Encuestas aplicadas a docentes, estudiantes, trabajadores y personal

The task of the above review is not to comment on the regulatory issues,18 but rather to demonstrate, firstly, that the evolving and complex regulatory, economic, cultural and technological conditions have triggered the transformation of ‘media industry’ into the ‘audiovisual sector’. Secondly, the fact that the definition of this sector is still the subject of ongoing debates underlines some implications/consensus which are relevant to this study.

One consensus reached in regards to the discussions on the AVS is the phenomenon of ‘technological convergence’ or ‘media convergence’19 (Seabright and Hagen 2007; Hesmondhalgh 2007; Dewdney and Ride 2006; Alexander et al. 2004; Nihoul 2004). Studies have established that rapid industrial restructuring since the 1990s, driven by a combination of technological and consequent regulatory changes, has resulted in a wave of consolidations and expansion of ‘media empires’ (Doyle 2002; Millers et al 2001; Greco 2000). Meanwhile,

17 The ‘Challenge 2008’ Six-Year National Development Plan, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, 2002. The plan was formulated as a comprehensive six-year national development plan as the latest effort to foster the creativity and talent with the overall investment of NT$2.6 trillion (approximately US$75 billion)

18 The regulatory debates concerning the industrial policies, competition policy, media ownership and licensing regulations, and especially whether the competition regulation might not be the remedy for all of media market structuring and market troubles (Hope, 2007; Sawyer, 2005; Doyle, 2002 ), lies beyond the scope of this research, yet they underlines the fact of the increasingly complexity in the industry structuring issues of the AVS.

19 Even the concept of ‘convergence’ is not straightforward. According to (Chon et al 2003), many scholars define convergence as the process of technological integration (Danowski and Choi 1998; Pavlik 1998; Fidler 1997) or as the destruction of regulatory boundaries between sectors of an economy (see OECD working chapter by Kang and Johansson 2000). The European Investment Bank AVS Report (2001) defines convergence as a combined evolution of the computer, telecommunication and AVS, meaning that providers of communication systems can deliver products and services that compete with products and services now delivered by other networks.

increasing competition has caused growing market uncertainty, and hence the downward operational pressure on major media firms (Doyle 2002; Picard 1996). Such a development has required them to adapt their business models accordingly, and triggered an increase in cross-sector production, distribution and interdependent relationships (Seabright and Hagen 2007; Dewdney and Ride 2006; Nihoul 2004; Doyle 2002; Stokes1999).

The second point of consensus in the literature is that the film and television industries remain the core of the AVS. Although there is not yet a fixed definition for the AVS, the various proposed definitions nonetheless refer to the two key industries. In other words, despite the increasing weight given to new forms of media, it is clear that the majority of public and private sector interventions are directed to the film and television industries. While boundary-setting between the audiovisual productions of television and film is also increasingly difficult (British Screen Advisory Council 2005), due to the convergence progresses noted above, the contrasting economic and cultural values associated with them lies beyond the scope of this research. Nevertheless it is evident that television and film industries dominate consumer perceptions of media content, and account for an ever-larger share of the audiovisual market (EC 2007; Muller 2004; EIB 2004).

The third point of consensus is the importance of content production. Superficially, the term ‘audiovisual’ suggests that at the core of its meaning are its ‘audio’ and ‘visual’ elements. These elements constitute the ‘content’ which makes production economically and culturally significant (Mueller 2004; OECD 1998). In other words, the term ‘audiovisual’ implies greater emphasis on content, including the

production and exploitation of content, than terms like ‘broadcasting’, ‘communication’, ‘telecommunication’ and ‘information’ industries. The proliferation of channels, again, highlights the increasing demand for content, and hence the significance of the production sector which is upstream of them, as the point where the economic and cultural potential of the content is determined. Independent production, in particular, has been acknowledged as representing the distinctive, cultural aspect of the AVS, and the driving force for the creative economy. Therefore, it should be safeguarded accordingly (EC 2007; BASC 2005; Cottle 2003; Puttnam and Watson1997).

Finally, the increasing complexity of networking and cooperation within the AVS is evident. Media convergence has dismantled the boundaries between media markets, and changed the patterns of production, distribution and consumption of audiovisual content. Such industry restructuring profoundly changes the traditional media industry due to the emergence of new modes of exploiting works

(Mueller 2004; EC 2000; Andersen 1996; Albarran and Dimmick 1996). As a

result, issues surrounding the collection, coordination and allocation of resources in production have become increasingly intricate in multi-party collaborations and are being introduced to the content producers, who are the original creators of screen content.

On the basis of the discussions above, the definition of ‘audiovisual sector’ employed in this study broadly refers to the sector centering on television and film industries and other related businesses concerned with producing or exploiting film and television content. Correspondingly, my use of the term ‘cross-industry

network’ within the AVS, as used throughout this study, is intended to indicate the hybrid nature of the sector, by referring to the business relationships radiating from the core of TV/film productions into other related yet separate industry sectors, for example book publishing, music recording, DVD distribution, multimedia, telecommunications etc. rather than to business relationships within the TV / film production sector. In other words, in this research, the focus of networking starts with the TV and film productions and looks outwards to their networking behaviors with other content-related, yet different industries.

Given the above understanding of the characteristics of the AVS, in the following section, I will look into the literatures concerning the networks of the creative and media sector. In so doing, I will suggest a change in the analytical approach to understanding the CIN phenomenon of the AVS and propose the independent production sector as an appropriate empirical context for this purpose.