Selcan Findikoglu

“Media production is dominated by global institution which sells their products and services to national audiences.” To what extent do you agree with this

statement? The media industry has evolved so much over the centuries. The change has helped the producers to promote their products and services better through their new techniques of distribution and advertisement across the world by their audience. According to my research, internationally, United Kingdom and United States is been selected to be having the biggest percentile for watching TV and films by 28 hours per week. As a media student, this forms two sources of different opinions towards selling products and services nationally or internationally. Major Hollywood studios dominate the film industry; these studios often own companies that cover all aspects of the filmmaking process, which makes the American productions more powerful due to their conglomerate with other mainstream companies. This is an aspect of success for global institution to sell their products nationally because a creative way to promote their film is through synergy and cross- promotion of their work, which results in more intrusive ideas and larger dominance over subsidiary and independent filmmakers. This is because they can collaborate different forms of promotions to sell their products to the audience, whereas, independent films like ‘Monsters’ may not have been able to afford those expenses due to their low budget that’s generally between £500,000 or more. From my research, I’ve discovered that 20th Century Fox’s ‘Avatar’ resulted in the greatest ‘word-of-mouth’ production ever to be made for a big budget film. This has clearly helped the film become more popular by the audience and it became very successful in the film industry. Despite the advantages, there are very crucial disadvantages about selling products and services nationally. Aardman and Universal have a productive relationship through their previous work on ‘Chicken Run, ‘Curse of the Were Rabbit’ and ‘Flushed Away’. Although they did create successful films together, things didn’t always go right for the two converged companies. A British filmmaker may find it difficult in making their film entirely British if it’s financed by an American production company, which places the product into category E. However, their convergence didn’t support the dominant ideology of benefitting the product by selling to other countries because the sponsorship between the companies ended with dissatisfaction. This shows that the synergy between Hollywood and Independent studios may not always be advantageous because one side always dominates the other. Adorno’s beliefs on cultural industry would challenge this essays question because his theory claimed that the cultural industry devalued the meaning of the products that are made in the industry because they are monolithic, omnipresent and capitalist- driven to entertain the audience. Certain British companies may agree to Adorno’s theory because their aim is to reveal realism and raise awareness on prevalent issues. However, todays generation and audience would barely agree with this thought because they are manipulated by

Selcan Findikoglu

the work of media and they are too hard to persuade which is caused by the dominant companies power over persuading the audience more effectively through their representations and advertisements.