Abstract
Globalization, deregulation, technological innovation and the convergence of previously separated industries such as media, entertainment, information, and consumer electronics industries, have changed the media landscape into a turbulent environment. As a consequence of these developments, many media firms are experiencing severe challenges, as content proliferates, audiences change behaviors, advertising revenue erodes, and new competitors emerge. Media firms operating in this rapidly changing environment have to make adequate adaptations to these fast moving changes and respond quickly to create or to sustain their competitive advantage. They are generally confronted with the fact that existing resources and capabilities are no longer sufficient to deal with the new demands and requirements (Oh, Telecommunications Policy 20(9): 713–720, 1996). In order to adjust to the new environment, the media companies need to obtain, integrate, and reconfigure resources and capabilities in order to adjust to the new environment.
Creating social, ecological and financial values for stakeholders is the key to long-term survival. This requires new concepts, new idea and new managerial approaches. Two important questions that arise are what kind of business model do they need to create multiple values, and how should the company transform its old business model into a new model. In this chapter, we will attempt to contribute to the creation of multiple values by media companies. In the next section, we present the main characteristics of the old and the new business models for the media companies. In the following section, we will discuss the main corporate social responsibility (CSR) challenges that media companies face when they become a network organization. The closing section presents some conclusions that can be drawn from this contribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aaker, D. A. (2009). Spanning silos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of the distributor’s firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42–58.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free Press.
Day, G. S. (1995). Advantageous alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 297–300.
Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 54–70.
Geoffrion, A. M., & Krishnan, R. (2003). E-business and management science: Mutual impacts (part 1 of 2). Management Science, 49(10), 1275–1286.
Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.
Haeckel, S. H. (1999). Winning in smart markets. Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 7–8.
Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2009). The big shift measuring the forces of change. Harvard Business Review, 87(7–8), 86–89.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational-change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2007). Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 981–1000.
Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 324–340.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). Mastering the management system. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 62–77.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation – The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158.
Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.
Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). 1st-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41–58.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–78.
Mitchell, W., & Singh, K. (1993). Detach of the lethargic – Effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firm base business. Organization Science, 4(2), 152–180.
Moore, G. (2006). Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every state of their evolution. New York: Penguin Portfolio.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organisation. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
Oh, J. (1996). Global strategic alliances in the telecommunications industry. Telecommunications Policy, 20(9), 713–720.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers (Wiley Desktop Editions Series). New York: Wiley.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper.
Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595–623.
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 448–461.
Teece, D. J. (1993). The dynamics of industrial capitalism: Perspectives on Alfred Chandler’s scale and scope. Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 199–225.
Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Van Kranenburg, H. L., Clood, M., & Hagedoorn, J. (2001). An exploratory study of recent trends in the diversification of Dutch publishing companies in the multimedia and information industries. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31(1), 64–86.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.
Winter, S. G. (2005). On fitness and the survival of the fittest. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
Ziggers, G. W., & Tjemkes, B. V. (2010). Dynamics in inter-firm collaboration: The impact of alliance capabilities on performance. Journal of Food System Dynamics, 1(2), 151–166.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Kranenburg, H., Ziggers, G.W. (2013). How Media Companies Should Create Value: Innovation Centered Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities. In: Friedrichsen, M., Mühl-Benninghaus, W. (eds) Handbook of Social Media Management. Media Business and Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28897-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28897-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28896-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28897-5
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)