refLECTURE VI: "About The Cha-ching, Cha-ching"

Money. If you disregard science, you'd know that it's money that makes the world go round. Well, the world of commercial media is no different. (Hate to break it to you Jessie J, but it is about the 'cha-ching, cha-ching').


Australia, although we pride ourselves on having a dual model of media, public service and commerical, let's be real; we're mostly commercial. We all know the 'big players'. Nine, Seven, Ten, Fairfax, News Limited. And, of course, their many offsprings. And there's ARN, Austereo, Telstra, and Optus too. Gees, any more.

This is where I stole that picture

But why do they exist? Essentially to sell us, the audience, to advertisers. Hence their emphasis on mass communication media, because well, it still reaches the masses. Thanks Captain Obvious. Commercial. Commerce. Money. Pretty self explanatory. Commercial media is a business. Like all businesses, it's driven by profit. Without government or license funding it relies on selling advertising to it's audience generated by it's programming.

"advertisers are the real customers of a commercial media organisation, not its readers, viewers or listeners."

This is not exclusively television. The 'big guys' (to use the technical Latin) dabble in newspapers, film, magazines, books, radio, digital media, events, outdoor advertising, and of course, both free to air and pay television.


But what's commercial media's role in a democratic society (sorry China, that excludes you)? Can a business that impacts society daily deliver on both profit and 'public trust'? My opinion (however small and irrelevant) is yes. Most people aren't dumb. You can't obviously exploit them and push them into the jaws of advertisers, and expect them to trust you. It's a game of balance (much like Jenga). A game that these commercial media outlets have been playing very well... until digital 'new' media decided to join. The problem is now, broadcast television offers very little exclusive content that can't be found (legally, or illegally) through the internet. Losing both audience and advertising revenue. The only thing they have that trumps digital media, is the ability to produce live content. But back to social stuff... 

When it comes to style, if you can look past the men in suits, commercial media really doesn't have that much going on. It's popular consensus that commercial media is corrupt, has a lack of quality, and that profit over-rides social responsibility every time. News in particular is criticised for being dumbed down, in a tabloid genre,  and employing 'Mickey Mouse' news to fulfil its 'desire to please'.

Where I stole this other picture from

The future. How can commercial media continue to make the big bucks with advertising revenue declining? How can it continue to serve advertisers, audience and the public good? If I knew the answers I sure wouldn't be here. But some suggest its all about quality, that's what the audience want and are willing to pay for it. Moving audience to digital and introducing paywalls is another suggestion. Really? This comes back to issue of entitlement from the second lecture.


Regardless of the future of television, I think we can all agree it's the moments like this you have to thank God for commercial media.