How Media Companies Should Create Value: Innovation Centered Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities

  • Hans van KranenburgEmail author
  • Gerrit Willem Ziggers
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)


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.


Business Model Media Company Dynamic Capability Sustainable Competitive Advantage Media Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aaker, D. A. (2009). Spanning silos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Day, G. S. (1995). Advantageous alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Geoffrion, A. M., & Krishnan, R. (2003). E-business and management science: Mutual impacts (part 1 of 2). Management Science, 49(10), 1275–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haeckel, S. H. (1999). Winning in smart markets. Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 7–8.Google Scholar
  17. Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2009). The big shift measuring the forces of change. Harvard Business Review, 87(7–8), 86–89.Google Scholar
  18. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational-change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). Mastering the management system. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 62–77.Google Scholar
  24. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation – The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). 1st-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore, G. (2006). Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every state of their evolution. New York: Penguin Portfolio.Google Scholar
  31. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organisation. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.Google Scholar
  33. Oh, J. (1996). Global strategic alliances in the telecommunications industry. Telecommunications Policy, 20(9), 713–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers (Wiley Desktop Editions Series). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  37. Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teece, D. J. (1993). The dynamics of industrial capitalism: Perspectives on Alfred Chandler’s scale and scope. Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 199–225.Google Scholar
  40. Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Winter, S. G. (2005). On fitness and the survival of the fittest. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nijmegen School of ManagementRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations