Cross Media as Innovation Strategy: Digital Media Challenges in the Danish Broadcasting Corporation

Anja Bechmann Petersen Department of Information and Media Studies Helsingforsgade 14 8200 Aarhus N Denmark anjabp@gmail.com

1. Positioning the study of cross media as innovation strategy The history of public service is closely connected to broadcasting but recommendations on public service address innovation in more areas in the definition of public service (Committee of Ministers 2007).i First and foremost public service should be performed with the use of state-of-the-art technology appropriate for the purpose. This shift from broadcast to state-of the-art technology appropriate (from PSB to PSM see also among others Nissen 2006; Bardoel & Lowe 2007; Jakubowicz 2007; Moe 2007; Leurdijk 2007) forces broadcasters to make new connections to ever changing technologies which primarily so far has been: 1. Digital channels (DAB & DTT) and the Internet as distribution networks 2. Mobile (smart) phones, PMPs, (mp3-players & videopods) and PCs as media platforms. Second the recommendation defines the key elements of public service encompassing among others a sourceof innovatory and varied content which complies with high ethical and quality standards which in the information society according to the recommendation among others means Public service media should play an active role in the technological innovation of the electronic media, as well as in the digital switchover. Public service should in other words both create innovatory content of high quality and play an active role in creating technological innovation in the digital areas which are new to the institutions. As the analysis will show the public service managers see this recommendation as a welcome contribution to the survival of public service but the encounter between new economy and old economy adapting to new economy (with an obligation to innovate) is interesting. How will the public service media cope with these remits? One of the ways is to use the strength of old media to create a bridge to new media in shared content universes, also known as cross media. Cross media in this paper is defined as concepts or media products designed for use in more than one medium platform and the

work activities surrounding this phenomenon (often termed convergence e.g. in newsrooms). Cross media becomes an innovation strategy in itself because it bridges the gap between the old broadcast institution and the new digital market, media, organisation and communication forms. The aim of this paper is to examine cross media to understand the digital and innovative challenges to public service remit and work. The paper will first discuss the definition of innovation and the new economy, second analyse the development of cross media as innovation strategy through a case study of Danish Broadcasting Corporation, and third discuss the challenges to public service remits and work in the light of cross media, new economy and innovation. The paper raises the question of the ability of cross media not just to innovate the old economy (such as broadcasting) but also to innovate the new. 2. Conceptual framing of innovation and the new economy The economist Joseph Schumpeter defines innovation as the carrying out of new combinations (Schumpeter 1983). Innovation is according to Schumpeter closely connected to the circular flow of creative destruction where equilibrium replaces disequilibrium through creative destruction. Old economic structures are broken down and new ones are created. The creative destruction is made through innovation brought to the surface by changes in the contextual environment and consequently changing needs. Disequilibrium is the effect of innovation but the effect is weakening over time and a new balance occurs. According to Schumpeter innovation can occur among others as new products, improved quality in products, new production methods and functions, new markets, and new organisation forms. Schumpeters theories are on a macro level and it is difficult to place the specific organisation and the agent in this structural theory even though he sees the entrepreneur or entrepreneurial function as the innovator. However, the description suits the situation of public service broadcasting corporations adapting to new media environments. Innovations such as the Internet force old organizations to rethink or make new connections to survive in the evolutionary circular flow. New innovations can be created within larger innovations prolonging the length of the cycles and the societal weight of the grand innovation. Innovations are therefore both scalable and relative to a certain context. Taking the definition of innovation as the creation of new connection seriously entails that what is innovation to one organisation or society could be old news to others. In this interpretation the innovation has more character of a process with an intention of creating new combinations than of a single end result connected to some kind of (im) materiality. Innovation as a result has a tendency to be historical oriented in the sense that it is only after the innovation has taken place that it is clear how far reaching effects the innovation has had. Invention, innovation and adaptation

describe the different phases of innovation (Rogers 1995; Freeman 1982). In the adaptation phase it becomes clear just how extensive the innovation is on a societal level. Taking a micro perspective in this paper on the Public Service Broadcasting Corporations a mixture of the definition of innovation as process and product is fruitful. This means dividing Schumpeters areas of innovation into three perspectives: Market innovation (creating new business models, strategies for entering new market), product innovation (new products, improved products), and process innovation (new organizational models, new production methods and functions). The three perspectives are interconnected but have different objectives (inspired by Sundbo 1995). Innovation is defined as an intention of creating new combinations and trying to implement them and to reinvent them to suit obstacles internal as well as external. Using this kind of definition has its downsides because everything can be characterized as innovation (coining the term innovation society) and creativity has the same intention of creating new combinations. Arguing against this critique, the paper defines innovation as something that is directed towards implementation whereas creativity or being creative not necessarily has any implementation objective. The danger of saying that our society is characterized by innovation is closely connected to chronocentrism (Standage 1999). The term chronocentrism underlines the tendency to view certain state of humanity as superior to all previous times in history e.g. saying that the process of innovation and innovations are much more needed now than in any other period of history. This is not fruitful in the perspective of this paper but the intentionality of new combinations is. The perspective of innovation stresses the focus on the constant search for the survival through new combinations which in some cases is evident in the organization to the degree that innovation is a quality in itself. This is now strengthened by the recommendations on public service. Cross media is not innovation per definition within public service broadcasting but has existed between radio, television and stationary phones in programs such as European Song Contest and different phone-in radio programs. The potential for new combinations especially lies in the orientation towards digital platforms and products. This digital landscape and the industry emerged out of this technology is called the new economy in this paper. This new economy is different from the old economy (industries that is not emerged from the digital landscape) in crucial ways which will not be described thoroughly in this paper. However, especially the network structure (Castells 1996; Shapiro & Varian 1999; Kng, Picard & Towse 2008) is of pivotal importance to the difference between Internet industries and broadcast industries. First, the value of a product to users depends on the amount of users using it (cf. lock-in strategies Shapiro & Varian: 103ff). This means in public service terms that the audience ratings are not only important in the

legitimization of public service. It is directly important to the very use of the product (e.g. communities). Second, the links between content units is just as important as the content units themselves which means a major focus on connections, metadata, and rankings. Third, customization and personalization means tailoring the different services and products to the specific needs of each individual user again focusing on registration rather than only transmission. Fourth, reducing costs by reusing content units across networked platforms. Fifth, the produser-culture (Bruns 2005) at the moment challenges the ownership culture of the broadcast industry. These topics will mark the discussion section after the analysis of cross media as innovation strategy. 3. Methodological considerations The analysis of cross media as innovation strategy will be based on a case study of Danish Broadcasting Corporation and the history of cross media involving digital platforms. Thematic readings of the employee magazine DRben in the period 1994-2006 supplemented with internal and external documents will be the basis of the analysis.ii The employee magazine is chosen because the topics discussed are of importance to the whole organisation and not just to individual employees. At the same time it gives reference to the external documents published in the period. The discussion following the analysis will to some extent relate to the results of production studies in the department of DR Youth from 2005-2006 to put some depth into the analysis (a thorough analysis and methodological exposition is available in Petersen forthcoming). The production studied was an experimental concept on mobile TV and user generated content. The concept was created out of the intention to make new connections. The production was studied over a year with two observation periods: One lasting a month during the development of the concept and one lasting one week at the end of the year studying the actual production routine. Being unable to follow the whole process 16 interviews were made with production team members and managers at all levels to clarify understandings, experiences and developments in the production and in the organisation as a whole. 4. The development of cross media as innovation strategy The transition from broadcast to media organization in the DR including production for digital platforms has been gradual but was physically manifested in the building of a new (multi)media domicile in 2006 gathering all media platforms under the same roof. The domicile will therefore be used in the analysis to structure the development of cross media as innovation strategy. The (re)invention of the idea of one domicile Paradoxically the DR was formerly placed in the same domicile prior to the establishment of a separate building for Television in another geographical

area. However, the idea of reuniting DR can be traced back to 1994 where the former general director suggested the idea of one media organisation on the basis of the increase of internationalisation (multichannel system) and poor audience ratings (DR 1994:12ff; Nissen 2007:97). This was supported by discussions on the digital future which had to result in even smaller market shares (DRben 1994.09.09:8). The challenges of the market were primarily discussed in terms of multichannel system and not digital media challenges. The cross-media product innovation was not surprisingly taking place between broadcast media in bimedial production using radio and television in shared universes (e.g. the concept Tskeholdet from 1996). Still the first website was aired in 1996 as a bottom-up initiative (Brgger forthcoming) primarily containing some news and a selection of information on programs from e.g. the youth department. The process innovation was taking place around the challenges of bimedial production on television and radio and the idea of synergy and cost reduction (DRben 1995.10.20:4). A working group concluded on the basis of a BBC study that the cost reduction was not feasible but the cross media collaboration would be able to bring new quality to the programs on both radio and TV and give DR larger impact with a coordinated effort on TV and radio on especially news, debate, entertainment and will be able to create events (DRben 1995:10.20:4). The report concluded that the foundation of cross media production processes should be the great idea and cross-media production meant extra costs or reprioritisation (ibid). The report led to bimedial pilot projects in 1996-1997 on selected areas of the news production (Drben 1997.01.24; 1996.05.31). In 1996-1997 DR started the implementation of the producers choice organisational model from BBC turning the organisational focus from production to transmission (Sndergaard 2001). The argument for separating the organisation in customers and suppliers was to make the production effective and increase the quality of the products (according to the thought of market forces). The idea was to create a solid flow on the media platforms, subsequently the content production (Nissen 2007:84ff; Sndergaard 2001:53). According to the studied documents the thought of flow across platforms was not in the picture yet but producers choice was innovative at the time because it forced the producers to think platform content strategically. This meant a focus on platform technologies and distribution (e.g. future standards as DAB and DTT Jauert 2008; Mortensen 2004) which formerly had been secondary or absent. From invention to innovation Though the idea of one DR had its roots back in 1994 the actual planning of the domicile started in 1998, using challenges of the production for digital platform as one of the main arguments for building new facilities (Nissen 2007:126).

The market innovation in 1998 was focused on the expansion into new digital markets such as the Internet and DAB (DRben 2000.12.08:2; Sndergaard 2008:45ff). One of the challenges was to maintain large audience ratings to fulfill the public obligation in the definition of public service (Sndergaard 2008; Jakubowicz 2008). The challenge of targeting the general public, especially young (future) media users, to legitimize the licence fee and maintain the public service existence was marking the debate (Sndergaard 2008). The fear of being a museum rather than an innovative organisation prevailed. The reason was mainly the heavy growth in digital platforms and distribution network. According to an internal paper the number of Danes having a mobile phone grew in 1998-2004 from 23% to 80% and the access to Internet from 31% to 77% (Zeitgeist 1995-2007). The political support for using digital platforms was high priority and it was strategically important for DR to create a public debate on the relationship between broadcasting and the digital future to make a political agenda. (Byager & Kristensen 1998). Internal documents show that different scenarios were discussed:. Public Service would suffer a slow dead in favour of pure commercialisation, public service would be a niche product, or public service would be an open phenomena (The future of DR 1998 cited from Zeitgeist 1995-2007). DR wanted to prevent this from happening and to maintain the existing general public appeal. In 2002 the DR succeeded the political work and the public service contract contained a focus on DR as innovative force in the establishment of the DTT (Sndergaard 2008:46) and legitimised the use of digital platforms: DR is commited to the general public through television, radio and internet or the like to ensure a broad selection of programs and services encompassing news, enlightenment, education, art and entertainment (Public service contract 2003-2006:2). Furthermore the contract stated that DR should operate a website (ibid:5). On the basis of this contract as Henrik Sndergaard concludes the DR became the driving innovative player on digital platforms rather than the museum they feared (Sndergaard 2008). Despite this success on the political cross media constraints the financial support for operationalize cross media did not follow the same track. Even though the obligations grew the license fee did not grew exponentially, the report was cumulative rather than selective (Nissen 2007:207). The product innovation in 1998 was characterized by trimedial communication on websites, TV and radio in different genres such as news and youth entertainment (Nissen 2007:236-237). In 2000 the program ROFL were experimenting with the combination of TV and set-top-boxes to gain a return channel for the audience of consumer television. This however did not turn out to be a success because of the limited number of set-top-boxes sold (Zeitgeist 1995-2007; DRben 2000.11.24). In January 2002 the music program

Boogie was launched as the first cross media program where several media platforms (mobile phone, TV, radio, magazine, and PC) was planned strategically to serve different aspects of the universe according to the everyday of young people in Denmark (Thomasen 2007). The weekly number of unique users on the website (83,500) exceeded the audience for the TV program (64,500) and turned the internal concept of program related websites upside down (internal document DR Audience Research). In 2004 SMS-TV (Enli 2008) was booming in DR and the largest cross media event were Eurovision Song Contest and sport events such as EM in football, Tour de France and Olympic Games. These events were covered on multiple platforms planning strategically the communication according to the media primetimes and using games as new interactive feature on the website and not just using website as a return channel (e.g. Tour manager game). This extended use of website in cross media universes also took place in the concept Boys from Angora (Bruun 2007). In this concept the audience ratings for TV (309,000) was far superseded by the number of video downloads from the website (856,000 and additional 1,500 for the mobile phone). This way of using the different platforms as distribution channels of the same content units suggest a public service focus across platforms given that the audience viewing on TV only encompassed app. 26,5% of the total viewing (internal document Status of interactive media 2004).iii In 2004 web 2.0 and the produser culture (Bruns 2005) took off with software such as Facebook (2004) and MySpace (2003) on international level. DR launched their community SKUM and prizewinning subcommunity Hundeparken (2003) in this period. These communities however did not contain any cross media linkage at this time. The process innovation in 2004 was accordingly focused around news and the youth department organizing both as trimedial units. This however, caused a political intervention in 2003 forcing DR to split the news production once again because concerns where expressed for the diversity of news (Nissen 2007:236-240; JP 2005.05.07:12). At this time only one media company practiced cross media news production in Denmark (Nordjyske Medier). The trimedial tendencies characterized the process innovation overall in the organization. Layoffs were made using the argument of the demand for new trimedia production skills (Nissen 2007:74,161) among others the ability to systematically consider media formats 360 degrees round andto manage en integrated production process, where media formatting happens in the end (DRben 2002.10.11:21). The produser culture was considered the largest single challenge to the organization (ibid). The time period from 1998-2004 was focused on preparing the organization for moving into the shared new domicile. The work for one DR had parallels to former BBC general director Greg Dykes Bulding One BBC (DRben 2000.04.14). The management at the DR accelerated the work of adjust the organization and production for the news multiple media needs by starting a buttom up working groups. They

concluded that the content strategy of the future would be everything, always, everywhere in multiple media (DRben 1999.10.08.:8-9) with parallels to Mark Thompsons speach on martini media: meaning media thats available when and where you want it with content moving freely between different devices and platforms (Thompson 2006). Also the working group concluded that the brand would be crucial in the future ((DRben 1999.10.08.:8-9). A similar group worked on strategies for the working processes and the former TV director concluded that: it has been important that the whole production process is reinterpreted. It is no use sporadically taking elements from TV and radio. It is going to be a bad marriage. (Bjrn Erichsen, DRben 2000.01.07:4). A cross media organizational model similar to the one introduced in 2006 at BBC was suggested but this caused a breakdown in the collaboration between management and employees. The result was a solution in between appointing directors for TV, radio, production units and news, placing a new media department under the TV director (DRben 2000.12.08:2). By doing so interactive media was on the one hand anchored organizationally on the other hand they were subordinate to Television. The aim of the department for Interactive Media was among others to support the movement from fullscale on all platforms to a patchwork strategy (DRben 2001.03.09.:6) covering public service across platforms as a package. From innovation to adaptation In 2005 the first TV studios were opened in the new domicile and in 2006 the relocation of the departments began. The market innovation process was focused on the digital media as a commercial source of revenue once again, but EU legislation banned this idea because of the income from license fees (Mortensen 2007). At the same time efforts were made to the political preliminary work of turning the licence fee into a media licence fee, which became effective in January 2007 for the period of 2007-2010. This period was also on a European level marked by the same conceptual tendency of turning public service broadcasting into public service media (Nissen 2006; l & Lowe 2007). Three scenarios were leading the way for DR in 2005: the digital divide, internationalisation, and user generated content formerly referred to as the produser culture. The public service legitimisation was a common ground with respect for the B-team, to create common ground for public discussions, and to secure diversity and critical journalism in the internationalisation of markets (DR 2005:9) Strategically DR focused on development and innovation within the areas of: on-demand, new flow formats, mobil media use, games, and user generated content (internal discussion paper from the Media development council 2005). One of the great challenges was the question of content rights (DR 2005:7). In this period cross media strategies was a matter of course and a way to handle the market demands of content for multiple platforms. The mantra however was only cross media if added value is supplied.

Cross media product innovation was concentrated on the mobile phone market, user generated content, and mp3-players in 2005-06 (ipod nano and ipod video was released autumn 2005). DR launched podcasting as the first radio station in Denmark in 2005 (DR: Media development 2005-6) and a mobile portal covering a selection of programs. Concepts such as Blokken (2005) and Spam (2006) experimented with user generated content and mobile TV using mobile cameras and distributing the user produced videos to mobile phones (see Petersen forthcoming). The concept was strongly criticised by users on TV but had great reviews on the website. This raised the question of success criteria of a public service cross media concept. In 2006 the webtv player was redesigned to be able to present a wider selection of programs ondemand on the website and in 2007 different drama production had sneak preview on the website prior to the TV. The process innovation consisted of preparations for a cross media organisational model which could not be implemented in 2004. The initiatives went from ad hoc to stronger organisational implementation. Among others a Media Development Council was established to discuss strategically solutions across platforms. This developed into a department for strategy development in 2006. The audience rating department for radio and TV converged to one department supporting all platforms. A project coordinator was appointed in a ad hoc position to bridge the gap between the different directors (TV, radio, new media, news, programs). An internal pressure formed the process innovation in 2005-6. The production units were cross medial but the customers were not. This partly changed in 2007 where a new organisational model was introduced emphasizing cross media supply. Only one media director was appointed instead of 2 (including the new media deputy director). This new media director was the former TV director and the DR is therefore in danger of maintaining TV broadcast as the primary medium leaving little room for new media on its own premises. Concluding on the development of Cross Media as innovation strategy The analysis show that cross media as innovation strategy in the period of 1994-2006 has shifted focus according to a mix of different influential factors such as social, technological and political. The market innovations correspond to Schumpeters theory of innovation in the sense that DR is threatened by the multichannel market, the digital market, and the decrease in audience ratings. This lead to the idea of reducing costs by uniting radio and TV, and later to pursue the ability to expand into the digital landscape and make money on digital initiatives. The obstacles was changing the public service remits to entail this expansion which was succeeded along with the later accept of media licence fee. However, while the remits were cumulative the licence fee did not increase at same pace and the allowance to make money on digital media services did not come through.

The product innovation was characterized by different design models based on the degree of user effort. Two tracks run parallel. The first track is the coexistence between: 1. The receiving listener/viewer, 2. The respondent user (having no influence on the program or being able to change the program), 3. The producing user (producing interactive overlay e.g. in SMS-TV or producing content units), 4. The demanding user (demands certain developments so that the user production of content or the use of the concept can be easier or more satisfactory). The second track is the co-existence between: 1. the use of one medium platform only, 2. the use of more platforms on invitation, 3. the sampling of content on own initiative because the user is motivated. The different positions do not take over the former but coexist with one another with the tendency of the latter historically to appear last. The period also is characterized by the appearance of different cross media strategies on the basis of the user models: 1. Transmitting the same content units on different platforms. The reason for doing so is reducing the costs per viewing, making the target prize cheaper. Another reason is making the content accessible independent of time and space. 2. Providing extra features on especially digital platforms often interactive services or gimmicks which are often ad-on to the TV or radio program (e.g. games, producing or respondent possibilities). 3. Making different versions of products for different platforms suiting the primetime of the media, the special medium characteristics, or using different platforms for different target groups. 4. Strategically linking the media platforms together in a shared universe with storylines and addressing needs across that invites and motivate to cross platforms. 5. Inviting users to make own content units in thematic universes facilitating distribution channels and brand name at their disposal encouraging them to take ownership of the content and reducing the corporation to facilitators and motivators for creation and innovation.iv Again the different strategies did not overtake one another in the period of analysis but coexisted under same terms as the model users. The development within the process innovation in the period showed different kinds of resistance. Even thought one of the conclusions from the working group in 1995 was that the great idea should be the starting point of the cross media production the Producers choice model was implemented in the years that followed shifting focus to the distribution channels as the lead in to the production process (the consumer-supplier model). Also the working group concluded that cost reduction was not feasible and reprioritisation was needed. Still the myth of synergy as to cost reduction

10

existed. However, the most profound resistance was the rejection of a cross media organizational model. Even though working groups suggested the importance of the processes being reinterpreted from the bottom the cross media organizational model was rejected first of the political system (the case of news department), second of the organizational system itself. This led to a subordinate relationship for the area of new media. This in praxis meant that only few concepts were made with the perspective of new media as the main focus and on their own rights. New media were primarily an ad-on to TV or radio programs. This priority was strengthened by a small budget for new media initiatives. TV was still dominant in 2007 when the organizational model finally changed because DR appointed the former TV director as media director. 5. Discussion Comparing the characteristics from the new economy, the results from the analysis, and the production studies of DR youth at least four challenges arise in the process from broadcast to cross media corporation. These four areas challenge both the public service remits, and the organization as managers and employees. The four challenges will be discussed in the following. Challenge 1: The myth of cost reduction synergy Digitalization makes it possible to reuse content across platforms and thereby reducing costs per unit. This kind of cross media as concluded in the analysis is only one out of five cross media strategies and the one which is the least demanding in terms of resources. By relying on the idea of cost reduction synergies in the cross media production processes even though several reports reject the idea the public service remit public service corporations reduce the possibilities of innovative cross media concepts. This argument is based on the character of the public service contracts being cumulative rather than selective. Meaning instead of removing some obligations and interpretations the digital obligations are added without a profound increase in the licence fee. The production studies show that resources are reduced in some elements of the production processes e.g. research and recording but transferred to others e.g. the exhaustive process of planning and coordinating. The produser-culture is now a part of the myth of cost reduction synergies in cross media following the argument that producers do not have to create the content themselves any longer but just need to support the communication already taking place between users. The results of the production studies also reject this myth. The cost reduction of creating content is far surpassed by the resources needed to make this user content creation taking place. These efforts include designing the frames for user production, motivating and making the users produce in the public service framing (lock in), and support the production over time (elaborated on in Petersen forthcoming).

11

Challenge 2: Broadcast self interpretation The analysis of the development of cross media as innovation strategy shows that it is difficult for the broadcast corporation to support cross media production. This is not an external political or public service legislation problem but an internal problem of acknowledging the change on an agent basis. Especially managers but also production team members fear the loss of the power and expertise they have by welcoming new media production on equal terms. Returning to the differences between Internet industries and broadcast industries the absence of customization and personalization of communication is striking in the analysis of cross media as innovation strategy. This does not mean that it did not exist because the method of the study is limited in this sense. However, the absence is interesting because the meeting of a system of transmission and a system of customization and personalization follows two different logics. On the one hand transmission has favoured a large audience and the ability to speak to the public. On the other hand customization and personalization favour one user and a patchwork of meanings on equal terms (e.g. rss-feeds and page-rank). Transmission does not per definition preclude customization and personalization (e.g. narrowcasting) but the use of flow is challenged by the new media structures. The flow is not created by the producers but by the users from multiple choices (e.g. search engine) which might be customized according to personal information (e.g. page-rank). This is not only interesting because it challenges flow TV, it challenges the idea of flow across platforms in cross media universes as well. The cross media flow is equally moving or motivating the users to move from one content unit to another in the controlled (and owned) universe. On the internet the users are offered a range of opportunities in many occasions not owned by the host. The business on the internet is not content units but sorting out content. Challenge 3: Links instead of (content) units This leads to the next challenge of links and connection, the things in-between (what is now interpreted by broadcast corporations as) traditional content units. Links and connections are the single most important elements of the network society hence the name (Castells 1996). The focus on in-betweens has existed in the concept of flow from traditional broadcast TV and radio and is heightened in cross media concepts in the above analysis but is much far reaching on the Internet on its own terms. To reach the aim of innovation it is interesting to discuss whether the former broadcast corporation needs to redefine the very concept of content. The production studies show that there is a major focus on content and content before media in the organization. Content is interpreted by the managers and production teams as stories, ideas, communication units

12

etc. Only in one interview the things in-between are interpreted as content on equal terms. The traditional content before media discussion (known from McLuhan 1964) indeed still exists in the broadcast corporation of DR. One can argue that the intentional lack of media consciousness makes the broadcast TV culture, concepts, and thinking vague and hence difficult to break away from. One challenge that do seam to succeed is the shift from transmitters to designers or from communicators to facilitators in the line of the produser-culture and social software. This shift in the professional role from transmitter to designer of communicative frames means that the meaning of quality is different. The most important thing is not to make an aesthetical and journalistic finished program. The most important thing is to design a framework for communication that lock the users in the universe and makes them use it. Quality therefore is more strongly and naturally connected to the use of the product, not in terms of audience ratings but it marks the very product. The same criterion goes for most of the cross media concepts defined in the analysis. The users have to actively engage in the concept moving from platform to platform. Therefore the quality of the product depends on the users actually following the links. Challenge 4: Public service placement Last but not least broadcasting corporations are challenged by the fact that multiple platforms make too much potential information time and space to fill. The production studies show that the broadcasting corporation is used to have a limited communication time in the broadcast TV and radio network. The Internet is (almost) limitless in this sense.v This means that the idea of having to produce enough content to fill out the platforms time (and space) that is common among the managers now is an unproductive way of thinking as to allocate resources to produce quality products on the Internet. The studies show that Internet production is time consuming if the aim is to innovate and not settle with the least resource needed model. Several scenarios are interesting to discuss in the connection of which only two are mentioned here. First, the question whether flow TV and radio can be redefined. This is at the moment politically difficult because one of the traditional ways of measuring and/or arguing for the success of public service is to show the positive development in the amount of e.g. hours of kids TV and news in the total broadcast time. A sudden decrease in this amount would in this line suggest a decrease in the fulfilment of the obligations. The introduction of more platforms (and the space of the Internet) can give rise to a renewed discussion of the relationship between amount and quality in the remits of public service. Second, the question whether the meaning of institutionalisation for public service can be reinterpreted. In the production studies one of the managers were joking about the concept of public service placement playing with

13

the scenario of being where the young users are. This means that the public service products should not be produced for the traditional distribution channels such as TV, radio, and website but in games, YouTube, and Facebook (at the time of the interview Myspace). These channels would then not only (which is the case in 2008) be used as a lead-in to the website, radio or TV but as the place to communicate. This model deconstructs almost all institutional elements of the broadcast corporation. The distribution ownership structure is broken down but it also raises the question whether the brand of e.g. DR is of importance to this kind of public service. The answer to this complex question must be to distinguish between different genres. One could assume that the brand for news products would be of greater importance than in the case of entertainment for young people. However, the studies executed do not have the ability to answer this question. The implications of this scenario however far exceed the question of genre. First of all it would be difficult to suggest a distribution of communication design from DR on a commercial international site as the only channel. This means that commercial international ventures such as Google or NewsCorp make money on public service products. This is the case already on especially YouTube and places the remits (Commission of the European Community 2008) on public service and commercial digital businesses in an odd perspective where leading (this is where the user are) commercial players are supported by public service by allowing them to make money on public service products. This model prolongs the business cycle of the grand innovations but may not foster new ones on a grand scale. 6. Conclusion To answer the question if cross media in fact has the ability to innovate both the old and the new economy one has to distinguish between two different kinds of innovation: The one that prolongs the business cycle of already existing innovations such as web 2.0 and social software and the one that creatively deconstruct the very same and thereby makes a new business cycle. The discussions in this paper suggest that especially the understanding of cost reduction synergies and power/knowledge resistance in the organization limit the possibility to make innovative cross media universes that both are new to the old and new industries. The strength of the broadcast corporation in this transition is the knowledge of old media platforms which the new industry does not possess. Focusing on the definition of innovation as creative deconstruction and the creation of new business cycles makes the risk of not succeeding much higher. How will public service remits deal with the many failures of innovative experiments, and how can the effect of such concepts be measured in terms of reporting the use of public service means? As one of the managers in DR mention, it is much more costly to make a failure on three or four platforms than one.

14

7. References Bardoel, Jo & Lowe Gregory Ferrell (2007). From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Barnett, Steven (2007). Can the Public Service Broadcaster Survive in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Brgger, Niels (forthcoming). The History of dr.dk 1996-2006, University of Aarhus, Denmark. Bruns, Axel (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production, Peter Lang, New York. Bruun, Hanne (2007). Satire as Cross-Media Entertainment for Public Service Media in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Byager, Henrik & Christensen, Gerda (1998). DR og den digitale fremtid, DR, Copenhagen. Castells, Manuel (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge. Commission of the European Community (2008). on Creative Content Online in the Single Market {SEC(2007) 1710}, 03.01.08, Brussel. Committee of Ministers (2007). Recommendation Rec(2007)3 on the Remit of Public Service Media in the Information Society, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Enli, Gunn (2008). Redefining Public Service Broadcasting: Multi-platform participation in: Convergence, Vol. 14(1), SAGE, pp. 105-120. Freeman, Chris (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge. Jakubowicz, Karol (2007). Public Service Broadcasting in the 21st Century in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Jauert, Per (2008). Fra broadcast til podcast digital radio in: Danmark Public service i netvrkssamfundet, Samfundslitteratur, Kbenhavn.

15

Kjus, Yngvar (2007). Ideals and Complications in Audience Participation for PSM in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Kng, Lucy, Picard, Robert & Towse, Ruth (2008). Theoretical Perspectives on the impact of the Internet on the Mass Media Industries in: The Internet and the Mass Media, Sage, London. Leurdijk, Andrea (2007). Public Service Media Dilemmas and Regulation in the Converging Media Landscape in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Moe, Hallvard (2007). Commercial Services, Enclosure and Legitimeacy in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Mortensen, Frands (2008). EU og statssttte til public service broadcasting 1992-2005 in: Public service i netvrkssamfundet, Samfundslitteratur, Kbenhavn. Mortensen, Frands (2004). Indfrelsen af digitalt, terrestrisk TV i Danmark. In Bruun/Frandsen/Jauert (red): Forskning i mediepolitik mediepolitisk forskning. Modtryk, Aarhus. Nissen, Christian (2006). Public Service Media in the Information Society. Report prepared for the Council of Europes Group of Specialists on Public Service Broadcasting in the Information Society, Council of Europe, Directorate General of Human Rights, Media Division, Strasbourg. Nissen, Christian (2007). Generalens veje og vildveje, Gyldendal, Kbenhavn. Palokangas, Teemu (2007). The Public Service Entertainment Mission in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Petersen, Anja Bechmann (forthcoming). In between Media: Cross media as Strategies, Innovation and Change, Pd.D. Dissertation, University of Aarhus, Department of Information and Media Studies, Aarhus. Rogers, Everett (1995). The Diffusion of Innovation, The Free Press, New York. Schumpeter, Joseph (1983). Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Transaction Books, New Brunswick.

16

Shapiro, Carl & Varian, Hal (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Splichal, Slavko (2007). Does History Matter? in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden. Standage, Tom (1999). The Victorian Internet: the remarkable story of the telegraph and the nineteenth century's online pioneers, Weidenfeld & Nicolson/Phoenix, London. Sundbo, Jon (1995). Innovationsteori: konomiforbundets Forlag, Copenhagen.. Tre paradigmer, Juristog

Sndergaaad, Henrik (2001). The producers Choice, unpublished manuscript, Copenhagen. Sndergaard, Henrik (2008). DRs digitale strategier in: Public service i netvrkssamfundet, Samfundslitteratur, Kbenhavn. Thomasen, Bo Hovgaard (2007). Tvrmedial kommunikation i flermediekoncepter in: P tvrs af medierne, Ajour, Aarhus. Van der Wurff, Richard (2007).Focus on Audiences in: From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, RIPE@07, Nordicom, Sweden.
Among others leading to the recent paper from the Commission of the Eurepean Communities 2008 on Creative Content Online in the Single Market however not specific for the public service media. ii The period is chosen on the basis of the first website being introduced in 1996 and the former general directors reference to a document in 1994 (Nissen 2007). iii The figures do not account for the number of persons vieving more than once. iv The different strategies and the implementation of them are elaborated on in Petersen forthcoming. v However, there are certain challenges according to bandwidth and server capacity.
i

17