Figure 17: Connecting the five main attribute categories (TV Inc)
The foundation of TV Inc’s identity was the programmes that it produced (Product/Service). Respondents clearly explained that these programmes were produced for the sake of making money – not simply for the sake of entertainment. However, they also argued that TV Inc had become successful by producing highly creative and controversial programmes ‘that no other company would make.’ The willingness and ability to make these programmes was unique to TV Inc, and respondents claimed that the organisation was planning to continue making these sorts of programmes in the future. Therefore, the most influential dimension of TV Inc’s identity was not its desire to make money, but the distinctive characteristics of the programmes that enabled it to do so.
Influence of TV Inc’s Programming Output
Respondents explicitly connected TV Inc’s programming output to three of the four remaining attribute categories: Organisation, Reputation, and Employment. First, respondents made a direct connection between the success of TV Inc’s programmes and the success of the organisation as a whole (link 1). For example, one respondent explained that TV Inc ‘creates loads of successful TV shows and looks set to have a great future.’ Others did not make even an explicit distinction between them. For example, another respondent simply stated that ‘TV Inc is Entertainment, with a track record in global hits.’ Second, respondents acknowledged that the character of the programmes produced by TV Inc had influenced the Reputation of the organisation as a whole (link 2). For example, respondents felt that the organisation was often ‘criticized for producing lowest common denominator programming’. Finally, respondents felt that the programmes being produced at TV Inc made it a fun place to work (‘fun – because of its programming output’) (Link 3).
Attribute Categories that Influenced TV Inc’s Programming Output
Respondents mentioned two categories of attribute that could or did influence the organisation’s programming output: Organisation and Stakeholder Relations.
Link 4
Because TV Inc had an unequivocally commercial outlook, respondents felt that it was driven to make programmes that would yield a profit for the organisation (‘a business – does not make TV for entertainment sake but for money’). This commercial outlook, combined with the organisation’s high tolerance for risk, was inextricably linked to the bold and controversial nature of its programmes; these sorts of programmes had the
‘prepared to take risks, learn from its mistakes,’ and this is why it was able to ‘make programmes that no other company would make.’ However, because the organisation had such a strong commercial outlook, it inevitably prioritized profits over quality. This meant that some of the programmes that TV Inc produced were of a particularly poor quality (‘programmes are made solely because they make money and some of them are very low quality’).
Link 5
Although there was no suggestion that TV Inc actively tried to accommodate the wishes of any particular stakeholder group, respondents acknowledged that certain groups did have the power to influence its production decisions. For example, one respondent explained that TV Inc France had recently been sued by ‘reality contestants who claimed that what they did amounted to work and that they should be paid a wage.’ He went on to explain that this was ‘potential disastrous’ for TV Inc because a ruling in the contestants’ favour would mean that the organisation had to pay out vast sums of money to past contestants, and reality televisions would become ‘incredibly expensive’ to make. Similarly, another respondent described a recent spate of complaints regarding the use of premium rate phone lines as a means for viewers to call in and participate in television programmes; she explained that these complaints had ‘had an impact on TV Inc’s ability to include premium rate lines in its programmes.’ More generally, respondents acknowledged that the interests of external stakeholders could not be ignored, and they described TV Inc as ‘a brand that consumers, employees, and broadcasters have to buy into.’
5.7.2.2 Describing the Five Main Attribute Categories Organisation
Demographics
Respondents described TV Inc as a big organisation, in terms of employment figures (‘big – we employ over 1000 people’) and number of programmes produced (‘big – because it is a large employer in the TV industry and because it makes lots of programmes’). They also claimed that the organisation was well-established (‘established; we’ve been doing what we do a relatively long time for the industry’) and pointed out that it had offices around the world (‘global, with a presence on every continent’).
Organisational Ethos
The ethos of the organisation was described as ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘youthful in terms of ideas, fresh thinking.’ More specifically, respondents felt that the organisation had an overtly commercial outlook (‘very commercial in its outlook’) combined with a tendency toward bold and often controversial ideas (‘values controversial, off-the wall ideas’). Therefore, one respondent argued that the most accurate motto for the organisation would be ‘big ideas, big exposure, big money.’
Organisational Success
Respondents felt that TV Inc defined success in terms of profits (‘it does not make TV for entertainment sake but for money’). They recognized that profits were largely dependent on the popularity of its programmes, and they claimed that the company
‘successful and strong,’ and that it would continue to be so in the future (‘looks set to have a great future’).
Strategic Outlook
Respondents described TV Inc as ‘ambitious’ and ‘financially astute,’ and they felt that the organisation would continue to be successful in the future (‘the future with the company looks bright’).
Management of the Organisation
TV Inc was the only organisation in which respondents did not explicitly mention management or leadership. However, they expressed clear views as to how the organisation functioned; they felt that it was ‘disconnected,’ with ‘not enough communication between certain departments,’ and ‘very unbureaucratic.’ For example one respondent explained that ‘due to the creative environment at TV Inc, rules, procedures, and necessary form filling-in is sometimes ignored’
Employment
Management of Employees
Expectations of Employees
TV Inc was perceived to be a ‘demanding’ place to work. Employees were expected to work hard (‘it is hard work as there is lots to do’ ‘very hard work, long hours'), perform to a high standard (‘they do not suffer fools and will expect you to work hard and communicate’), and use their own initiative (‘alot is expected of you and you’ll simply have to get on with it’). Respondents claimed that the organisation was ‘prepared to
underperformance. For example, one respondents claimed that if a friend of his was considering a job offer from TV Inc, he would tell them that ‘there’s no place for weakness and that pastoral care is almost non-existent. That they’ll use them and bleed them dry’.
Criteria for Career progression
Respondents claimed that it was possible for employees to progress within the company (‘If you work hard and commit yourself to your job you can be successful’). However they disagreed about how this could be accomplished. For example one respondent felt that progression was based on merit (‘it’s a meritocracy’) while another emphasized the importance of networking and self interest (‘In order to get ahead, you need to be the kind of person who can talk the hind legs off a donkey and can drink most people under the table. Ruthlessness and ambition are a must too’). Benefits of Employment
Respondents claimed that TV Inc rewarded its employees well, in terms of pay, training opportunities, and other benefits (‘alot of money is invested in employees both with remuneration and with extra things such as parties’. They also felt that working for TV Inc was ‘interesting,’ ‘fun,’ and ‘exciting,’ and that the credibility gained from having worked for TV Inc would enhance their future career prospects (‘it’s potentially a great spring board to get work elsewhere. Looks good on the CV’).
Work Environment
Respondents claimed that TV Inc offered a ‘great working environment’ that was ‘fun, relaxed, creative’ and ‘filled with laughter.’ Some also described it as ‘busy’ and
Workforce
Respondents described their colleagues as ‘clever and eloquent’, highly committed (‘most employees work hard and do whatever is needed to complete’), creative (‘has lots of creative people working for us’), and ‘not afraid to speak out.’ They also claimed that people working at TV Inc were generally ‘really friendly,’ though they acknowledged that sometimes there was ‘bitchiness around the organisation.’ Finally, respondents felt that TV Inc employed some of ‘the best creative talent and senior commercial people in the business.’ However, because the organisation was generally ‘inflexible for parents,’ almost all senior positions were held by ‘men or women without children or families.’
Product/Service
TV Inc’s programming output was generally perceived to be exceptionally creative (‘ground-breaking creativity, delivered’) controversial (‘our formats do court media controversy’) and commercially successful (‘successful commercial creations’). Respondents also pointed out that the organisation’s programming output was ‘eclectic, with hits in every genre.’ However, they recognized that TV Inc’s emphasis on profitability had lead to the production of some poor quality programmes (‘I think programmes are made solely because they make money and some of them are very low quality’).
Reputation
Respondents described TV Inc’s reputation from two perspectives: the perspective of the general public and the perspective of other organisations in the media industry. They felt that the views of the general public tended to be negative (‘criticized for
success breeds contempt’) and poorly informed (‘people only think we make one programme’). However, they felt that the organisation was respected and envied by other organisations in the media industry (‘envied by its rivals’ ‘the industry respects the work we do and the people who work here’).
Stakeholder Relations
Respondents felt that the TV Inc was keenly aware of how it was seen by various groups (‘Is self-aware of how other people view the brand, positively and negatively’ ‘a brand that consumers, employees, and broadcasters have to buy into’), and of how these groups could influence the organisation’s success. For example, when asked to describe an event that would be troubling to the organisation, one respondent described the potential impact of being required to pay a wage to reality contestants. He explained that TV Inc was ‘recently sued by some reality contestants who claimed that what they did (appeared in a reality TV show) amounted to work and that they should be paid a wage.’ He then went on to say that ‘this is potentially disastrous for TV Inc as it would mean they owed millions of Euros to all past contestants and that reality shows would now become incredibly expensive to make.’
5.8 CONCLUSION
In this chapter I have described the results of six individual case studies. Together, these six cases provide the basis for the comparative case study research design described in Chapter 4. This multiple case study approach was considered appropriate because it was expected to enhance the external validity of the results; while the results of a single case study can provide interesting insights with regard to one organisation, the results of these six strategically chosen cases were expected to provide insights that could be applied to a much wider set of organisations outside the specific context of the study. Therefore, an important aspect of this study was the comparison across cases. The individual case write-ups have been structured to facilitate this comparison, and the results of the comparison are discussed in the following chapter.