The Channel | 2004 | September

46 / 52

46 | the channel
China is converting rapidly from a planned economy to a market
economy. Although the agreement on China’s entry to the World Trade
Organisation does not provide a timetable, this conversion has also reached
the audiovisual sector. Broadcasting, which in China traditionally has been
regarded and used as a tool for political propaganda, is increasingly
perceived as an industry that can fulfil the viewers’ and listeners’
programme demands – mainly for entertainment – , and as an industry
that offers great opportunities for private profit. Like in most former
communist states that go through this transformation, in China too the
audiovisual media are rapidly shifting from the state sector to the
commercial sector. In graphic form, this process can be represented as a
shift along the base line of a triangle, whose corners represent the state,
the market and the voluntary sector. In contrast to most western
democracies, non-profit organisations of the civil society are not involved
in the media in China.
Rather surprisingly, there has been a lack of
academic discussion to accompany or even
guide the media transformation that is taking
place. “Chanye Hua” (which literally means
industrialisation, but can also be translated
as marketisation) of the media is more of a
reality than a concept. “Industrial discourse”
is the keynote of present Chinese media
studies. There are several dozen books on
industrial or related topics. Business and
management have been the dominating
subjects of PhD dissertations in recent years – almost all of them are
taking a strategic perspective, especially those on media economy. As
some international scholars pointed out, ‘integrated intellectuals’ “are
riveted to functional observations at the request of those who commission
their research,” while leaving these observations “atomised and
decontextualised in relation to the implications of change in the social
and economic model”. It is no exaggeration to say that the industrial
discourse is prevalent in Chinese media scholarship, to say nothing of
those articles in professional journals. Industrial discourse advocates and
advances commercial or capitalist practices in the Chinese media.
From the industrial point of view, commercialisation is not only acceptable,
but also worth proposing and promoting. An article in the advertising
journal “Media” for instance explained “audience commodity”
phenomenon in a fairly positive way. According to the author, the
practitioners should establish a new idea of “Shouzhong Chanpin”
(audience product) because the “media are to produce audience”, “the
eventual product is the audience, while it is the customers of the audience
product that is the eventual customers of the media”. “So the operation
of the media should be guided by the demands of the eventual customers,
i.e. “party and government”, as well as advertisers, putting their needs as
the starting point of entire communication activities.” Zhu stated openly
that “the Party and govern-ment provides with social capital in exchange
for their audience products”, “the social capital, the greatest resource of
the media, is ‘permission’ “; nevertheless, the advocacy of “being guided
by the end customers of the media” and the assertion that “broadcasting
should produce only what audience advertisers need” are so candid that
it is hard to believe that this should have appeared in a country with such
a strong socialist tradition as China. To a great extent, however, this is
the very goal that some Chinese scholars are trying hard to promote, and
media practitioners are working hard to reach. As a media manager
confessed, the advertisers are our “Yishifumu” (resources of bread and
butter) so we serve themwhen they are seeking to maximize their benefits.
Yet, despite such bold and strange-sounding statements, the Chinese
television sector remains tightly constrained, at least on politically
“important” matters – ranging from the reporting of routine state functions
to the SARS epidemic. At the same time, most Chinese television stations
are pursuing their own economic interests in a rather crazy way. The
business logic means thorough commercialisation. On the one hand, the
media become more and more profitable businesses – instead of non-
profit public service; on the other hand, by making use of public resources
they become more and more self-centred, seeking commercial interest of
their own, instead of serving public interests. In fact, Chinese “media
industrialisation” is the transformation process by which the entire Chinese
media are being changed into business enterprises.
This strong belief in the potential of the market is typical of former planned
economies, and ‘the overdrive’ regarding amount and pace of conversion
is the result of an enthusiastic and uncritical evaluation of the market.
The academic discussions have not provided a counterweight to this
thinking, quite on the contrary, most scholars have promoted it. Until
now, virtually no academic voice has addressed the subject of the market’s
limits and deficiencies, which may jeopardise a public communication
that is lead by commercial media only. No voice has been heard which
explains the existence of public service broadcasting, and the extensive
regulations applying to commercial media companies – especially commer-
cial broadcasters – in most western democracies.
The joint research project which is described here attempts to bring
these aspects into the political debate. It is based on the assumption
that the opening of the audiovisual sector has both advantages and
disadvantages for China, which – in a kind of cost-benefit analysis –
can be compared and balanced to determine the optimal degree and
optimal pace of conversion. As advantages count the usual economic
benefits of free trade and the promotion of positive political and social
developments for the Chinese economy and society. As disadvantages
have to be considered: a reduction of the market share of China’s
domestic programmes as they face increasing international competition,
and the risk of too fast a transition of the Chinese economy and society
as a result of external influences by the mass media.
The question how much, how fast and by what means the Chinese media
sector should be opened (which has become an international issue since
China entered theWTO), is basically a variation on themore general question
of the appropriateness of governmental intervention in the media markets.
This includes both domestic programmes and the foreign programmes China
may (and according to theWTO ‘must’) import fromabroad.While presently
justified with the benevolence of the government, interventions can only be
tolerated if the social, political and cultural effects of a commercialisation
and globalisation of the media exceed the pace which is advisable for a
gradual and manageable (“soft”) conversion and opening of China. From
this perspective, China’s Government changes froman authoritarian regime
that does not consider the will of the citizens to a specialised agent who
serves the citizens in general, but who is – at least for a limited time period
– allowed and obliged tomodify this will, as it processes better information.
Although such a change of perspective does not necessarily have any
practical consequences for the political situation in general and for the
The People’s Republic of China’s huge and fast growing media market poses a particular challenge
– commercialisation is practically running away with itself. Yet the opening of the audiovisual
sector has advantages and disadvantages for China that need to be compared and balanced to
determine the optimal degree and pace of conversion. A joint research project of the Institute of
Broadcasting Economics at Cologne University, Germany, and the Beijing Broadcasting Institute
of China examines the present conversion of China’s media from a theoretical point of view. Here
project leaders Dr Manfred Kops and Professor Zhenzhi Guo explain their approach.
Co u n t i n g t h e c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s :
C h i n a b r o a d e n s i t s T V m a r k e t s a f t e r
the channel - supported by