11. Neem bijvoorbeeld de digitalisering, en wat voor invloed dat heeft gehad. Dan moet je als bedrijf natuurlijk ook bijblijven. Zijn jullie je meer intern gaan specialiseren of toch meer naar buiten toe, met andere partijen samen gaan werken?
Weet ik niet zo goed, dat hele aspect. Ik monitor zelf wat er in de markt gebeurt, penetratie van digitale televisie, je houdt de nieuwsberichten in de gaten. Maar als het gaat om het opleiden van personeel en digitalisering, dat Media Center is eigenlijk een verhaal apart. Dat is het operationele gedeelte van onze televisie. Wat onszelf betreft ligt er niet ergens sterk een focus op het bijhouden van en opleiden van de eigen werknemers. Sales krijgt natuurlijk wel de nodige sales training, voor de rest is iedereen heel erg bezig met zijn eigen ding. Finance doet finance dingen, die hebben verder niks te maken met de digitalisering van de televisie maar die moeten zorgen dat de rekeningen betaald worden. HR wil de werknemers gelukkig houden, die is daarop gericht. Sales wil verkopen. Ik kan niet zeggen hoe die invloed hier in het algemeen op is geweest, het is voor iedere afdeling intern geregeld. De systemen waar ik mee werk heb ik van mijn voorgangster geleerd. Er is dus geen specifiek opleidingstraject binnen het bedrijf, daar ligt geen focus op.
In the questionnaire online it is however noted that networking on external sectors plays its part, and maintaining these type of network relations even more:
Vraag 13
Ik netwerk vooral op sectoren die anders zijn dan de onze en eventuele verschillen leveren juist iets extra's op (95) Ik creëer een vertrouwensband met mijn relaties en vind netwerken dan ook een kwestie van geven en nemen. Afspraken met mijn relaties kom ik altijd na (215)
I suggested a second interview or at least a comment on the remaining question. The interviewee was still resistant to provide extra information on the subject matter: ‘I do not understand the question, I think I have answered everything already. For me it does not become clear what exactly you want to know, but when it comes to collaborating with external network partners I do not have any other knowledge than we have discussed in the interview already’.
A discussion section is added next to look at what this secrecy could imply for both Viacom and the other multimedia firms of analysis, the appropriability of theory and the way results match or mismatch. The conclusion is further set up to cohere the result and discussion findings into a unified statement regarding the main research question and specifically; the propositions.
6. Discussion
Before drawing conclusions from the results found, I must notify the reasoning behind Viacom’s representativeness as a case study, and hurdles I found in analyzing the results. Thus, this chapter is set up to provide relevant points left for discussion regarding the results, as well as their relation to theory and theoretical assumptions. Furthermore, the outcome of this research section not only adds valuable information to Viacom’s analysis, other companies are connected to the findings as well.
Critically looking into theoretical assumptions made and results found for this case study, it is worthy of noting precisely how the thesis propositions hold for all companies relevant. It is in my interest to answer in what way technological convergence has affected organizational forms in the multimedia industry. As indicated in the introduction, with multimedia industry I mainly take TV, Internet and Communication related firms as examples. However, my definition of multimedia industry as discussed in theory is broader: ‘The industry of creation and distribution of digital content, which at least includes the combination of two elements out of video, audio or text contents.’ Defining multimedia this way, Film, Music and other entertainment fields are still part of the analysis. In my defence and including Lei’s diamond figure of multimedia arenas representing firms subject to digitalization (Appendix figure 1), media firms in this area of business are always connected to different network partners (Lei, 2000; Zollo et al., 2002). Not one of them shows signs of complete solitude in operating, as would be unrealistic considering digital distribution demands firms to expand their relationship web (van Tulder and Junne, 1988).
Literature further divided Viacom in the same category of multimedia market leaders in (North) America (Lei, 2000). Similar to the rest, it is a high-tech multimedia entertainment company. Literature also suggests Viacom to be a network type of organization, more than a hierarchical or market typography (Sydow, 1998). Furthermore, in technological respect there is the communal digitalization of Television and Internet. Recent reorganizations in Viacom Europe indicated possible network expansion due to this digitalization (Appendix figure 6). Referring to methodology, what Viacom adds in case study richness is the interesting paradox of a company part of the conglomeration of media firms, while operating strong practices within the company - possibly working against total convergence of unified multimedia industry. The internal vs. external focus and the balance between creativity and control shows high implications for categorizing an organization type (hierarchy, market, network), which makes the firm perfectly suitable for case study analysis in this thesis.
That last statement strongly concerns all media giants as it is an ongoing debate whether or not to focus externally or internally, and to what extent (Sammarra and Biggiero, 2008). As should be clear, all multimedia firms are subject to the six proposed dilemma’s Viacom faces regarding networking and finding the proper resources to survive. Where the emphasis lies mainly depends on management, choices and the degree to which the company sets its own innovations open to the rest of the market. Viacom can therefore easily substitute a company as Disney or Time Warner, as it is not only globally present, the extent to which it must network and find external sources for its operations is crucial in similar fashion. Previous literature in combination with my extended research shows Disney and Viacom to both be leaders in creativity, as well as in market regulations such as costs
and customer response (Woodruff, 2011). Nevertheless Viacom is most of all, and just as true for every other media giant mentioned, subject to digitalization and dependent on external relations (Lei, 2000; Roder, 2007).
I must however stress that Viacom’s employees share highly protective values regarding their strategy towards external collaborations. This becomes interesting when one reminds himself Viacom is supposedly an open and international type of network, in which knowledge is shared among network partners9. Why then would one not discuss freely about this and explain the reasoning behind choice in partners? Furthermore, the existence of the intra-organizational network is debatable (Appendix figure 6b). As theory suggested, social capital and network capital are a combined source of the inter-organizational network. If Viacom were to be (only) an intra-operational firm, it would not score such high results on content. It takes massive investments to capture new forms of internet-based technologies and keep evolving as a market leader. As was mentioned in the online questionnaire, the interview and literature (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Ghoshal, 1990; Grandori, 1997; Ebers, 1997; Pfeffer, 2003), such resources are found through other parties. The secrecy around the subject matter only adds to my expectation that Viacom is indeed in the middle of the adjustment process of digitalization and possibly worries to give away critical information. The Northern European affiliates were recently set up to gain more market share and deliver better content to Viacom’s customers, improving the company’s interactive structure. If intra-organizational was the structural set-up for multimedia firms like Viacom, management would have skipped entering that much network capital into the corporation and focus less on firm expansions (Huggins et al, 2012).
Yet, Viacom’s withholdings on external collaborations do not necessarily indicate the firm to be more secretive then the rest of the multimedia giants. Considering none of them were up to any type of interview or questionnaire, it puts Viacom in a brighter light. Apart from this, the relevance of digitalization and its impact on today’s multimedia business is a concept directly connected to a firm’s business strategy, its ability to survive and dependability on partners (Sydow, 1998), which is a sensitive subject after all. As competition was stated to be the number hurdle convergence brings to this industry, it seems obvious to assume that relationships are of essence to these firms, and no firm would want to lose such valuable assets by giving away too much information.
7. Conclusion
This part of the paper summarizes the main findings, based on literature and results obtained through case study research. Industry and main companies have been discussed in the contextual part, theoretical findings suggested six propositions to hold on organizational level, and results were added to find evidence for this. In the conclusion I will try to answer the main research question, and to what extent the propositions are true or false. As a reminder, the problem to be solved was how technological convergence has had an impact on organizational form in the multimedia industry, and the possible contribution to the network organizational form. Propositions will be discussed first, and why they do or do not hold specifically. A plus at the end indicates strong findings to support the statement, a minus the contrary.