Concentration of Regional Mass Media(main conclusions)
Following conclusions can made to summarize the analysis of results gained from a poll of regional mass media executives.
To begin with, it is necessary to note, that regional mass media executives are arbitrary in defining the form of ownership of their respective establishments and, as a rule, rather state its organization and legal form. Undoubtedly, ambiguity of concepts is one of the key reasons hindering a more or less accurate depiction of the ratio of privately- and state- owned publications on the one hand, and publications with mixed forms of ownership on the other. Based on definition alone, private property is a relationship of ownership under which an economic entity individually, and independent of others, carries out the functions of disposition and appropriation, such that proprietary authorities are entirely concentrated in the hands of that entity (individual ownership), group of persons (group ownership), or shareholders, including but not limited to legal entities (shareholders’ ownership).
There are not more than two or three of such individual owners in a given region. And all of them share certain common features. They, or their respective mass media executives, ventured detailed and thorough responses to all questions featured in the questionnaire, manipulate market categories tactfully, endeavored to support all of their statements argumentatively, and provided additional information. In addition, they all underlined the fact that their respective mass media try to maintain a neutral position in all conflicts of power and do not take up an overtly partisan attitude towards any particular viewpoint. Such were the subjective perceptions from a first hand acquaintance with their answers. However, much more formal indicators exist.
The common feature shared by these private individuals is a situation when a business entity is owned by two, seldom, three partners: such partners control several television and radio channels in their respective regions, plus quite a few newspapers, not to mention one or two advertising agencies. Moreover, their assets include editorial locations, transmitters, typographies (for instance, Vladivostok lists 5 private typographies) and even television towers. In questionnaires filed in by colleagues and competitors, most mass media owned by these private individuals are referred to as top notch. Several of such proprietors, commonly called “effective proprietors”, view themselves as monopolists, but see no danger in that.
The most prevalent organizational and legal form of press ownership is a JSC\LLC\CJSC that starts up a mass media outlet. Less commonly observed are publications, whose activities are conducted via a “managing company” partially owned by a mass media executive. Even more seldom are non-commercial partnerships, exemplified by public organizations and funds, operating as publishers. About a third of non-governmental mass media executives polled hold a stake in the capital of their respective publication or managing JSC.
One other significant problem is the concept of nominal proprietorship: law-enforcement agencies frequently use the term “figure head”, however, as far as the mass media business is concerned, these persons are not always figure heads. In general, these persons are identified and fully engaged in a company, but lack access to the company’s financial activities or its actual management. Implicit indicators derived from the poll and verified data from off-the-record interviews shows that nominal proprietors are sufficiently numerous. They include: businessmen lacking media interests that for some unknown reason provide funds for publications; government officials listing their relatives as founders, since the law proscribes combination of state service with commercial activity; mothers and spouses of businessmen/media owners, where the latter in an attempt at avoiding unpleasant monopoly accusations registers a formally independent publication or television channel but figuratively owned in a relative’s name.
A completely exceptional situation is noticed with publications, whose founders include state structures. In this case, it is impossible to elucidate the exact enterprise or mass media outlet founded by an administration, mayor or property committee. Memoranda of incorporation are required for substantiation. Although experts polled muse about hidden forms of manipulation and control, as well as instances of hostile entry of administrations into the founding board of one mass media outlet or the other, such facts lack tenable documentary confirmation. In addition, majority of hostile takeover “victims” never agree to discuss openly on these matters.
In all regions, majority of respondents concede that state authorities support their own mass media outlets. It goes without saying that this support would not have ruffled too many feathers if it was limited to allocation of budget funds, an arrangement which officially protects a number of regional and municipal publications and television companies in their corresponding budgets. However, aside from all-reaching additional benefits provided to officially subsidized publications, each region list 2-3 newspapers and at least one television station (besides the regional GTRK) financed one way or the other from the city, regional, district or territorial budget. In fact, several executives of officially subsidized publications (as in the case of Krasnoyarks, Rostov-on-Don) express obvious exasperation with these “ostensibly private-owned publications serving the interest of the powers that be” with word such as: "The state constantly support those mass media outlets it holds stake in"; and "One may not sing odes to the power that be, one may fear it wordlessly".
The most popular lashing against preferential treatment of budget-funded and state-owned publications (openly declared ones as well as those covertly receiving financial and political support from the power that be) are expressed as follows:
– budget subsidies (particularly wage payment and debt cancellation); preferential tariffs for electrical energy, preferential postal tariffs and payment of public service bills at special budget tariffs; supply of newspaper stock at preferential prices, preferential lease terms (Vladivostok, Voronezh, Novosibirsk); provision of municipal housing facilities (Samara); promissory notes for paying wages and settling typographical bills (Krasnoyarsk);
– extension of loans at preferential terms and non-returnable credits;
– regional mass media registries – all entrants are entitled to subsidies;
– prioritization in information gathering: "information discrimination" (Nizhny Novgorod), practices such as "press conference for the selected few " (Novosibirsk), payment for publishing official documents at advertising tariffs (Voronezh, Vladivostok);
– "during the election period, the administration statutorily distributed orders to preferred mass media outlets meeting their criteria, which in most cases are far from popular” (Nizhny Novgorod);
– mandatory subscription of regional state establishments to “favored” publications (Krasnoyarsk).
It is fair to say that regions have installed laws that protect all and every mass media outlets, including privately owned ones. Judging from filed questionnaires, Vladivostok, Krasnoyarsk, Yekaterinburg and Saint Petersburg all have effective Mass Media Protection Laws, and respondents are aware of their existence.
One other necessary circumstantiation. Regional mass media executives answered to polls conducted between December 1998 and January 1999. Since that time however relations between the state and the press in the regions have hit a record low. This fact is corroborated by numerous articles published in the press, in the versions provided by TV station directors and journalists, with which we held heart-to-heart conversations this was noticed in particular, during the “News – Local Time” competition held in 8 Russian regions. More and more mayors and governors emphatically appointed "favored" persons to key regional media positions and were even more active in subjugating those publications currently outside their control. Latest combatants enlisted in the antagonism between local press and local authorities are Moscow-based politicians: thus, at the end of May 1999, "Pravoye delo" movement adopted a resolution “On the state of the press … in Primorky krai".
Issues of competition and monopolization fetched unparalleled reactions from respondents. Of the 108 people polled, 89 acknowledged that there is competition in the media market. At the same time, only a few of those who support the presence of competition failed to assert that one outlet or the other maintains a dominating grip on the market. The exceptions are 11 persons from among the participants, 5 out of 12 respondents in Rostov-on-Don acknowledged that GTRK "Don", free newspapers and regional supplements of central ones dominates the local market; in Samara, 6 out of 11 respondents observed that they experience certain difficulties owing to the dominating position of one of their competitors.
It is even more bizarre that despite the paucity of publications citing overt problems associated with the dominating position of competitors, almost a half of poll participants dread "monopolization" or believe in its likelihood. Evidently, a negative context surrounding the concept of "monopolization" has taken a grip in the mass consciousness of persons involved in business, and is not limited to the media business.
On the other hand, although media market domination can be regarded as an indirect confirmation of monopolization, one can only circumstantiate a business’ dominating position by providing concrete data on circulation volume, ratings, auditoria and so on, which as a rule are not kept in most regions. Probably, it is for this reason that majority of those that fear monopolization fail in their attempts at explaining argumentatively why monopolization ought to be feared or the source of this threat. Apparently, it is possible to explain the origin of this not-always motivated threat if “monopolization” is considered not only from the economic viewpoint, but also from the political standpoint, only then will talks of “political monopolization” make sense.
The ratio of answers to the question “Does the threat of monopolization exist? Yes or No” varied substantially in each of the regions. In Krasnoyarsk for instance, opinion on the problem of monopolization seems to be artificially contrived: not one of the respondents felt the danger of media monopolization. In Nizhny Novgorod, majority of respondents (7 out of 10) also do not acknowledge the existence of such prospect in their region. In Yekaterinburg, 8 out of 14 respondents expressed views that such a trend is possible, and exists, but that open danger of monopolization does not exist. In Saint Petersburg, Samara, Vladivostok and Novosibirsk, answers were almost equally divided between opponents and supporters. Only in Voronezh and Rostov-on-Don is those in fear of monopolization predominates (and such apprehensions are primarily associated with increasing interests from Moscow political circles and publications).
Infrastructure development and variety of publications is by no means a guarantee against monopolization. In any case, media executives from Vladivostok think so. Furthermore, on the one hand, while the number of public and political mass media outlets lacking financial interests is as high as before, on the other hand, very few hold illusions on the profitability of the information business. All of these factors give rise to excessive competition between many analogous publications. Besides consolidation of Moscow publications in the Primorye market, the process of “mass media clustering into blocs serving financial and political interests organized to spin-off the elections” has begun”. Moreover, this clustering phenomenon is not centered on political parties, which are practically absent in Vladivostok, but around representatives of authorities – such as the incumbent Mayor, Governor and Moscow’s Mayor Mr. Luzhkov. Thus characterizes the issue one media executive from Vladivostok.
Curiously, while representatives of public and political newspapers cite the possibility of media monopolization, majority of electronic media operations regard such an outcome as unlike in the sector. One other phenomenon was observed: the smaller the volume of circulation and the more circumscribed a media outlet is (an area or in-plant newspaper), the less executives of these media outlets are aware of competition or fear monopolization at all.
The main inference is that majority of respondents perceive the problem of monopolization as a political one, this view is expressed in one questionnaire thus - "the threat of political monopoly exists". Its origin is explained through possible financing of mass media outlets by various political powers and power structures on the eve of the forthcoming elections.
Such feelings reflect the specific characteristics of development of the Russian business sector in the last decade, and are not limited to the media market. By investing money in mass media outlets, businessmen and political players are literally investing capital in power as a whole – and not only the “fourth power”. Power is in turn converted into money, and money transform once again into power. It looks like the election campaign of the next one and a half year will once again provide strong evidence in support of this formula, regions included.
Evaluations of the probability of media market monopoly are evidence from the following typical statements:
– "The current frenetic economic situation will bring some newspapers to the verge of bankruptcy … there are ambitious projects in place for the next elections. For instance, plans to launch a free newspaper having a circulation of 700-800 thousand, that will conceal all political ties or affiliations in the first six months of existence, gain access into each and every home, crush the traditional media market in its wake, and later unfolds into an instrument for manipulating voters’ opinion" (Novosibirsk); "The distressful situation of mass media creates a precedent for monopolization" (Rostov);
– "Monopolization is not a danger but a reality: the regional administration controls a lion share of the media market, and by the time of elections may control even more"; "Municipal and regional administrations are trying to establish holdings to serve them during the elections"; "As far as ideological monopolization is concerned, you might have as many newspapers as possible, with all working in unison for one owner representing the authorities”, – similar responses were provided in varying proportions in all cities (aside from Krasnoyarsk, which again is remarkable);
– "The threat of media monopolization originates not from power structures (although this is not excluded), rather it stems from representatives of those circles (frequently, non-local, Moscow-based ones) interested in storming the local information market with their capital and desires to take charge of the market (Rostov);
– "This threat stems from financial structures and from oil and gas establishments" (Samara); "Pressure of foreign capital" (Saint Petersburg);
– "It plays into the hand of an advertising monopoly, when all advertising flow are concentrated in two newspaper; there is also the danger of printing monopoly when a region has a monopolistic typography" (Rostov).
Several of those polled do not see anything strange in the prospect of monopolization: firstly, as one of the respondent stated, all developed countries have media concerns; secondly, and this is the opinion of major regional information-service structures, the presence of a monopolist creates an unhealthy atmosphere, and therefore, no single monopolist wishes to remain isolated in a market: "Monopoly in the information-service market is disadvantageous for it undermines business profitability. For those who are fueling political monopolization, the state of the market is unimportant, political publications can be subsidized" (I.Mishin).
By now, the attentive reader must have noticed that the text has failed to reference detailed analysis of responses to questions concerning the technical aspects of the mass media business and issues of labor relations between journalists and proprietors. Undoubtedly, respondents answered these and other questions, but aside from a few lines underscoring the main theme, the information provided does not, in principle, add any new details to the picture painted above.
Overwhelming majority of mass media in the regions continue to depend on the printing capacities and communications facilities put at their disposal by the state, which in reality remain the largest monopolist in this sector of economy. All respondents without exceptions (newspapermen and television operators) concede that although starting-up a newspaper is as simple as ABC, it is practically impossible to obtain a broadcasting frequency. And the reason is the same everywhere: shortage of spectrum resources, each channel is contended fiercely, not to mention a torturous and labyrinthine licensing procedure.
According to media executives, most publishers treat journalists as professionals, acknowledge that a journalist is responsible for the text of the articles before the heads of the publication first and foremost, and then the owner. Approximately half of those polled from non-governmental mass media do not see anything peculiar in a “proprietor” declaring his or her position and insisting that journalists follow it. The truth is that most poll participants nevertheless acknowledge that direct proprietary intervention in a journalist’s activities is unacceptable. Trade unions are virtually non-existent everywhere, and where they do exist, these organizations play little role according to the questionnaires filed in.
It is evocative that in all of the nine regions studied, there was no such thing as impending unemployment among journalists, their wages are average, and in many places – above the regional average wage. From an array of responses to issues as specific as wages, and to issues as philosophical as employer-worker relations, or what is journalism – a profession or a business, this remarkable conclusion can be made: the media environment is at the verge of developing its own corporative system of values. It recognizes the freedom to work in accordance with one’s own convictions for any employer, but tolerates "sincere acceptance of what the proprietor loves or deems as essential"; acknowledges that the journalist is not only a member of a prestigious profession, but is also a representative of an affluent class. The poll showed that the media community, to a large extent, is more fortunate than the many population groups it serves.
* * *
Conclusions for the National Media Market
Thus, one can say with conviction that the second half of the nineties brought along an abrupt activation of media-ownership concentration in Russia’s information market – the formation of large companies capable of large scale investments in innovative technologies, as well as expending huge sums on program production, rapid mobilization of capital from one sub-division to another and so on. This integration may take several forms: multimedia incorporations (publishing houses, radio, television), multi-sectoral conglomerates (i.e. when mass media establishments collaborate with other sectors of the economy), vertically and horizontally integrated alliances (when one proprietor controls all stages of the information production and distribution process). In this way, media-organizers – businessmen providing substantial investments into tele- and radio broadcasting and the press, come to the foreground, while the latter are ensured a monopolistic media market position.
However, Russia is not an exception in this process: during the last several years mass media sectors in many countries have been plagued with an active discussion of the question of how to regulate the concentration of property and cross-linked ownership in this sector. Then again there is no cohesive approach to solving this problem, just as a solution is still out of reach in Russia, where the process of economic concentration is a newly emerging phenomenon. However, the sector is distinctively preoccupied not with this, but with a specific phenomenon discovered as a result of our investigations: Russia has an entirely unique form of concentration – "ideological or political" – whereas this process galvanizes immensely every time the country is at the verge of another parliamentary or presidential elections. As a result, an unnatural and therefore alarming “political monopoly” of mass media by the party in power materializes. Its framework includes government officials, heads of administrations, governors and mayors regardless of their political predilections, and its extreme manifestation is exemplified by the [Presidential] “Family” and its entourage.
It is therefore not accidental that majority of participants of our poll dread intensification of “political monopolies” in the mass media sector. They cite examples of central media outlets, especially electronic ones that were embroiled in “information wars” in 1997-1998 on the side of various financial and political groups contesting not only for the privatization "sweet morsels" of state property (such as “Sviazinvest" and "Rosneft"), but also for dominance in the government and the Kremlin.
And of course, this does not inundate "traditional" forms of media market monopolization: the information collected in the course of this investigation makes it possible to argue that discrete private monopolists are appearing not only the center, but also in several Russian regions. And although this is yet an exception and not the rule, each of the major industrial centers lists at least one local “oligarch", that owns, for instance, three VHF television channels, two radio stations, newspaper, and two advertising. And he also owns two television channels and a radio station in a neighboring city. This same hypothetical businessman very often maintains a privately owned technical base – a studio complex and TV tower with transmitters. Altogether, while the exact collection of companies controlled by a proprietor may vary, the scheme used is the same everywhere – and it entails establishing multi-sectoral corporations, which ostensibly is the future for regional mass media. Into such mini-holdings are consolidated, for example, groups of publications, television and radio stations in three, four cities of Ural and Siberia.
However, the state, in many shapes and forms, continues to maintain its position as the largest monopolist in the information market:
– most printing - houses are state-owned;
– all RTPTs (radio-television transmission centers) , re-organized into VGTRK affiliates, are in federal ownership.
On the whole, however, Russia’s federal-level Russian mass media market is a bizarre mosaic of state- and privately-owned broadcasters vastly founded on personal connections and political power. Therefore, the regions are rife with rumors of government representatives attempting to create subsidiary media groups, which they support not only with budget funds, but also by enlisting subordinate government authorities to subscribe to a “preferred” publication and by allocating advertising revenue from government- or administration-funded firms. On the whole, those preferences that the state makes available to its sub-structures for purposes of launching mass media outlets are unequivocally regarded by their privately owned counterparts as a violation of the spirit of fair competition: starting from restriction of access to information on government activities, subsidies, preferential tariffs to “own” publications to monopolize re-transmission of the signal of non-governmental broadcasters (90% of the latter lease either transmitter or TV tower facilities from RTPTs).
In addition, broadcasters friendly to the state, administrations or mayors enjoy other forms of preferential treatment as well. It is quite probable that all of these measures are aimed at keeping afloat those publications that would have inevitably crumbled under tight competition. Although clear evidences supporting such conclusions are unavailable as of yet.
Of course, when talking on the scale of individual regions, and even on a larger scale, it is notable that Russian mass media are still far behind their western "teachers". In any case, our study found no evidence lending support to a trend of interregional consolidation of several information companies or creation of "interregional newspaper chains" in the regions studied (again, excluding political amalgamations among mass media controlled by several mayors and governors, which in actual fact are not structured or consolidated into a single holding).
True enough, one can find a few regional examples of “horizontal” concentration - when a company controls several sub-divisions with each engaged in a production phase – in program production for instance. However, thus far, the most prevalent form of concentration is multimedia concentration, under which a company controls various mass media types, radio, television and the press. Multimedia concentration in Russia is undeniably outstripped by the multimedia concentration of, perhaps, Disney included in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation multimedia corporation. However, there is but one "explanation": while Mr. Murdoch started creating his empire thirty years ago, Media-Most, Russia’s premier media-holding, and the first and very successful example of concentration in Russia, was only established in January 1997.
One way or the other, "vertical" integration is present in any company or publishing house that controls stages of the process of production and distribution of program and its printed products (just as the monopoly of communication operators exists Russia as a whole, so does “Rospechat” exists as a monopoly in many regions).
Clean examples of multi-sectoral concentration - when a firm is waging wars in several sectors of the economy and owns mass media outlets at the same time – are hard to find in Russia, and all of these companies constitute the core of a few information empires. Among them are major primary industry giants and financial-banking groups (LOGOVAZ, Interros, Gasprom, LUKoil, Media-Most, Alpha Group). It is hard to tell whether one can classify as international integration the activities of those Russian companies established with foreign capital participation, for as much as this form of concentration entails the presence of these information-service companies in several global markets. However, it is wise to note that prominent amongst these joint projects are: Independent Media publishing house and STS television network ("Story First" and Alpha Group joint project).
One fundamental question that comes to mind in relation to any form of concentration is the problem of their impact on competition. Despite the fact that almost half of poll participants anticipates attempts at monopolizing the mass media market by government authorities and big capital, practically all without exception acknowledge that in spite of that regional competition is highly developed. To begin with, this competition is between companies engaged in one single type of mass media business: between television companies, radio companies or press publications. By the way, it will be unwise to write off the opinions of those media executives convinced that concentration has its own benefits: such as economy of resources, cost reduction, and improved quality.
And of course, the results of this market survey once again underscore: the success of measures directed at regulating media market concentration, including but not limited to legal ones, is inseparably tied to the need for transparency in this market.
Inasmuch as Russia lack special restrictions on cross-linked media ownership or special laws in the area of concentration, the antitrust law governs all legal relations. However, it is difficult to ascertain violations of even those few of its regulations concerning the mass media, for in each region the media market is not under constant monitoring and, of course, because the level of transparency of the mass media themselves is dismally low. After all, in order to comprehend what is going on the media market and ensure fair competition, it is absolutely necessary to know who owns what or who sold what to whom. Even if an account on media property and owners is conceivable, finding a method for estimating such criteria as financial or political influence and human relations is a very challenging task indeed.
While such attempts have long been made in the West, instrument for attaining transparency was based on the following criteria:
1). How a physical entity, firm, or groups of legal entities relate with one another – via direct and indirect links, family ties, or external financial and trade transactions and contracts.
2). Among participants operating outside the enterprise one should highlight two factors of influence characteristic to the mass media sector: the enterprise’s main bank and the level of its advertisement earnings, as well as major companies managing these earnings on behalf of the enterprise. Undeniably, in such a situation the controller’s role is of immense importance – who will do what and why that should be done.
For the reasons provide below it becomes quite obvious why compliance with such transparency rules, even if they do emerge in the practice of legal regulation of media concentration, is very difficult to achieve in Russia: ownership relations (such as voting rights and shareholding) in the mass media sector are not evident; proprietor/employee relations (investigation of the makeup of boards of directors and their business interests, family ties, previous professional links) are represented more or less clearly; more often than not the financial links of a proprietor are impossible to trace, because even the most “influential" proprietor does not officially hold shares in any of his enterprises (a classic example is Mr. B. Berezovsky).
That is why it is useful to begin discussion in order to find answers to the following crucial questions: what is media concentration, why is it inevitable, what does the hazard associated with media concentration involve and why are attempts really being made to regulate this trend all over the world?
The next step in the move towards inculcating civilized relations in the media sector is drafting of legislative documents that will take into consideration the problem of concentration as well as the requirements for complying with the principles of transparency.
It goes without saying that such legal drafts must take into account Russia’s existing legal system regarding the mass media sector, antitrust legislations, European practice in the field of regulation of concentration and compliance with transparency requirements in the media business sector. Unquestionable likewise is the fact that efforts in this direction must take into account such circumstances specific to Russia as economic instability, political crises, fledgling market research and investigation infrastructure, political crisises", “special relationships" between the authorities of all levels and the press and publishers, the unusual involvement of media business into current politics and so on. Although forthcoming elections will no doubt relegate to the background serious discussions on the essentiality of such drafts, it does not however mean an end to the actuality of the problem of concentration. On the contrary, during the election period, the society as a whole, and the media community in particular, will certainly be faced with indirect, yet considerably unpleasant manifestations of an unregulated concentration process: in the wave of pre-election crusades some market players will lose both money and reputation, and others will gain colossal influence that may not always be used in the interests of the society.
Of course, no regulatory measures will halt the process of media concentration in Russia, for the same reasons that legal restraints failed to stop it in any other countries of the world. However, these measures may help to avoid the most unpleasant consequences of concentration and shall enhance progress towards achieving genuine, and not mythological, media freedom in Russia.
“The Questionnaire list for leaders of Mass Media companies”
(questionnaire is conducting in the frameworks of researching the project
“The Concentration of Mass Media in Russia”)
1. Briefly describe a situation with the media and peculiarities of the developing the region information market in your region, if they exist. In the description we need to reflect the information:
- full name ( if It’s possible), position, city. Which TV and publishing company are you leading?
- potential audience of Media of your region and audience of your TV, radio company, the quantity of TV audiences and subscribers;
- main and the most influential Mass Media in your region (names);
- popularity rating of television companies, the circulation of the press ( point out the most popular issues if you don’t have sociology information), point out the dates of sociology polls, if they exist;
- is the advertising divided up evenly between Mass Media of your region, the main advertisers? Which of the forms of advertising is predominant in your company: direct advertising, barter advertising, sponsor advertising (or another companies of your region, if you know);
- whose the point of view and policy and financial interests are reflecting the most influential companies of your region;
- describe the interaction of Mass Media with the region administration (the situation of obedience, of conflict or cooperation; How will be acting your company and another companies of your region, if the conflict will be beginning within the power structures. For instance between the governor and mayor in region center, between the executive power and legislative power and etc.;
What do you think why the Mass Media are supporting one side in the conflict;
- describe the state of the Mass Media legislation in your region; are there existing special laws which are limiting the rights of press (names, when its have passed);
- What are relationships your company has with center publications or structures; Which forms of interactions: do partners provide financial help for your company (for TV companies - which kind of network are you the partner);
2. Please, answer:
The general economics questions
- Which is the form of property of your company?
- Who has the real control over the your company?
- local administration (region, city administration);
- commercial structure ( the name, if it possible);
- the leader of your company or you have personally;
- industry, financially (information) group with the center in Moscow (if “yes”, in details);
3. Does the owner of your company have large financial and industry ventures, which influence the life of your region (city);
- banks;
- industrial ventures;
- markets and trade group;
- entertainment and trade group (restaurants, night clubs, stadiums);
- Which other Mass Media has the owner of your company as founder and publisher?
- TV channels;
- radio stations (names);
- newspapers (names);
- information agencies (names);
- advertising agencies (names);
Technical questions
- Does your company have owner’s technical and production base?
- editorial premises (property or lease);
- printing house (or TV studio - complex);
- means of spreading the signal (own tower, or rent of state transmission facilities, own transmitters at the state tower, cable network, MMDS frequencies, satellite channels)
- How easy is it to get the frequency or to fount new newspapers in your region?
- Which difficulties exist in your region which are linked with the difficult procedure of receiving the license and with high level of competition?
Questions of the Competition
- Do you have serious competitors?
- If “no”, why? What do you think prevents the reasonable competition?
- Does the leading position of any of your competitors cause you problems?
- If your company has the leading position in region, have you had any complaints from less successful colleagues. Were you accused of unfair competition?
- Is there the danger of monopolization of Media market?
Questions of Advertising
- The volume of the market in your region (approximately in dollars);
- How the advertising is distributed between newspapers, TV and radio (approximately);
- What is your share in advertising value? (percentage);
- Did you have the situation when advertising orders are distributed between Mass Media companies of region. If “yes”, who does define the procedure of distribution of the advertising:
- authorities (administration, region government, governor);
- large monopolies (ventures);
- etc. (names, if It’s possible);
The interrelation of Mass Media of region with Administration
- Do you know the cases when the state bodies of authority help “one’s” Media companies? If “yes”, what’s the expression of it:
- subsidies from the budget;
- privileged tariffs ;
- another forms of preferences (examples);
The level of “Transparency”
- Does the company have the practice of publishing the report about own activity?
- Do you consider your annual report to be commercial secret (information)?
- If your company is the joint venture are the gatherings of the shareholders conducted?
- Are your collaborators familiar with the Statute of your company?
- Do you suggest to candidates on the job to read the Statute?
- Is there an editorial Statute in your company? Does an editorial Statute exist separately from a Statute of company? Who passed a editorial Statute?
Did you have the bottlenecks during adoption and approval the editorial Statute?
The interrelation between owners and journalists
- How considerable the pressure of media company owner on journalists? What kind of pressure is it?
2. How much is there a pressure of owner of media company on journalists? What is it the pressure?
How could you characterize the relations between “publisher – journalist”? Journalists are treated like:
- serfs and slaves;
- professionals which are doing the public duty?
3. Does the journalist report back “owner” of company for content of articles?
4. Is possible the interference of owner of company into activity of journalist? Do you consider that this is the normal practice?
5. What is your opinion: is the journalism the branch of business or the profession? How to combine these sides of the activity of Mass Media? Do you see the differene between these approaches?
6. Is there a professional in you company? Are there the conflicts with “owners” in your company? Did you have the attempts to create the professional union of journalists and to create another forms of resistance on owner’s control?
7. What is the level of unemployment of journalists in the editors? What is the paylevel of journalists in the editors compare with the average in region?
8. What is necessary to do for salaries not to be paid by unaccounted and untaxed cash? Are “black cash” salary payments common in your organization? Where such cash is derived from: manipulation of advertising revenues? Hiddeen advertising? Sponsorship?