The “Format” of Talk Shows

In this blogpost we would like to analyze the format of talk shows. The talk show format is a television genre where usually one person talks about a number of topics mediated by a host. The talk show can be set apart from actuality programming, interviews, and reality TV. We will question the format of talk shows by zooming in on the differences and similarities between daytime and late-night talk shows, including elements like sets, target audiences, gender. We will conclude that the structural and narrative format of daytime and late-night talk shows stays consistent over the years and is transferred in the same TV format on a global scale, although arguments can be made to state that the talk show does not have a format at all.

We would like to use three articles that deal with the TV format industry. By studying four ‘super-formats’, Jean K. Chalaby concludes that formats can be seen as bridges that make connections between cultures and borders (296). We would like to use Chalaby’s definition to analyze the position of talk shows in the TV format industry. We will briefly touch upon Katherine Meizel’s theories about adding concepts such as ‘national identity’, ‘awareness’, and ‘potential power’ to the debate on globalized TV formats. Tasha Oren uses US food television to analyze “the extent to which contemporary television relies on the structural (and narrative) logic of the format” (20) and notices a development in setting, gender, and ideology. Her thoughts on this evolution inspired us to write about the talk show format and examine American talk shows as a case study to look at the reinforcement of traditional gender roles in these talk shows.

Despite being a very familiar concept that is seen all over the world, talk shows are much harder to define as a format than other TV programs. First of all, talk shows revolve around the discussion of semi-random topics that vary according to the interests of its host and audience. That implies that content and narrative are entirely dependent on the interests of local audiences. Therefore, a talk show can never have the same “distinctive narrative dimension” in order to be “licensed outside its country of origin in order to be adapted to local audiences (Chalaby 295-6).

Another key difference is transnational adaptability. Formats that are typically sold in different countries often retain a similar name while changing hosts and participants. Many talk shows simply cannot be sold abroad due to the central position of its host in the title: shows named after their hosts like the Ellen Degeneres Show, the Jimmy Kimmel Show or the Wendy Williams Show cannot become formats since they cannot be wholly  “adapted outside its country of origin”(Chalaby 295). Although there are a few exceptions to this, it is hard to speak of talk shows as unanimously having the potential for being “inherently transnational” (Chalaby 295). If talk shows did belong to one specific format - since they do often share many similarities such as the setting or the main concept of inviting guests -  it should be debated why talk shows are not all suing each other over rights - or better yet: why they cannot sue each other over them.

Thirdly, talk shows do not have the same internationally diversifying effects as other tv formats. According to William Robinson,economic globalization can be seen as the main cause for the rise of transnational television. This brings forth a more internationally diversified audience and the development of a “polyarchy” over an oligarchy (Meizel 214). Where most of these adaptable formats can work to enrich transnational capital, talk shows can be seen as doing the exact opposite: they stimulate the rise of national capital and national identity over transnationality (Meizel 218).

A last interesting point to note is that Chalaby gives the basic requirements needed for a TV show to be a format. Aside from the fact that the talk show genre by definition often conflicts with her arguments as shown above, it is also remarkable to note that throughout Chalaby’s entire text, the talk show is never once mentioned.

Talk shows - 1950's

Even so, there are certain arguments that give reason to believe that the talk show is in fact a format. Talk shows have been broadcast on television since the emergence of the medium in the fifties. There are two major genre formats, namely daytime and late-night talk shows. Talk shows were originally designed for women and the extreme popularity of talk shows in the 1990s was a reaction against the rather masculine films from the 1970s. Talk shows use a format that gives minorities a voice and does away with the Grand Narrative.

Some of the most famous daytime talk shows on contemporary television are The Ellen Degeneres Show, The View, The Queen Latifah Show, Rachel Ray, The Talk, Katie, Bethenny, and The Wendy Williams Show. Some of the most famous late-night talk shows that are currently broadcast on television are The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Seth Meyers, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Late Late Show with James Corden, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Conan, and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. There are two things that strike us here: daytime talk show hosts tend to be female and many of them are African-American, whereas late-night talk show hosts tend to be middle-aged white males. There have been some exceptions lately, such as Lopez Tonight and Chelsea Lately, but even they conform to the standard format that is discussed below.

The sets of daytime and late-night talk shows are very different from each other and seem to stem from the 1950s’ gender stereotypes. Daytime sets have a domestic sphere: both host and guest are sitting on the same level and the decor is arranged like a living room with a coffee table in front of arm-chairs and plants in the background. Late-night sets have a public/business sphere: the host is usually situated slightly higher than the level at which the guest is sitting and the decor is furnished like an office where the host sits behind a desk with a city view in the background (the city was a place for men, women stayed home in the suburbs). The differences in setting between daytime and late-night talk shows reinforce the gender gap discussed in the previous paragraph. These sets come from the 1950s, a time when in the United States there were very clearly distinctive gender roles and ideals. The wife would stay at home in the suburbs and do her housework and chores during the day. In the afternoon she would have time to watch a daytime talk show with a domestic sphere and female host. The husband, on the other hand, would go to work in the city center during the day, and when he came home at night, he would watch a late-night talk show with a public sphere and a set that resembled an office.

Even though the 1950s’ gender roles do not exist anymore as such in most parts of the Western world, the talk show format seems to stay the same. Furthermore, the Web 2.0 makes us realize that the structural and narrative formats of talk shows are the same in all parts of the world. Whether we watch a talk show in the US, the Netherlands, Spain, or China, the format seems to be consistent. Whereas there is a clear development in the format of cooking shows over time (Oren 20-33), the talk show format seems to stay the same.

In conclusion, the talk show is a globally used yet problematic “format”. The topic has much potential for debate or research. On the one hand, talk shows cannot be subjected to the standard criteria proposed by Chalaby to define most other TV shows as formats. On the other hand, talk shows seem to have a consistent format with a clear distinction between daytime and late-night sets and hosts, which in turn is transferred on a global scale.

Proposition: To what extent can we talk about the talk show “format” considering the current definitions in the field as well as the consistencies in structure and narrative?

Works Cited:

Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 293-308.

Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 192-219.

Tasha Oren (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in: Critical Studies in Television 8 (2), pp. 20-35.

Initials: RO, GK, AL

Have you already changed your Facebook profile picture?

This week’s IS (Islamic State) terrorist attacks in Paris - where at least 129 people were killed and many more wounded - have left the internet community in a state of shock. On all kinds of media platforms people are debating over what should be done against these terrorists. They ask questions such as: How can we guarantee safety while still accepting muslims into Western countries? Could this be the start of world war three? More subtle action revolves around many people showing solidarity with the tragedy in France by tweeting thoughts and prayers for the people in Paris or sharing pictures with the hashtag #prayforparis. In this blogpost we wish to explore in what way people express their sympathy towards France, the reasons why people change their profile picture on Facebook (or choose not to), and the role of media platforms in these decisions. We will see that apart from respect and solidarity, people as an audience are influenced by news platforms, and at the same time, know that they have an audience on social media as well, which contributes to the hype.

In this week’s blogpost we would like to use three articles from The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies that are about audiences. Fabienne Darling-Wolf develops a translocal approach in audience studies that we will apply to our case study. The translocal approach is “an approach … that considers how the experiences of audiences in different parts of the world relate to one another” (1). Since our case study is set in the context of social media, Shayla Thiel-Stern’s article on new media audiences is very useful. She argues that with the emergence of the Web 2.0, the distinction between producer and audience has been removed. We emphasize her statement on resistance: “although spaces of resistance are available through the audience’s power to produce cultural artifacts, the scope of this resistance is still limited” (1). We will explain this limitation in terms of awareness and the power of old media. Jack Z. Bratich’s ideas on activity and reactivity are also present in this blogpost.

After the attacks in Paris a number of online media platforms have come up with special features to show their support and help people connect with their loved ones in France. Facebook has come up with two features: one with which you can temporarily change your profile picture in the colors of the French flag and another where you can access the Safety Check feature to report and/or see whether friends and loved ones who reside in France are safe.  Moreover, Youtube has added the French flag to its logo to show support, while Google now offers free international calls to France. 

Many people are temporarily changing their profile picture on Facebook out of respect for and solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks and their bereaved. However, there is a difference between feeling sympathy and showing sympathy. Part of changing your settings to the French flag is to demonstrate that you care. What will your friends, colleagues or boss think when you do not change your profile picture? The French flag as a background for Facebook has become a sort of hype. This is not to say that people who have used this setting are just doing it because others are watching. We all feel some sort of grief and sympathy for the victims who died in these horrific terrorist attacks. Yet, a part of us is aware of our audiences, and it is more than likely that this awareness will ultimately influence our decision whether or not to change our profile pictures on Facebook.

Furthermore, the option Facebook offers to add the colors of the French flag to your profile picture - although respectful in theory - actually excludes sympathy for people in other countries in practice. At the same day of the Paris massacre, Beirut was also the victim of terrorist attacks. Apart from a relatively small group of silent protesters in reaction to the Facebook setting, hardly no one added the flag of Lebanon to their profile picture. Part of the reason why, is that 1) it is not an optional setting on the social media site, which means you have to put a lot more effort into editing your photo, and 2) many mainstream news sites only report on the Paris attacks and do not even mention the Beirut victims, thereby creating unawareness among many people and implicitly using their apparently still present power. Another example are the Kenya attacks of last April. Although there were media reports on the bloodbath, we did not see anyone add black-red-green colors to their profile picture.

The example of millions of people changing their Facebook profile picture to show solidarity with France is a phenomenon that can be studied as an “extension of their offline behavior” as well as the influence of popular media (Thiel-Stern 5). Many people feel genuine sadness for the occurrences in France and choose to express their feelings online by altering profile pictures or using hashtags. They can be considered an “active audience” who do not just watch online media content pass by, but clearly believe that there is some kind of value in expressing their opinion or support online in moments of crisis, though their expression of this will not directly tackle the problem (Thiel-Stern 2, 4,10).

Translation: "Changed profile picture. Terrorism problem solved!"

Furthermore, there is a wide array of support poured out to France in comparison to other countries that have suffered similar losses without having as much online sympathy. This shows that people’s online behavior is also a reflection of the issues that gain the most media attention. Widely used media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube, Skype and Google reach numerous people around the world and influence the issues that gain attention. These topics are thus also the ones that people will be talking about the most.

However, this can become quite problematic over time for two reasons. The first concerns the idea of translocalism explained by scholar Fabienne Darling-Wolf. According to her theory, when people use the term “global” to refer to issues, it is often focused on a select number of local phenomenon in certain locations, hence the term “translocal” (6). In the case of media coverage of terrorist attacks in France, it actually proves Darling-Wolf’s point that often news reports are not as “global” as people think, but in fact focus on a select few (6). In a way online audiences are not being stimulated to develop a truly global perspective, neither by news nor social media platforms (6). Still, this lack of a global perspective in favor of a translocal one can eventually prove to be problematic.

First of all, by mainly focussing on Western countries in the media and generally neglecting non-Western casualties, audiences get a translocal perspective on terrorism attacks. This implies a ‘Terrorists vs. the West’ duality, whereas terrorism in the case of IS is a global threat. Secondly, with the media focussing on terrorist attacks in the west, an image is wrongly created that muslims are not victims of terrorism. Online reports have actually shown that so far the greatest number of casualties of terrorist attacks are indeed muslims. Since muslims are not often mentioned as victims of terrorism, people may begin to see muslims as one collective audience. They will all be grouped together as extremists and many people may wrongfully develop Islamophobia.

The effects of this should not be underestimated or deemed farfetched, since the problem of Islamophobia is unfortunately already occurring. People in the West seem to be becoming more and more wary about the acceptance of Syrian refugees out of fear of terrorism. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut have reportedly worsened the already existing complications of accepting Syrian refugees. Many people worry there is no way to distinguish refugee from terrorist. Headlines such as “Suicide bomber smuggled in with refugees” only aggravate the dilemma. Some governments are beginning to feel that they are faced with having to choose between protecting the lives of their people and helping/accepting refugees.

In conclusion, we have analyzed the recent hype of people all over the world changing their profile picture on Facebook to the colors of the French flag in order to pay their respects to the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris. Although not denying that many of those people feel genuine sympathy and solidarity, there seems to be a part of them that is aware of their audience. The difference between feeling compassion and showing compassion comes to the fore, in which media platforms still hold power over the awareness of major events in the world by prioritizing some and neglecting others, and the audience knows that they have an audience themselves, which contributes to the hype.

Proposition: Current news and social media coverage on terrorist attacks are creating an anti-global audience perspective.

Works Cited:

Fabienne Darling-Wolf (2013), ‘Nomadic Scholarship: Translocal Approaches to Audience Studies’, in: Radhika Parameswaran (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.

Shayla Thiel-Stern (2013), ‘Beyond the active audience: Exploring new media audiences and the limits of cultural production’, in: Radhika Parameswaran (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell, pp. 389-405.

Jack Z. Bratich (2013), ‘From Audiences to Media Subjectivities: Mutants in the Interregnum’, in: Kelly Gates (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume VI: Media Studies Futures. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.

Initials: GK, RO, AL

Children’s images as a tool for re-sensitization 

The image that went viral - Most of us are familiar with the picture of the three-year-old boy Aylan Kurdi: a refugee who drowned while fleeing Syria. The picture of his lifeless body on the shore caused much controversy and criticism towards the treatment of refugees. The image has circulated many times in numerous newspapers and websites. For many it has become the symbol of the refugees crisis. However, since the war in Syria erupted in 2011, there have been other images of death and violence circulating the internet. Why was it this image that moved many to action or compassion towards the refugees crisis?

In this blogpost we would like to analyze the distribution of images of death and violence in relation to children in the media. Folker Hanusch wrote the article “Representing Death in the Online Age” in which he argues that the internet has brought the notion of death back into the public sphere through citizen journalism. Anyone with access to the internet can share pictures and opinions on global events. Hanusch uses multiple case studies to support his claim. In addition, David Trend studies the role of the public in the distribution of images of violence: how high is the demand for rampage in the media?

We will analyze pictures of children in relation to death and violence in order to come to an understanding of how these images are used by different media and what their consequences are. Most importantly, we argue against Trend’s use of the notion “desensitization” when related to children. This concept is explained later in the text.

According to Trend, the frequent presence of violence in media has resulted in people growing accustomed to seeing violence (Trend 113). People tend to be less shocked when they see images of death and are less horrified by videogames. This process is called desensitization.

In recent years images violence and death have become easy to find on the internet. Research shows that people actually want to see it (Hanusch 152). Moreover, Trend mentions desensitization without distinguishing different groups. We challenge this approach by arguing that desensitization, as a result of violent media exposure, cannot be applied as a whole; it applies differently to children.

In the media, people have shown emotional responses when confronted with children’s deaths. In the case of Aylan Kurdi, Syria had had numerous casualtes. It becomes interesting to question why people were moved to such extreme compassion and activism mostly after Aylan Kurdi’s picture.

Commercials from charities focus on children very often. Many headlines of crises also tend to magnify the focus on children in order to get sympathy from viewers. Take the #bringbackourgirls campaign, a movement to help find 276 schoolgirls who were kidnapped by the islamic terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria. The fact that Boko Haram had already kidnapped almost 2000 women was left out of the picture. Even in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict online petitions were started to instigate foreign government aid by mainly highlighting the suffering of children in this conflict.

In the case of Aylan Kurdi, media headlines such as “If these images don’t change Europe, what will?” or “Will the image of a lifeless boy on a beach change the refugee debate?” suggest that people - indirectly - believe that images of death and violence towards children in the media have more potential to influence people than other kinds of images of violence and death. Cultural texts and products are made or chosen in a way to ensure they circulate (Comella 68). The images of violent acts against children are often purposely chosen because of their high potential to circulate and influence the public since they are seen as a taboo, ultimately stimulating (government) intervention (Rosenbraugh 87-8). This phenomenon, however, is not new. Think, for instance, of the “napalm girl” (1972) during the Vietnam war who was used to influence public opinion on America’s war with Vietnam.

Though it is argued that these kinds of images’ power have been exaggerated and do not have the direct potential to end wars, they do play a role in changing public opinion, just as the Syrian Refugee Crisis gained much more momentum after images of Aylan Kurdi made global headlines and were being constantly shared on online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook (Hanoush) 157-158). Hugh Pinney, vice president at Getty Images, declared the following concerning the picture’s popularity in a TIME´s interview: 

Online search results for Aylan Kurdi’s story show numerous results of websites and organisations that are mostly compassionate towards this boy’s life and show pity for the occurrences and refugees from Syria. However, there has also been online speculation towards the story of Aylan Kurdi’s father, who supposedly does not add up when comparing the accounts he gave to different newspapers. The stories conclude that the family was in fact living in Turkey and were not at war when they decided to go to Europe as ‘refugees’. Australian Senator Cory Bernardi did not have as much compassion on the subject and also criticized the use of the picture in the media since it was taken “to evoke emotion” from people. People reacted negatively against his opinion and also labeled him controversial.

The point here is not to state which version is correct, but rather to show the power of death and violence in images of children in extracting sensitivity and compassion from people, in an age where people have supposedly become desensitized. The example of Bernardi shows that a desensitized or less compassionate attitude towards death or violence in the case of children is not often appreciated in the media. Yet, this kind of attitude does not enable people to critically analyze situations, since people could wrongly use images for their own “ideological ends” without proper research, as has happened before (Hanusch 156-7). It would therefore be helpful to study the influence of images of death and violence against children by analyzing media circulation of said images and their effects on different people. By using the reasoning of “engaged scholarship” for researching these situations, the main approach would be that “no potential research site is off limits”, not even areas where the subject is “debated, embraced, or rejected” (Comella  69).

In conclusion, we have used the recent media picture of Aylan Kurdi as a case study to challenge the notion of desensitization as an indiscriminate process, which is taking place through the portrayal of images of violence or death. The media has for a long time now used images of children in order to create sympathy, yet now these images are less controlled (due to citizen journalism) and are globally distributed much faster. People all over the world apparently sympathize so much that one picture of the body of a small child can change the political debate on the Refugee Crisis. Even though we are indeed more used to images of violence and death, we are not completely desensitized. Apparently, these kinds of pictures can still have a huge impact, especially when children are involved.

Proposition: the impact of the circulation of Aylan Kurdi’s image stimulates a kind of public resensitization to images of death in an age where media violence is supposed to desensitize us.

Works cited:

●Hanusch, Folker (2010), ‘Representing Death in the Online Age’, in: Representing Death in the News: Journalism, Media and Mortality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 145-160.

●Trend, David (2007), ‘But We Can Understand It: Beyond Polemics in the Media Violence Debate’, in: The Myth of Media Violence: A Critical Introduction. Malden, Oxford & Carlton: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 108-123.

●Comella, Lynn (2014), ‘Studying Porn Cultures’, in: Porn Studies 1 (1-2), pp. 64-70.

●Rosebraugh, Craig (2011). The Logic of Political Violence: Lessons in Reform and Revolution.

Initials: GK, RO, AL

Red Bull - They do have wings!

Who does not know Red Bull? The popular energy drink, which originated from Austria in 1987, has managed to become one of the highest selling energy drinks in the world. It might come as a surprise that Red Bull not only gives information about its energy drinks products, but has also created its own media production company. Red Bull Media House was launched in 2007. Hence, our main focus will not be on Red Bull as an energy drink producer, but on Red Bull as a media producer through the Red Bull Media House. In this blogpost we will look at Red Bull as an industry that has gone beyond its own boundaries of the beverage industry by becoming more and more cultural. They  might even be seen as a new hybrid intersection where general industries meet cultural industries, thus introducing a new model.

In this blogpost we would like to make use of the evolution of the concept of culture industries outlined by Raúl Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, Full Professor at the Department of Communication and Social Psychology, University of Alicante (Spain), in 2014. We will mainly use the distinctions being made between several terms, starting from the notion that “culture industry” should be re-assessed but should not, however, be replaced by a different term, because its origin ought to be taken into account. Rodríguez-Ferrándiz states that the culture industries today emphasize production in a post-Fordist society (338), where leisure, entertainment, and creativity are all closely related. We would also like to use the article “Remediating Creativity: Performance, Invention, Critique” 2012 by Sarah Kember, Professor of New Technologies of Communications and Joanna Zylinska, Professor of New Media and Communications, both of them at Goldsmiths, University of London. They argue, among other things, that creativity needs to be ‘re-claimed’ by media studies. In their analysis they work with Henri Bergson’s notion of ‘mediation’. That is a set of processes through which generative media forms can develop (173).

Red Bull Media House

Red Bull Media House aims at presenting an array of media products and states on its website that: “As an umbrella brand, we offer a wide range of premium media products and compelling content across media channels as diverse as TV, mobile, digital, audio, and print, with core media offerings that appeal to a global audience”. Red Bull Media House distributes content on their website - which has been personalised according to different countries - and have also created their own branch for television distribution named Red Bull TV. Red Bull TV offers action, sports, culture, and lifestyle programming all of which  have the purpose of appealing to a wide global audience. Aside from television, Red Bull Media House also produces a huge variety of moving image formats, including short non-fiction and news clips, magazines, reality formats, full-length feature films for TV, online, cinema, music and home entertainment channels. These examples can all be categorized as media convergence (Rodríguez-Ferrándiz 333).

Their motto “Red Bull gives you wings” has gone far  beyond being a mere catchy slogan to attract consumers. The slogan has become the embodiment of all of the norms and values that Red Bull is promoting and of what they want to represent. Their products are now able to communicate and bring across an entire image, something that has become quite important in today's consumer market (Rodríguez-Ferrándiz 330).  It can be argued that Red Bull used creativity to invent a new concept; not necessarily the concept of being original by branching out into media production, since many other companies such as Disney have already done so (Kember & Zylinska 174). Red Bull’s novelty comes from the way in which they managed to leap from a branch in the beverage industry into media industry and production by successfully creating their own image and branding themselves as adventurous thrill seekers with an appetite for life. Red Bull no longer just sells the product; Red Bull is the product.

This kind of development is not unique for Red Bull, but marks the way in which many industries have been overflowing into other industries or adopting parts of the culture industries in order to maximize profit. Definitions that used to distinguish the creative and cultural industries from other industries no longer fully apply. We agree with Raúl Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, when he mentioned that: “we have passed from the anguish and disappointment Adorno felt on seeing the creative act of the artist swallowed up by the logic of industry, to qualifying the entire industry as “creative,” to place creativity itself at the very heart of this industry”. He argues that there have been many changes in the development of industries over time and states that different terms used to distinguish parts of the industries that have changed or no longer apply (Rodríguez-Ferrándiz 328).

“Not only do we create content and operate media platforms with direct consumer impact, we also offer a vast range of targeted business opportunities for partnerships with other companies, media partners and affiliates.” - Red Bull Media House

According to Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, the difference between the term “culture industry” and “mass culture”, lies with the way the former puts the emphasis on production while the latter focuses more on reception (Rodríguez-Ferrándiz 328). Making use of Rodríguez-Ferrándiz’ definitions, these characterizations of ‘culture industry’ and ‘mass culture’ classify the Red Bull brand as an industry that focuses on producing content, while simultaneously being part of mass culture because it clearly has importance for reception - or in this case “direct consumer impact”.

“To a certain degree the culture industries have taught the other branches of industry to pseudo-individualize themselves to gain competitiveness, differentiation, and in surcharge for the value that has been added to the product. Culture may well have become industrialized, but it is no less true that in the same process, industry has “culturalized” itself” (Rodríguez-Ferrándiz 329-330). In this sense, creativity is at the heart of almost every modern industry today, since they need to find a way to merge with parts of other industries and adapt for the purpose of commercialization and in order to appear attractive to consumers (Rodríguez-Ferrándiz 338). Therefore Red Bull, with the creation of Red Bull Media House, clearly opted to dive into these new industry models and chose to ‘culturalize’ themselves.

In conclusion, we have used the evolution of several concepts of culture industries and previous distinctions between them to demonstrate that the combination of these closely-related terms are heading towards general industries practices whereas at the same time, many other branches are becoming more and more cultural. Red Bull is a good example of a different branch, namely that of beverage production, that is transgressing its boundaries and going in the direction of cultural production. This example shows that there seems to be a new model where the boundaries between different industries are fading.

Proposition: Could Red Bull Media House be seen as a new hybrid intersection where general industries and culture industries meet, therefore introducing a new model?

Works Cited:

Kember, S. & Zylinska, J. (2012) ‘Remediating Creativity: Performance, Invention, Critique’, in: Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process. Cambridge: The MIT Press: 173-200.

Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, R., (2014) Culture Industries in a Postindustrial Age:

Entertainment, Leisure, Creativity, Design, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31:4, 327-341. DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2013.840388

Links:

http://www.redbullmediahouse.com/services/advertising.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HkYj8Y0OLw

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/115550/Space_Dive__Red_Bull_Stratos_Documentary_BBC/

Initials:

GK, AL, RO