? Please find the below attachment for the instruction.
The Creative Industries in Contemporary Japan (Spring, 2022) Nobuko Kawashima Essay Assignment Y our paper needs to have a clear ar gument with evidence and support drawn from literature. Y our own research to enrich the ar gument is encouraged, but the paper must directly address one of the given questions. Style in academic writing will also be examined. It will be good to demonstrate your learning by quoting some of the material used during this semester where appropriate. The length: approximately 900 words (800-1,100 words, excluding references, tables, illustrations etc. and any attachments) In writing an essay , choose one of the topics below . Please indicate which one you have chosen at the beginning of the writing. ● As you know , the success of South Korea with its popular culture (film, music and TV drama) in the global market has been phenomenal. Discuss why Japan has not been able to achieve success in similar ways. Suggested books and papers (downloadable from the e-journal portal of the university library webpage) in addition to those distributed in class for essay writing. It will be a good idea to revisit the given material for this course. I suggest some books, but considering that your access to them is not good, you can skip them and have a look at the suggested papers. Hesmondhalgh, David (2019) The Cultural Industries , 4th edition, Sage. (The whole book is relevant to us, with accessible writing style) Throsby , David (2010) The Economics of Cultural Policy , Cambridge University Press. (Not too dif ficult to read, some chapters distributed in the class.) Craig, Tim (2020) Cool Japan. (Case studies of the Japanese creative industries). Galbraith, Patrick W . and Karlin, Jason G. (eds)(2012) Idols and celebrity in Japanese Media Cultur e. Palgrave Macmillan. For more specific topics: McDonald, Paul and W asko, Janet (eds) (2008) The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry , Blackwell. (*A little outdated, but some very interesting chapters on Hollywood) The following articles may be useful for you. They are downloadable for free if you use VPN. VPN, or V irtual Private Network, is very useful and I recommend you download this software from university’ s website if you have not done so, with which you can access content limited to university students and staf f from home. Connect VPN and access the library’ s portal site for e-journals. T o search on Google Scholar ( h ttp s://s c h ola r.g oogle .c o .j p /) with key words will also be ef ficient, leading to a list of relevant articles. Some of the articles are immediately downloadable, while for others you need to access university e-journals. Film Crane, D (2014) ‘Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry: Cultural Policies, National Film Industries, and T ransnational Films’, International Journal of Cultural Policy , V ol. 20, Issue 4. Kawashima, Nobuko (2016) ‘Film Policy in Japan—An Isolated Species on the V er ge of Extinction?’, International Journal of Cultural Policy , 22,5,787-804. Japan’ s creative industries, Japanese cultural policy and international relations KN Otmazgin and N Otmazgin (2012) ‘Japan Imagined: Popular Culture, Soft Power , and Japan’ s Changing Image in Northeast and Southeast Asia’, Contemporary Japan , 24, 1. Otmazgin, N (2012) ‘Geopolitics and Soft Power: Japan’ s Cultural Policy and Cultural Diplomacy in Asia’, Asia-Pacific Review , 19, 1. Otmazgin, N (2014) ‘Anime in the US: The Entrepreneurial Dimensions of Globalized Culture’, Pacific Affairs , 87, 1, 53-69. *Nissim Otmazgin, our guest lecturer , has written numerous articles and chapters in edited books that are relevant to our course. Search his works on Google Scholar . Music Industry Marshall, Lee (2015) ‘Let’ s Keep Music Special. F—Spotify’: on-demand streaming and the controversy over artist royalties. Cr eative Industries Journal , 8, 2, 177-189. Manga, Anime and Games Finan, Dorothy (2021) ‘Idols you can make: The player as auteur in Japan’ s media mix’, New Media & Society , (issue/volume unknown), 1-17. Gon ҁ alves, J. et al (2020) ‘The occidental otaku: Portuguese audience motivations for viewing anime’, Converngence , 27, 1, 247-265. Hartzheim, BH (2019) ‘Making of a Mangaka: Industrial reflexivity and Shueish’ s W eekly Shônen Jump’, T elevision & New Media , 22. 5. 570-587. Klaehn, Jef frey (2021) ‘talking manga: bringing Japanese pop culture to the North American mainstream’, Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics , (issue/volume unknown) 1-15. Pellitteri, M (2021) ‘The European experience with Japanese animation, and what it can reveal about the transnational appeal of anime’, Asian Journal of Communication , 31, 1, 21-42. Misc . Feigenbaum, Harvey B (2007) ‘Hegemony or diversity in film and television? The United States, Europe and Japan’, The Pacific Review , 20, 3, 371-396. Korean Popular Culture Y ouna Kim (ed)(2020), The Soft Power of the Korean W ave. Parasite, BTS and Drama. Routledge. Dal Yong Jin has written a lar ge number of books and articles that you may find helpful. Also have a look at the paper by Kawashima on the Business Models of the Media Industries (2020) and check out the quoted papers according to your interest. Most of them are not too dif ficult and accessible.
Can you write me a 1000-1100 word paper (excluding word limits) for me? Please find the below attachment for the instruction.
Media Industries 7.1 (2020) Changing Business Models in the Media Industries Nobuko Kawashima 1 DOSHISHA UNIVERSITY Nkawashi [AT] mail.doshisha.ac.jp Abstract Media industries such as film, music, and publishing have traditionally relied on three models of revenue generation: payment by users for ownership of (or for access to) content, advertising fees, and the hybrid of these. For a long time, the models have largely been sustainable, but in recent decades ad vances in information and communication technologies and changes in consumer behavior have been so revolutionary that they pose unprecedentedly serio us challenges to these models; the issue is no longer copyright infringemen t on its own, but how the industries respond to the changes in the market and find new, sustainable business models. This article discusses several of these new directions, including Do-It-Yourself artist, expanded exploitation of copyright, diversification, dual-market model, and digital marketing for third- party marketers via social media and using own sites. Examples from Japa n are drawn to illustrate the new developments. Keywords: Media Industries, Business Model, Japan Introduction The second half of the twentieth century was a good time for the media i ndustries, broadly defined: broadcasting, publishing, film, and music. Distributor/publishe r/intermediary companies such as film studios, publishers, and record labels enjoyed co mfortable business positions relying on two revenue sources: advertising and user payment, with varying degrees of dependence, depending on the industry. 2 Firms from various sectors in the postwar era of economic development sought space and time for advertising, while consum er demand for information and entertainment increased. Many of the companies in the me dia industries could set premium prices for products, or obtain “rents,” by creating artificial scarcity—for example, by setting release dates or controlling the quantity of physical products available 70 Media Industries 7.1 (2020) on the market (see Note 2). 3 The well-developed infrastructure for content distribution allowed the media majors to achieve economies of scale. Products distrib uted in physical packages (e.g., print media and music CDs) in particular could be “overpriced”; although the fixed cost of creating the original content could be high, the marginal cost of producing another unit was minimal. However, such a business environment for the media industries, which was largely stable and comfortable despite the existence of fierce competition within indiv idual markets, has been undermined since the late 1990s with the development of internet an d information and communication technologies (ICT) and the widespread uptake of these te chnological advances by the general public. First, the print media industry (newspa pers and magazines in particular) has suffered greatly. The spread of pirated copies and u nlawful downloading of content online may be partially to blame, but at the same time people to day find it decreas – ingly necessary to buy newspapers and magazines in print because the kind of information they traditionally looked for in them—news, gossip, fashion trends, v acant job positions—can be easily found and accessed online without paying. The recorded music i ndustry, too, has suffered over the years, particularly due to the development of peer-to-peer, file-sharing technology and video-sharing websites such as YouTube. Eradicating unlic ensed music available online turned out to be extremely difficult, eventually leading the record labels to provide free access to official videos on the video-sharing websites for the purpose of artist promotion. Since the early 2000s, the emergence of social media, search engines, and major online ser – vices such as Amazon for e-commerce, Netflix for video streaming, and Sp otify for music streaming, together with the spread of smartphones, has further threaten ed the conventional businesses of the media industries. Consumers are less and less willing to pay for content itself and often less immersed in it than they once were. They may be ha ppy to pay for ser – vices that provide content, so long as access is convenient—providing the content when they want it, where they want it, and via the devices they habitually use. 4 They also give priority to the ways in which they interact with content: by sharing it, discussing it with fans whom they may not personally know, and modifying it to create secondary works, oft en in collaboration with other amateur creators with whom they exchange in-progress works on line. 5 All of the above have driven a major transformation in the media industr ies. A wide range of academic disciplines have focused attention on specific aspects of and r elevant issues con – cerning these changes in media production, distribution, and consumption . For example, a rich literature has developed on the rise of collaborative/participatory culture 6,7 or “produs – ers.” 8 In contrast to digital optimists like Jenkins, more pessimistic comment ators have pointed to a host of troubling issues such as increased centralization o f corporate power, intensified commercialization of culture, and the rise of surveillance c ulture (see Note 2). A large number of articles and books have also been published on the need for regulation and other policy measures, including in the area of copyright, to adapt to t he changing practices in media production and consumption. Digital transformation in the media industries has also been discussed among scholars concerned with its impact on the publ ic interest and democracy, which news organizations have traditionally viewed as bolster ing through the provision of up-to-date, accurate, neutral, and well-researched informat ion, investigation, and commentary. 9 Economics and management studies of the media have been keen to 71 investigate the impact of illegal music files on CD sales 10 and the impact of streaming ser – vices on music industry revenue as a whole. 11 Scholars have also researched the extent to which the diversity of content has increased or decreased as a result of digitized distribution. 12,13 Many of the research findings show an overall decline in revenue in the traditional media industries and describe players’ struggles to tackle this problem, bu t studies that directly discuss the “business model”—defined in this article as forms o f value creation and appropriation 14—have been relatively few. A few exceptions exist on specific media i ndus – tries. 15–17 And a broader report titled “Changing Business Models in the Creative Industries,” 18 commissioned by the UK Patent Office, studies six companies in the television, computer games, and music industries, providing useful details of changes in those industries. The overall conclusion of Searle (see Note 18), however, remains that the creative industries are in a state of business model experimentation, a situation brought about not necessarily by challenges to intellectual property (IP) but by other factors such as changes in consumer demand and behavior in the digital era. Although the individual cases de scribed in these studies may be interesting, the overall picture does not exceed what we intuitively know. The lack of research into business models in the media industries may be partly due to the ambiguity of the term “business model” 19 and to the speed at which new businesses con – stantly appear to disrupt existing business frameworks. The purpose of this article is to review existing research and analyze n ew business models being used in the media industries to respond to the impacts of new ICT, changed user behavior, and globalization. Assuming that these factors must have impac ted cost struc – tures, production patterns, and distribution methods of media businesses, the article will focus on the ways in which the media industries in different sectors have understood and responded to changing consumer needs, identified or redefined market seg ments, delivered newly created value to consumers, and earned revenue in ways that can be sustained at least into the near future. Six new business models are identified. Some of th e “new” models in fact represent only small, incremental “defensive” changes, while other, more disruptive changes are being driven by new giant IT platform operators. An implicat ion of this is that the value of content created by traditional media may be relegated to th e role of attracting consumers, whose aggregated profiles and behavior information form a valuable asset for any business engaged in digital marketing. Although this article does not try to break new theoretical ground, its broad survey helps fill a gap in media industries research that discipline-based or sector-focus ed studies tend to be less good at. The article will also provide added value by using example s from Japanese media and entertainment businesses. Japanese popular culture is generally very strong in Japan’s domestic market (see Kawashima 20 on film), which is the second (music) or third (film, digital games) largest in the world, and has a significant presence in specific regions with keen fan bases (as seen, for example, with Japanese animé in North America, E urope, and Asia). Nonetheless, much less attention has been given to its business structur es, models, and strat – egies than to its actual content by humanities and Japanese studies scho lars in the English language literature. The reference to Japanese examples is not necessari ly for the purpose of showing good practice, but it will help broaden the scope of media indus tries research by analyzing the ways in which one major media capital 21 copes with the changing environment. Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 72 The responses of Japanese (and other) media companies to changes in th eir business environ – ment are, not surprisingly, mixed: Some are novel and forward-looking, o r at least distinctive, whereas others are conservative, seeking to protect and maintain the sta tus quo for the time being. In the following, I first present an overall picture of the business models conventionally employed in the media industries and discuss the challenges they face. I then analyze the strategies employed by media businesses to cope with changes, with examp les drawn from Japan’s music, animé (Japanese animation), and newspaper industr ies. Changing Business Models As mentioned above, until fairly recently the structure and value chains of the media indus – tries were similar and relatively straightforward. They could rely on two major sources of revenue: payment by the user and advertising. The industries were supplier-led rather than customer-centric. In most cases, value chains were uncomplicated: Conten t was produced by artists, creators, authors, and production companies; commodified by commercial dis – tributors such as publishers, film distributors, and record companies; a nd then handed over to retailers such as cinemas and shops. Newspapers were relatively self- sufficient, integrat – ing the functions of content creation (information gathering and report writing), commodi – fication (editing and printing), and distribution through their own de dicated sales networks. The players involved in each stage of the value chains were limited and fixed; new entrants might enter a market, but they only competed with incumbents rather than disrupting the existing order. To price “information” (i.e., content) is genera lly difficult, but pricing was not a major issue in these industries as prices—for admission to the cine ma, to purchase a CD, book, or other product—were fixed within narrow ranges. Marketing largely targeted the mass through the placement of extensive advertising in the media, while the economies of scale enjoyed by the majors enhanced their power to control the market u pstream and downstream (see Note 3). As new digital ICT developed and spread, new businesses in the media industries have emerged. Hess 22 summarizes the characteristics of online media (as opposed to print ne ws – paper and conventional broadcasting) as being bidirectional (interacti ve) and multimedia- based, which tends to appeal to today’s consumers. With the additiona l trait of online media that Hess (see Note 22) identifies—low entry barriers to the market—the old media are severely contested and can no longer be assured of earning high profits from the traditional revenue sources. The observation of Hess can be applied more broadly to the media indus – tries with which this article is concerned. Building on Hess (see Note 22), Table 1 stylizes the major characteristics of the conventional and new business models of the media industries. In some sectors, extreme, disruptive examples—even “gift economies ,” in which the exchange between producer and consumer is nonpecuniary—are developing. 23 In others, several tran – sitions can be observed, to which this article now turns. Model 1: Do-It-Yourself Artists We begin with the case of content creators cutting out intermediaries an d connecting directly with consumers. Traditionally, professional artists/creators we re the starting point Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 73 Conventional business model New business models Value-adding steps covered by media companies Content creation, distribution Management of content, operation of digital space (apps, websites, social media), alliance with various sectors Value chain Fixed, controlled, supplier-led, one-way Flexible, organic, user-centric, interactive Value creation Copyright exploitation Multiplatform business Revenue source User payment, advertising User payment, advertising, user subscription fees, sale of user data Main partners Promoter, retailer Content/service providers, neighboring industries in the media and elsewhere Market entry barriers High: initial investment of capital required Low Competition Intra-market Inter-market Role of creators Strong, but moderated by the intermediary Direct connection with users, need to be entrepreneurial Content creation Reserved for the professionals Open to all Role of consumers Passive Active Traits valued by consumers Quality of content Social communication about content, convenient access Primary competences of media companies Artistic/journalistic editing, curation and distribution Aggregating content, algorithms for matching content and users Control of the market Strong Weak Control of use Strong Weak Advertisers’ interest Mass marketing Targeted marketing Table 1. Comparison of Conventional and New Business Models of Media Businesses. Source. Adapted and expanded from Hess (see Note 22). Note . The models are ideal types and do not necessarily describe specific in dustry sectors. in the linear value chain, and they benefited in subsequent stages from the help of distribu – tors and retailers. Because distributors and retailers are less profitab le than they once were, and therefore less capable of returning profits to content creators, many creators have found it necessary to take advantage of new technologies and become more self-reliant. This is the background to the rise of the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) model. This model i s particularly promi – nent among independent musicians, who cannot expect much support from ma jor record Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 74 labels as the labels concentrate marketing budgets on smaller numbers of signed artists (see Note 15). 24 Seen in a positive light, musicians are now able to access a range of services for music pro – duction, distribution, promotion, and marketing offered at affordable prices through digital technologies and services. They can rent studios and hire technicians at costs that have been lowered by technological developments, with funds raised by crowdfunding . They can set up accounts on social media and create original websites where fans can dow nload a piece of music for free if they register, leaving personal data for artists to ut ilize for future contact and market research. Information about where fans live aids efficient co ncert planning. Some argue that these technological advancements have helped independent artists become more autonomous 25 and entrepreneurial (see Note 15), and that they have changed the nature of relationships among artists, fans, and the music industry. 26–28 Fans are seen to have new relationships with artists as “sponsors, co-creators of value, stakeh olders, investors and fil – ters” 29 and to be increasingly involved with music making and marketing, partic ularly through social media. 30 However, it is unclear whether DIY artists can gain access to major mus ic distribution channels that may be mediated by new intermediaries who, fo r efficiency rea – sons, may have little interest in dealing with independent labels. 31–33 Model 2: Expanded Exploitation of Copyright For industries traditionally reliant on copyright exploitation in the form of reproducing orig – inal content in large quantities and earning revenue from selling it in the mass market (as seen, for example, in recorded music and book publishing), different ri ghts that copyright holders are granted have started to carry more weight in terms of revenue production. For example, the right to make content accessible to the public (e.g., by s treaming on the web) has assumed greater importance, although labels are finding streaming di fficult to manage strategically. Music labels have started paying greater attention to the licensing of music for other media industries, such as film, television dramas and commercials, and digital games. 34 The music pieces used in these media and entertainment products may be o nly small parts of songs in terms of duration, but they can command high fees from licen sees. The resulting exposure is valuable as the marketing budgets of record labels are shrinking. Model 3: Diversification Similar to but broader than copyright exploitation is the use of IP to e arn revenue in neigh – boring business areas. For example, characters originally developed in an animation movie may be utilized in digital games, graphic novels, toys, and other mercha ndise. Such multi – platform strategies have been in existence for a long time in media indu stries, but today they have grown so much that it is sometimes difficult to know in which media format a character was originally born. Also, multiplatform business is increasingly planne d as such from the very beginning of character/story development so that it can simultaneou sly be launched in various forms. Of particular importance in such a scenario, interestingly, is utilization of digital content for non-digital (live) purposes. For example, official music videos availa ble for free on YouTube can enhance the popularity of the artist, allowing him/her to earn hands omely from concert Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 75 tours. Today, the top-earning musicians in the global market derive a ma jority of their income from live performances, whereas their royalties from recorded music can be less than 5 percent of sales.35 Japanese animé song concerts (with voice-over artists as singers) are often held in large arenas that accommodate more than ten thousand fans and generate considerable income. Musicals and theater performances based on manga, a nimé, and games (commonly called 2.5-dimensional theater/musicals in Japan, as their so urce content is two-dimensional) are also blossoming in Japan. Live performance has traditionally been seen as less profitable than rec orded music sales because the number of tickets that can be sold is physically limited by the seating capacity of venues and the number of times an artist can perform per year. Howeve r, in today’s digital age, people increasingly tend to place high value on non-digital, live e xperiences and are willing to pay for expensive tickets. In a similar vein, live (and reco rded) showings of events at cinemas—the screening of theater performances and televised sports matches—have become popular as people desire to see these events not only on large sc reens with good sound effects but also together with other viewers to share the exciteme nt and moments of joy. In terms of sheer numbers, the purchasers of tickets to live events and tangible ancillary goods may not add up to the equivalent of a mainstream mass market, but these live perfor – mance markets which in the past were seen as small and niche no longer r emain so. Traditionally, record labels were not heavily involved in the live performance side or other aspects of musicians’ activities, but now they aggressively try to ga in a share of such new revenues by signing so-called 360-degree contracts with artists for fees . 36 The business model changes discussed so far are not particularly innovative, as they mainly involve developing business areas that were previously neglected as rela tively unimportant. The lack of novelty is evident in the fact that these strategies have lo ng been adopted in the Japanese music industry. To start with, musicians are “employed” b y management compa – nies and receive a monthly salary. Practical arrangements and relationsh ips may differ from one artist to another, but management companies ( jimusho , discussed by Marx 37 in detail) are in the business of maximizing the exposure of their artists under co ntract, basically tak – ing all payments for the artists’ activities and then paying remunera tion to them that reflects their popularity and workload. Tie-in contracts with television dramas, films, and TV com – mercials have been common in the Japanese music industry since the late 1980s, 38 although these are not necessarily for the purpose of sharing fees between creati ve management companies and record labels, but rather for promoting recorded music and building the art – ists’ brands. It has also been the case for decades that Japanese art ists and idols are expected to be multitalented. This does not mean that they need to be professiona lly competent in all areas such as singing, dancing, and acting in film and television dramas , but it is crucial for them to appear on talk shows and variety programs on television and to b e funny, chatty, clever, and accessible (see Galbraith and Karlin 39 for the analysis of the idiosyncrasies of idol and celebrity culture in Japan). In the last ten to fifteen years, a more innovative business model for i dol groups has been established by an influential producer, Yasushi Akimoto. Akimoto has been in the entertain – ment business for decades as a producer and also a lyricist, and he has further cemented his dominant position in the Japan’s entertainment industry by creating a nd producing the young female idol group AKB48 and its branches (see Craig 40 for a detailed study of the group). Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 76 Launched in 2005, AKB48 is based on the concept of “idols you can mee t,” and fans may become deeply involved in the process of the girls’ growth from unpolished t o more polished perform – ers. AKB48 is made up of around one hundred girls, divided into four “ teams” which can appear simultaneously in various locations—one way of actualizing the “id ols you can meet” concept. One of the teams performs at the AKB48 Theater in Tokyo’s Akihabara a rea every day. The theater is small, accommodating just 250 people, so obtaining tickets ca n be difficult, but those who are lucky enough to do so can see the girls up-close and begin to feel a connection and support them in their careers. Which girls sing on the group’s single s and their position in the dance formations on stage are determined by various “buzz-generating” means, including an annual General Election in which fans who have purchased CDs are able to vote. The Election is a high-profile, nationally-televised event widely reported in the med ia. Avid fans buy multi – ple CDs—sometimes hundreds of the same title—so they can cast many votes for their favorite performers. CDs may also come with “hand-shaking session” tickets. Enthusiasts may buy multiple copies of CDs so as to lengthen the time allowed with their favorite girls at such events, as one ticket allows a contact of only some seconds. When member s get older, they “graduate” and are replaced by younger girls. The large size of th e group and the constant refreshment of its composition, it is said, allow everyone to find a fav orite. Based on the success of AKB48, sister groups have been set up in major c ities of Japan, including Osaka, Nagoya, and Hakata. The franchise has also spread to Asia to include JKT48 in Jakarta, BNK48 in Bangkok, and DEL48 in Delhi. Unlike K-pop groups, J apanese idols of this kind are imperfect in performance, a “defect” which, however, is said to work well with the Japanese sense of aesthetics. The success of AKB48 has been phenomenal, with singles and albums selling more than one million units per title (a mark rarely achieved in Japan today); their single CDs have occupied the top of Japanese hit charts f or over ten years (vari – ous statistics released by RIAJ). 41 Criticism of Akimoto is abundant: He is accused of exploiting obsessive fans by luring them to excessive spending; taking advantage of young girls aspiring for fame , few of whom end up establishing long-lasting careers; and commodifying not only girls but also their music. However, it can be argued that Akimoto has saved the Japanese recorded m usic industry; the decline in its revenue—from 607.5 billion yen in 1998 to 304.8 billio n in 2018—would surely have been much larger without Akimoto. As a result, Japan remains an out lier in terms of music distribution methods, with market sales still dominated by physica l CDs and DVDs as opposed to digital sales and revenue from streaming services. The physic al share of revenues is 79 percent (2018; see Note 41), in contrast to the global average o f 25 percent. 42 Japan also has a male idol group culture, dominated by Johnny & Associat es, the country’s largest talent agency. Established by the legendary Johnny Kitagawa in t he 1960s, who remained active until his death at the age of 87 in 2019, Johnny’s (as the agency is known) and its male idol groups have occupied a very important place in the popular entertainment world of Japan, particularly since the 1980s. Again, unlike K-pop male g roups, none of the Japanese groups managed by Johnny’s excels in singing or dancing, but their members look accessible, identifiable, familiar (see Note 39), and are interesting in talk shows and variety programs on television. Many appear in television dramas, films, and pro duct advertise – ments. 43,44 The level and scope of their exposure in every media and visual space a re “far in excess of anything seen in contemporary Western pop music culture.” 45 Music CDs and DVDs Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 77 of the groups managed by Johnny’s, together with those of AKB48, have dominated the hit charts of Japanese music measured by CD sales in the last ten to fifteen years. What one might call a “no-online” policy of Johnny’s strengthens its CD sales; visual images of Johnny’s artists rarely appear online, few official social media accounts exist o f any artist or group managed by Johnny’s, and very little of the groups’ music is comme rcially available online, either from iTunes or from Spotify. Fans therefore have to purchase musi c CDs, another contributing factor to the strength of packaged music sales in Japan. While CD sales are managing to stop a further decline, the diversificati on strategy is spread – ing as a new business model in Japan with Sony Music as a possibly extreme case. The core business of Sony Music has been to produce CDs, DVDs, and music for online distribution, but Sony Music has been subsumed to just one division of Sony Music Ente rtainment Japan, Inc. (SMEJ), a holding company that now encompasses various entertainm ent sectors such as live concert management; animation production and its character busin ess; management of artists, creators, and comedians; exhibition design with the use of a ugmented and virtual reality (AR and VR); and sports entertainment. It is unclear whether t he holding company intends to cover any losses made by Sony Music with profits made by other group businesses or to more strategically integrate them for synergy/convergence effects. It should be noted that at the heart of this group is the animation-based company Aniplex I nc., whose business area has diversified from anime production to the production of musicals , concerts, figu – rines, apparel, and mobile games. (Digital games for PlayStation are ha ndled by Sony Interactive Entertainment.) The contribution made by Aniplex to the tot al revenue of SMEJ is around half and is expected by investors to grow further. Model 4: Dual Markets A fourth business model being developed in the media industries can be s een in the transi – tion of a B2C model (such as recorded music being sold by labels to con sumers) to a “dual- market” model. The dual-market model is best represented by the priva te broadcasting industry, whereby broadcast content attracts the attention of viewers/li steners, to which advertisers seek to expose their products. By attracting as large an aud ience as possible, broadcasters increase their value to advertisers, who compete for greate r exposure. In this way, content production has effectively been subsidized by advertisers. Such a broadcasting model was predicted to become the standard model for the recorded music industry some years ago by Fox and Wrenn, 46 who proposed that music be provided for free to consumers who, however, would need to tolerate intermittent advertising that funds music distribution. This is the major strategy of K-pop; its phenomenal global success comes largely from giving unlimited access to music videos free on YouTube and other social media while earning rev – enue from advertising, sponsorship by Korean manufacturers, and live con certs. 47 Indeed, most of the content-related services on the web are ad-supported, includ ing Spotify’s free provision of music streaming, mobile game apps, web magazines, and news sites. Social media, too, operates on the dual-market model, the only differenc e from the tradi – tional media being that its content is mostly created by millions of ama teurs for sharing (e.g., chat and photos) rather than by professional creators. For the business of social media, what matters is the size of the installed customer base and the frequency and length of service use by customers, as these affect the attractiveness of social media for adv ertisers. Similarly, Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 78 for other platform operators such as Amazon, Google, Apple, and Netflix, the size of the cus – tomer base is very important as it affects the number of service/goods p roviders and their willingness to supply. In such a way, these businesses all operate two-s ided markets in a networked economy: one for consumers and the other for advertisers and service/goods providers (wholesalers and retailers for Amazon, application developers for Google and Apple, and film distributors for Netflix). It is important for social media to make the interface user-friendly and encourage users to frequently return to their service, for which they have developed effective algorithms. The relevance of the above discussion for the conventional media industr ies is that professionally-created content is also becoming attractive for social media and other IT platforms. It is well known that Amazon, originally and principally an e-commerce site, has increased value for customers and enhanced its brand by the launch of Prime Video, which is freely accessible to Amazon Prime members (together with other servi ces offered to mem – bers). Prime Video offers a large selection of licensed video content as well as original con – tent exclusive to Prime members. Content created by professionals in the media industries may also be found in social media as posted by the professionals themsel ves and as shared by users who find it elsewhere. A large number of people read tweets and reports posted by legacy media accounts. In this way, creative media content plays a pivot al role in the dual market of social media and IT platforms and may be a source of significa nt income for the media companies. In other words, while conventional media industries struggle to earn prof – its in their traditional way and through their own initiatives in the digital sphere, they actu – ally are useful in the newly-developed space of social media and IT plat forms, which act like some of the legacy media in operating the dual-market businesses. Model 5: Social Media–Based Digital Marketing for Third-Party Markete rs It must be noted that the usefulness of the social media space for adver tising derives not only from its large user base but also, and more importantly, from the opportunities for tar – geted marketing afforded by the enormous amounts of information social m edia collect about their users’ demographics and online behavior (which in turn m ay be related to their offline behavior). This is related to the fifth business model that is emerging for the digitized media industries: selling customer data to third-party marketers keen to target potential consumers using social media or other websites. The educated public may now be aware of how much personal information they give away to Facebook; they voluntari ly and constantly provide information, beginning with their user profiles and extending to what they like, where they visited, where they are at this moment, what they ate and bou ght, and much more. 48–51 Governmental regulation for personal data protection is becoming an acu te issue and public concern is growing, but such trends do not yet seem to be cau sing a decline in the availability of big data to platform operators. The rapid development of highly sophisticated digital marketing in recent years has enabled Facebook partners to obtain data on their tar – get consumers, both aggregated and highly customized for specific purpos es (e.g., females aged 35–39, earning between X and Y per year, potentially interested in buying property in a certain geographical area), and send personalized advertisements to the m. Targeted marketing online is far more sophisticated than traditional advertising in the old media. Previously, it was impossible to know exactly where target custom ers could be found Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 79 and how to directly send messages to them. Television commercials, which are very expen – sive to place, are especially ineffective: Everyone understands that aud iences avoid TV com – mercials, and it is difficult to know how well commercials work for bran ding or for the promotional effect they are meant for. Broadcasters argue that televisio n is still a very pow – erful medium for raising awareness of products and services and that its reach is huge in comparison with that of advertising on social media. However, digital ma rketing agencies contend that social media, too, can be useful for grabbing attention for products and ser – vices that users are unaware of and that it is far more effective in enc ouraging its users to move down the “marketing funnel” to the stage of actual purchase, done seamlessly online. Even if consumers do not continue to the final stage of purchase, it is possible for marketers to track how long users considered a product and/or compared different o ptions and where they abandoned their shopping. It is then possible to retarget lapsed us ers by digitally send – ing appropriate messages. In terms of reach as well, social media can be much wider and faster than traditional broadcasting. Model 6: Digital Marketing Using Self-Operated Sites Rather than or in addition to promoting their products or services to us ers in the social media space, firms in the traditional media industries may earn revenue direct ly by operating their own sites. It is said that few news sites directly run by legacy media a re successful in charging subscription fees in exchange for unlimited access to news content (see Note 9) except for a small number of successes such as the New York Times .52 Alternative revenue sources to advertising, such as paywalls, the sale of newspaper apps, crowdfunding, and foundation funding to support news production, have not become viable options (see Note 9). 53 In this context, the case of Nihon Keizai Shimbun (the Nikkei , a major Japanese financial newspaper) deserves description as an apparently successful example. It is necessary to understand that newspapers are a particularly big business and social in stitution in Japan with its population of around 130 million. Five national newspapers in Japan, including the Nikkei , boast massive circulations (totaling about twenty million copies in 2 018) 54 that out – strip those in other countries, 55 alongside numerous regional/local newspapers with a total circulation equivalent to that of the big nationals. The national papers print two editions a day and are mainly delivered through exclusive sales and distribution systems to households that are monthly subscribers. Most importantly, subscription payments’ share of total reve – nue is relatively high, more than half (see Note 54), giving the publi shers a stable revenue base. This is an advantaged position compared with that of their Western counterparts who rely on advertising, which is more volatile. However, a decline in sales of Japanese newspapers to readers and in new spaper advertising has been noticeable, as in other countries, 56 although no major Japanese newspaper publish – ers have gone bankrupt as they possess real estate and other assets that provide reliable income. As Villi and Hayashi 57 discovered, these major newspapers are very protective of the current print media business and reluctant to make a transition to digit al. The Nikkei , how – ever, should be given credit for proactively pursuing a digital strategy . The Nikkei has a rela – tively small circulation of just over 2.4 million, or 4 percent of total households, 58 compared to giant Yomiuri ’s 8.5 million, but it enjoys a loyal readership among professionals and those in executive positions, highly-educated, and high-income earners. With i ts 2015 acquisition Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 80 of the Financial Times (FT), the United Kingdom’s top financial paper, the Nikkei has expanded its global scope, distinguishing itself from other newspapers in Japan. In enhancing its posi – tion as a financial paper, the Nikkei has been aggressive in its digital strategy and successful in many respects. Free access to online content is allowed to a certain extent, and full access is given for an additional 1,000 yen per month (less than US$10) to su bscribers who are already paying 4,900 yen (about US$47) per month for a print subscript ion. A digital-only subscription costs 4,200 yen (about US$40). The usability of its digit al paper on the web and on smartphones is considered excellent and is constantly improved. As of August 2019, according to the Nikkei website, paying online subscribers number six hundred thousand, while “registered” users number 4.3 million; all have voluntarily sup – plied personal information regarding their jobs, educational attainment, personal and household income, financial assets, ownership of cars and other properties, holiday pref – erences, hobbies, and much else. The strength of Nikkei as a publishing group is its broad range of print magazines and online services in business and marketing s uch as Nikkei CNBC (financial news on television). The company has encouraged reader s and service users to register and consolidate their login IDs across these media and services, allowing Nikkei as a group to have a database of 9.3 million unique users. Nikkei online sells adver – tising space, of course, not just for advertising for all readers like t hat in the print paper, but also for advertising that targets readers with attributes and intere sts advertisers are especially looking for. Nikkei’s user database, including the very se gments of the popula – tion that are highly sought-after by many brands, can be matched against that of third- party firms, enabling the latter to send out marketing messages to consu mers within the relevant Nikkei readership. Such ad technologies and opportunities for d igital marketing are not unique to the Nikkei, but the quality of its database allows it to charge advertisers high prices for space. The Nikkei, like other news media, is also ventur ing into the event and conference business (Business Model 3), which may be marginal as a revenue source but can function to accumulate data on participants and their experience s with advertisers and other client companies. Conclusion The business environment in which the media industries operate has chang ed greatly because of the development of the internet, the relevant technologies in information, com – munication and advertising, and devices consumers use to take advantage of advanced ICT. The threat of unlawful content being freely accessible on the web was on e factor that under – mined the media industries in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although p iracy has not been completely eradicated, a more serious problem is the changed behavior an d expectations of consumers and advertisers, two of the revenue sources that have supporte d the media industries for decades. With consumers less willing to pay for media con tent unless access to it is convenient for them, and more interested in communicating with other people con – cerning content, the conventional value chain that starts with the authority and profession – alism of media creators and extends through content commodification and distribution to the masses has lost effectiveness. Meanwhile, social media and web spher es offer brands Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 81 ample opportunities for targeted marketing, undermining the dominant pos ition of the tra – ditional media as a place for advertising. The business model of the media industries—an architecture of value c reation that delivers value to targeted customers in exchange for payments that contribute to profit (see Teece in Note 14)—is being adapted and diversified to better match today’s changed environment. This article has discussed various responses that the media industries h ave made, with par – ticular reference to Japanese media. The strategy of 360-degree contract ing has become established as a norm among the major global music companies, as has bee n the case in Japan for a long time. The Japanese idol business in recent decades has contributed greatly to the maintenance of strong packaged (physical) music sales in Japan. While this has been effective in the confined domestic culture of Japan, its global applicab ility and sustainability are much in question. Diversification and multiplatform application of c ontent, which have been a basis for Hollywood’s global success, may still be advancing a nd increasingly involve partners that are not traditionally associated with the media. The fifth and sixth new business models that this article has discussed are the most worrying in terms of the status of content and the future vitality of the creativ e industries, as they value creative content only to the extent that it attracts users whose b ehavior and profiles are a valuable asset for marketers and other third-party businesses netw orked in multiple and complex ways. In today’s economy, generally, data obtained in Ser vice X may be trans – mitted through an intermediary platform to Service Y, for which those da ta are of high value and may well possess potential for innovation. 59 However, what this means to the media industries seems to be a lowering of the status of content. Content is increasingly seen to be useful mainly as a way to generate and harvest personal and behavioral d ata on consumers; platform and social media operators have only limited interest in the co ntent itself. The media industries, conceptualized in such a way, are no longer autonomous businesses hav – ing their own value chains. Instead, today, they are part of the complex systems of platform and social media operators that link businesses from many sectors to cre ate economic spheres, or “ecosystems,” in a new economy based on data-driven in novation. In such an economy, information about users and their behavior is a most important resource and driver of value creation. It is fair to characterize traditional media businesses as conservative, and if they remain so, IT platform operators with their enormous wealth may take over the domains of the tradi – tionally defined media industries. Change has occurred not only in media consumption— characterized by Hesmondhalgh and Meier 60 as “from domestic consumption to personalized, mobile and connected consumption”—but also in the autonomous space of the media indus – tries in relation to the IT platform operators. The emerging strength of IT giants in media production is epitomized by the Academy Award won by the film ROMA (2018). ROMA was produced by Netflix, which did not possess any particular film productio n experience or expertise but was able to hire talent and crew who were only too happy to work on creating a film without the budget restrictions and other constraints normally im posed by the film majors. To discuss broader concerns regarding the ever-increasing power of IT platform operators 61 has been beyond the scope of this article, but such a discussion would surely conclude with some of the same worries and implications that affect the media industries. Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 82 1 Nobuko Kawashima is professor at Faculty of Economics, Doshisha University. She holds PhD in Cultural Policy (University of Warwick, UK) and MSc in Social Policy and LLM (with distinction), both from the London School of Economics. Her areas of research interest include cultural policy, cultural economics, and the creative/ cultural industries. Her recent publications in English include Kawashima and Lee (eds) (2018), Asian Cultural Flows and Hill and Kawashima (eds) (2017), Film Policy in a Globalized Economy . 2 David Hesmondhalgh, The Cultural Industries , 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2019). 3 Smith and Telang, Streaming, Sharing, Stealing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017), Chapters 2 and 3. 4 Chris Bilton, The Disappearing Product (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017). 5 Nobuko Kawashima, “The Rise of User Creativity—Web 2.0 and a New C hallenge for Copyright Law and Cultural Policy,” International Journal of Cultural Policy 16 (3, 2010): 337–53. 6 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture (NY: New York University Press, 2007). 7 Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green, Spreadable Media (NY: New York University Press, 2013). 8 Elizabeth Bird, “‘Are We All Produsers Now?’ Convergence and Me dia Audience Practices,” Cultural Studies 25 (4–5, 2011): 502–16. 9 Bob Franklin, “The Future of Journalism: In an Age of Digital Media a nd Economic Uncertainty,” Journalism Practice 8 (5, 2014): 469–87. 10 Stan J. Liebowitz, “File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?” The Journal of Law and Economics 49 (1, 2006): 1–28. 11 Nils Wlömert and Dominik Papies, “On-Demand Streaming Services and Music Industry Revenues—Insights from Spotify’s Market Entry,” International Journal of Research in Marketing 33 (2016): 314–27. 12 Pierre-Jean Benghozi and Françoise Benhamou, “The Long Tail: Myth or Reality?” International Journal of Arts Management 12 (3, 2010): 43–53. 13 Erik Brynjolfsson, Yu Hu, and Michael D. Smith, “Long Tails vs. Super stars: The Effect of Information Technology on Product Variety and Sales Concentration Patterns,” Information Systems Research 21 (4, 2010): 736–47. 14 The term “business model” has been ill-defined despite its increas ing popularity among business studies researchers and scholars. To fully examine and di scuss various usages of the term is beyond the scope of this article. The defi nition I use in this article follows the discussion in David J. Teece, “Business M odels, Business Strategy and Innovation,” Long Range Planning 43 (2010): 172–94. 15 Vasco Eiriz and Filipe Pinto Leite, “The Digital Distribution of Musi c and Its Impact on the Business Models of Independent Musicians,” The Service Industries Journal 37 (13–14, 2017): 875–95.16 Patrik Wilkstr öm, “The Adaptive Behavior of Music Firms: A Music Industry Feedback Model,” Journal of Media Business Studies 6 (2, 2009): 67–96. 17 Tom Evens, “Value Networks and Changing Business Models for the Digit al Television Industry,” The Journal of Media Business Studies 7 (4, 2010): 41–58. Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 83 18 Nicola Searle, Changing Business Models in the Creative Industries: The Cases of Television, Computer Games and Music . Report commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (UK). London: IPO, 2011.19 Christoph Zott, Raphael Amit, and Lorenzo Massa, “The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research,” Journal of Management 37 (4, 2011): 1019–42.20 Nobuko Kawashima, “Film Policy in Japan—An Isolated Species on the Verge of Extinction?” International Journal of Cultural Policy 22 (5, 2016): 787–804. 21 Michael Curtin, “Media Capital: Towards the Study of Spatial Flows,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (2, 2003): 202–28. 22 Thomas Hess, “What Is a Media Company? A Reconceptualization for the Online World,” The International Journal on Media Management 16 (2014): 3–8. 23 Nancy K. Baym, “The Swedish Model: Balancing Markets and Gifts in the Music Industry,” Popular Communication 9 (2011): 22–38. 24 Paul G. Oliver, “The DIY Artist: Issues of Sustainability within Loca l Music Scenes,” Management Decision 48 (9, 2010): 1422–32. 25 Daniel A. Walzer, “Independent Music Production: How Individuality, T echnology and Creative Entrepreneurship Influence Contemporary Music Industry Prac tices,” Creative Industries Journal 10 (1, 2017): 21–39. 26 The changing nature of fandom in the digital economy has been debated in fandom studies (see Pearson 2010).27 Jim Rogers and Sergio Sparviero, “Understanding Innovation in Communi cation Industries through Alternative Economic Theories: The Case of the Music Industry,” The International Communication Gazette 73 (7, 2011): 610–29. 28 Hwanho Choi and Bernard Burnes, “The Internet and Value Co-Creation: The Case of the Popular Music Industry,” Prometheus 31 (1, 2013): 35–53. 29 Patryk Galuszka, “New Economy of Fandom,” Popular Music and Society 38 (1, 2015): 25–43.30 Jeremy Wade Morris, “Artists as Entrepreneurs, Fans as Workers,” Popular Music and Society 37 (3, 2014): 273–90. 31 There is also a concern that royalty payments made from streaming servic es to art – ists are too small (Lee Marshall, “‘Let’s Keep Music Special. F—Spotify’: On-Demand Streaming and the Controversy Over Artist Royalties,” Creative Industries Journal 8 (2, 2015): 177–89.32 Patryk Galuszka, “Music Aggregators and Intermediation of the Digital Music Market,” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 254–73. 33 David Arditi, “iTunes: Breaking Barriers and Building Walls,” Popular Music and Society 37 (4, 2014): 408–24. 34 Leslie M. Meier, Popular Music as Promotion. Music and Branding in the Digital Age (Cambridge: Polity, 2017).35 Zack O’Malley Greenburg, “The World’s Highest-Paid Musicians of 2015,” Forbes , December 8, 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreen burg/2015/12/08/the-worlds-highest-paid-musicians-of-2015/#7127e2611a22 (accessed August 15, 2019). Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 84 36 Lee Marshall, ‘The 360 Deal and the “New’ Music Industry,” European Journal of Cultural Studies 16 (1, 2012): 77–99. 37 David W. Marx, “The Jimusho System: Understanding the Production Logic of the Japanese Entertainment Industry,” in Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , ed. Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin (Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac millan, 2012), 35–55.38 Sumiko Asai, “Firm Organisation and Marketing Strategy in the Japanes e Music Industry,” Popular Music 27 (3, 2008): 473–85. 39 Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin, “Introduction: The Mirror o f Idols and Celebrity,” in Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , ed. Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 1–32.40 Tim Craig, Cool Japan—Case Studies from Japan’s Cultural and Creative Industries (Boulder, CO: Blue Sky Publishing, 2017).41 Record Industry Association of Japan. https://www.riaj.or.jp/True/?reque stLocale = en (accessed August 15, 2019).42 IFPI. Global Statistic, 2019. https://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php (accessed August 15, 2019).43 Nobuko Kawashima, “Advertising Agencies, Media and Consumer Market: T he Changing Quality of TV Advertising in Japan,” Media, Culture and Society 28 (3, 2006): 393–410.44 Jason G. Karlin, “Through a Looking Glass Darkly: Television Advertis ing, Idols, and the Making of Fan Audiences,” in Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , ed. Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).45 Lucy Glasspool, “From Boys Next Door to Boys’ Love: Gender Perform ance in Japanese Male Idol Media,” in Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , ed. Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmill an, 2012), 113–30.46 Mark Fox and Bruce Wrenn, “A Broadcasting Model for the Music Industr y,” The International Journal of Media Management 3 (2, 2001): 112–19. 47 Ingyu Oh and Gil-Sung Park, “From B2 C to B2B: Selling Korean Pop Mus ic in the Age of New Social Media,” Korea Observer 433, 2012): 365–97. 48 Christina Alaimo and Jannis Kallinikos, “Computer the Everyday: Social Media as Data Platforms,” The Information Society 33 (4, 2017): 175–91. 49 Jens-Erik Mal, “Big Data Privacy: The Datafication of Personal Inform ation,” The Information Society 32 (3, 2016): 192–99. 50 Jose van Dijck, The Culture of Connectivity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 51 Rowan Wilken, “Places Nearby: Facebook as a Location-based Social Med ia Platform,” New Media & Society 16 (7, 2014): 1087–1103. 52 Lucy Küng, Innovators in Digital News (London: I.B. Tauris, 2015). 53 Tom Evens, Tim Raats, and M. Bjørn von Rimscha, “Business Model Innovation in News Media Organisations—2018 Special Issue of the European Media Man agement Association,” Journal of Media Business Studies 14 (3, 2017): 167–72. 54 Dentsu, Jouhou Medhia Hakusho [White Paper on Information and Media] (Tokyo, Japan: Diamond Publishing, 2019). (in Japanese) Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 85 55 According to data from the Nihon Shinbun Kyokai (Japan Association of N ewspaper Publishers), Japan published 381.4 copies per 1,000 adults in 2017, the highest num – ber in the world, followed by Germany (201.5 copies) and the Netherlands (174.3 copies).56 Circulations declined from 53.7 million copies in 2000 to 39.9 million i n 2008 for general newspapers and “sports newspapers” (similar to tabloi ds in the West) combined.57 Mikko Villi and Kaori Hayashi, “‘The Mission is to Keep This Industry Intact’ Digital Transition in the Japanese Newspaper Industry,” Journalism Studies 18 (8, 2017): 960–77. 58 Nikkei, Online Edition Media Guide and Specifications. 2019, https://ps. nikkei .co.jp/adweb/english/download/?_ga=2.42720165.1898436580.1565598016- 749819087.1550632120 (accessed August 11, 2019).59 OECD, Data-Driven Innovation: Big data for growth and well-being (Paris: OECD, 2017). 60 David Hesmondhalgh and Leslie M. Meier, “What the Digitalisation of M usic Tells Us about Capitalism, Culture and the Power of the Information Technology Sector,” Information, Communication and Society 21 (11, 2018): 1555–70. 61 Nick Srnicek, Platform Capitalism (Cambridge: Polity, 2016). Bibliography Alaimo, Christina, and Jannis Kallinikos. “Computer the Everyday: Soc ial Media as Data Platforms.” The Information Society 33, no. 4 (2017): 175–91. Arditi, David. “iTunes: Breaking Barriers and Building Walls.” Popular Music and Society 37, no. 4 (2014): 408–24. Asai, Sumiko. “Firm Organisation and Marketing Strategy in the Japane se Music Industry.” Popular Music 27, no. 3 (2008): 473–85. Baym, Nancy K. “The Swedish Model: Balancing Markets and Gifts in the Music Industry.” Popular Communication 9 (2011): 22–38. Benghozi, Pierre-Jean, and Françoise Benhamou. “The Long Tail: Myt h or Reality?” International Journal of Arts Management 12, no. 3 (2010): 43–53. Bilton, Chris. The Disappearing Product . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017. Bird, Elizabeth. “‘Are We All Produsers Now?’ Convergence and M edia Audience Practices.” Cultural Studies 25, no. 4–5 (2011): 502–16. Brynjolfsson, Erik, Yu Hu, and Michael D. Smith. “Long Tails vs. Supe rstars: The Effect of Information Technology on Product Variety and Sales Concentration Patter ns.” Information Systems Research 21, no. 4 (2010): 736–47. Choi, Hwanho, and Bernard Burnes. “The Internet and Value Co-Creation : The Case of the Popular Music Industry.” Prometheus 31, no. 1 (2013): 35–53. Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 86 Craig, Tim. Cool Japan—Case Studies from Japan’s Cultural and Creative Industr ies . Boulder, CO: Blue Sky Publishing, 2017. Curtin, Michael. “Media Capital: Towards the Study of Spatial Flows.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6, no. 2 (2003): 202–28. Dentsu. Jouhou Medhia Hakusho [White Paper on Information and Media]. Tokyo, Japan: Diamond Publishing, 2019. (in Japanese) Eiriz, Vasco, and Filipe Pinto Leite. “The Digital Distribution of Music and Its Impact on the Business Models of Independent Musicians.” The Service Industries Journal 37, no. 13–14 (2017): 875–95. Evens, Tom. “Value Networks and Changing Business Models for the Digi tal Television Industry.” The Journal of Media Business Studies 7, no. 4 (2010): 41–58. Evens, Tom, Tim Raats, and M. Bjørn von Rimscha. “Business Model I nnovation in News Media Organisations—2018 Special Issue of the European Media Management Ass ociation.” Journal of Media Business Studies 14, no. 3 (2017): 167–72. Fox, Mark, and Bruce Wrenn. “A Broadcasting Model for the Music Indus try.” The International Journal of Media Management 3, no. 2 (2001): 112–19. Franklin, Bob. “The Future of Journalism: In an Age of Digital Media and Economic Uncertainty.” Journalism Practice 8, no. 5 (2014): 469–87. Galbraith, Patrick W., and Jason G. Karlin. “Introduction: The Mirror of Idols and Celebrity.” In Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , edited by Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin, 1–32. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Galuszka, Patryk. “Music Aggregators and Intermediation of the Digita l Music Market.” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015a): 254–73. Galuszka, Patryk. “New Economy of Fandom.” Popular Music and Society 38, no. 1 (2015b): 25–43. Gerlitz, Carolin, and Anne Helmond. “The Like Economy: Social Buttons and the Data- Intensive Web.” New Media & Society 15, no. 8 (2013): 1348–65. Glasspool, Lucy. “From Boys Next Door to Boys’ Love: Gender Perfor mance in Japanese Male Idol Media.” In Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , edited by Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin, 113–30. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmilla n, 2012. Greenburg, Zack O’Malley. “The World’s Highest-Paid Musicians o f 2015.” Forbes , December 8, 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2015/12/08/th e- worlds-highest-paid-musicians-of-2015/#7127e2611a22 (accessed August 15 , 2019). Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries , 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2019. Hesmondhalgh, David, and Leslie M. Meier. “What the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us about Capitalism, Culture and the Power of the Information Technology Sector.” Information, Communication and Society 21, no. 11 (2018): 1555–70. Hess, Thomas. “What Is a Media Company? A Reconceptualization for the Online World.” The International Journal on Media Management 16 (2014): 3–8. IFPI. Global Statistic, 2019. https://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php ( accessed August 15, 2019). Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 87 Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture . New York: New York University Press, 2007. Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media . New York: New York University Press, 2013. Kawashima, Nobuko. “Advertising Agencies, Media and Consumer Market: The Changing Quality of TV Advertising in Japan.” Media, Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (2006): 393–410. Kawashima, Nobuko. “Film Policy in Japan—An Isolated Species on th e Verge of Extinction?” International Journal of Cultural Policy 22, no. 5 (2016): 787–804. Kawashima, Nobuko. “The Rise of User Creativity—Web 2.0 and a New Challenge for Copyright Law and Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 16, no. 3 (2010): 337–53. Küng, Lucy. Innovators in Digital News . London: I.B. Tauris, 2015. Liebowitz, Stan J. “File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?” The Journal of Law and Economics 49, no. 1 (2006): 1–28. Mal, Jens-Erik. “Big Data Privacy: The Datafication of Personal Infor mation.” The Information Society 32, no. 3 (2016): 192–99. Marshall, Lee. “The 360 Deal and the ‘New’ Music Industry.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 16, no. 1 (2012): 77–99. Marshall, Lee. “‘Let’s Keep Music Special. F—Spotify’: On -Demand Streaming and the Controversy over Artist Royalties.” Creative Industries Journal 8, no. 2 (2015): 177–89. Marx, David W. “The Jimusho System: Understanding the Production Logic of the Japanese Entertainment Industry.” In Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture , edited by Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin, 35–55. Basingstoke: Palgrav e Macmillan, 2012. Meier, Leslie M. Popular Music as Promotion. Music and Branding in the Digital Age . Cambridge: Polity, 2017. Morris, Jeremy Wade. “Artists as Entrepreneurs, Fans as Workers.” Popular Music and Society 37, no. 3 (2014): 273–90. Newman, John M. “Copyright Freeconomics.” Vanderbilt Law Review 66 (2013): 1409–69. Nikkei. Online Edition Media Guide and Specifications. 2019. https://ps. nikkei.co.jp/adweb/ english/download/?_ga=2.42720165.1898436580.1565598016-749819087.1550632 120 (accessed August 11, 2019). OECD. Data-Driven Innovation: Big data for growth and well-being . Paris: OECD, 2017. Oh, Ingyu, and Gil-Sung Park. “From B2C to B2B: Selling Korean Pop Mu sic in the Age of New Social Media.” Korea Observer 43, no. 3(2012): 365–97. Oliver, Paul G. “The DIY Artist: Issues of Sustainability within Loca l Music Scenes.” Management Decision 48, no. 9 (2010): 1422–32. Pearson, Roberta. “Fandom in the Digital Era.” Popular Communication 8 (2010): 84–93. Picard, Robert G. “Twilight or New Dawn of Journalism? Evidence from the Changing News Ecosystem.” Journalism Practice 8, no. 5 (2014): 488–98. Media Industries 7.1 (2020) 88 Record Industry Association of Japan. https://www.riaj.or.jp/e/?requestL ocale=en (accessed August 15, 2019). Rogers, Jim, and Sergio Sparviero. “Understanding Innovation in Commu nication Industries through Alternative Economic Theories: The Case of the Music Industry.” The International Communication Gazette 73, no. 7 (2011): 610–29. Searle, Nicola. Changing Business Models in the Creative Industries: The Cases of Televi sion, Computer Games and Music . Report commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (UK). London: IPO, 2011. Srnicek, Nick. Platform Capitalism . Cambridge: Polity, 2016. van Dijck, Jose. The Culture of Connectivity . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Villi, Mikko, and Kaori Hayashi. “‘The Mission is to Keep This Ind ustry Intact’ Digital Transition in the Japanese Newspaper Industry.” Journalism Studies 18, no. 8 (2017): 960–77. Walzer, Daniel A. “Independent Music Production: How Individuality, Technology and Creative Entrepreneurship Influence Contemporary Music Industry Practice s.” Creative Industries Journal 10, no. 1 (2017): 21–39. Wilken, Rowan. “Places Nearby: Facebook as a Location-based Social Media Platform.” New Media & Society 16, no. 7 (2014): 1087–1103. Wilkstr öm, Patrik. “The Adaptive Behavior of Music Firms: A Music Industry Fe edback Model.” Journal of Media Business Studies 6, no. 2 (2009): 67–96. Wlömert, Nils, and Dominik Papies. “On-Demand Streaming Services and Music Industry Revenues—Insights from Spotify’s Market Entry.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 33 (2016): 314–27. Zott, Christoph, Raphael Amit, and Lorenzo Massa. “The Business Model : Recent Developments and Future Research.” Journal of Management 37, no. 4 (2011): 1019–42. Media Industries 7.1 (2020)