Apathetic Entertainment; the impact of corporate culture on non-broadcast media distribution.

The Prentice Hall Encyclopedia of Business Terms defines Corporate Culture as:

“The philosophy, values, behaviors, dress codes, etc., that together constitute the unique style and policies of a company. Corporate-culture is everything that affects the company, it is the company's unique "style", or "the way we do things around here".

Associate Professor in the School of Media Arts, The University of Arizona, author Barbara Selznick writes in June 2008's Global Television: Co-Producing Culture that the particular processes by which the international circulation of culture takes place, while addressing larger cultural issues such as identity formation. She considers how this mode of production-as a means by which transnational television is created-has economic rewards and cultural benefits as well as drawbacks. Selznick indicates that while the style, narrative, themes and ideologies may be interesting, corporate capitalism ultimately impacts these programs in significant ways.

Another recent publication, Corporate Assault on Youth: Commercialism, Exploitation, and the End of Innocence, Deron Boyles examines childhood as a social construction increasingly influenced by corporations and commercialism. Through case studies, critical analysis, and historical/philosophical research, the essays collected here expose the degree to which children are unwitting targets of brand marketing. This is also expertly illustrated in the recent blog post by Aaron Smith: The 39 Clues: The Future of Children’s Stories?

Finally, in what I would consider a must read, Denise Mann’s June 2008 Hollywood Independents: The Postwar Talent Takeover. Hollywood Independents explores the crucial period from 1948 to 1962 when independent film producers first became key components of the modern corporate entertainment industry. Denise Mann examines the impact of the radically changed filmmaking climate—the decline of the studios, the rise of television, and the rise of potent talent agencies like MCA—on a group of prominent talent-turned-producers including Burt Lancaster, Joseph Mankiewicz, Elia Kazan, and Billy Wilder

This period saw the evolution of film production from the studio-governed system to one of entrepreneurs. Out of this new arrangement, which encouraged greater creative freedom, emerged a nascent form of independent art cinema that sowed the seeds of the Hollywood Renaissance that followed. Specifically this illustrates the similarities between that period to the current environment where the Independent is the king of non-broadcast media and the ‘studios’ lack of adaption has severe consequences.

As previously posted the negative impact that the web series Gemini Division has suffered at the hands of NBC Universal Digital Studios adequately demonstrates that the multinational corporations distributing our entertainment have lost touch with the spirit of that entertainment. Additionally illustrated in the panel video that Tim posted, the corporate studios are unable to grasp the impact of their ham-handed handling of this new media type.

As Dan Rather succiently explains in the following video, broadcasting is no longer the realm of true entertainers or reporters, it has been relegated to a line item on a balance sheet managed by accountants in a corporate conglomeration where the bottom line and share holder returns are the driving meaning of life.

That these people do not understand that they are creating their own downfall by ensuring the apathy and disillusionment of their customer [the viewer] explains new properties like “Hole in the Wall.” Waiting years between the publish dates of our favorite book series it may be better for all of us to boycott entertainment and purchase the DVDs.

Mr. Rather sums it up: