In recent years, media economics has become a hot research topic. In May this year, the 7th World Conference on Media Economics was held in Beijing. The conference * * * received more than 40 academic papers 140, and 30 domestic scholars read the papers, which represented the overall level of domestic media economics research to a certain extent. However, judging from these papers, there are still some misunderstandings in the research of media economics in China, and there is still a certain gap compared with similar research abroad, which is an inevitable phenomenon at a specific stage of discipline development. However, in order to build a discipline system of media economics with local characteristics, we must recognize the present situation and make clear the research direction of media economics.
Both applied research and basic research are needed.
The basic theoretical research and applied research of media economics are the two wings on which media economics depends, which complement each other and are indispensable.
The history of science shows that the vitality of a discipline depends not only on the degree of social demand for this discipline, but also on the firmness and profundity of its basic theory. Media economics was born and developed at the beginning to solve the practical problems of media operation, so it has made great achievements in the application field. On the other hand, a value orientation has gradually developed: the research of media economics should solve practical problems and have economic benefits, and applied research is the right way. What's the use of studying those abstract theories? Therefore, in today's media economics research, there is a tendency to despise basic theoretical research.
This utilitarian tendency of media economics research has influenced the development of media economics. At present, media economics research has the following characteristics: first, pragmatism-many achievements are the summary of communication experience and lessons; Second, it is attached to other disciplines (such as economics, journalism, communication, management, marketing, etc. ); Thirdly, researchers from various disciplines have made a multi-angle, multi-disciplinary, multi-level and multi-method investigation on the media economy, so they have different opinions on the connotation, extension, elements and functions of the media economy, as well as the research object, purpose, task, method and content of the media economy. Some articles even disdain to make such a division and definition, and conduct research based on their common sense understanding of media economy, which leads to some confusion in the current research of media economy.
Taking the definition of media economics as an example, there has been a lot of controversy. Now, in addition to the original communication research, many researchers of media economics are transferred from other disciplines, and researchers of various disciplines are trying to rely on media economics in their own research direction. Scholars who used to study economics thought that media economics used some knowledge of economics to answer some economic phenomena in the field of news communication, and it was necessary to study media problems with economic theories and methods. People who study management believe that media economics is to study the management of media industry; Communication scholars believe that media economics is a subject that studies the economic relations generated in the process of media communication. The debate on definition has intensified the question of "what is media economics?" Indeed, there is still no clear answer to what it is.
The research scope is difficult to determine, so does media economics only examine newspapers, radio and television, the Internet and other media, or does it include printing, papermaking, editing, advertising, publishing and distribution and other industrial chain links that support its development, or does it include digital technology support, telecommunications, network, digital signal processing and transmission technology? Should we take the media as the research subject to study the role and effect of the media in the media operation, or take the audience as the research subject to study the benefits and influence of the audience in the media operation? Is it a study of pure media economic activities, or does it include the policy, legal and social background that affects media economic activities? These problems have not been solved.
The attribution of media economics has also become a problem. Some people think that media economics is an interdisciplinary subject of journalism, communication and economics. For example, Zhao Huayong mentioned in the preface of TV Media Economics: "The study of TV media management belongs to the product of the intersection of journalism and communication and economics." Some people think that media economics is an independent applied discipline. Here can be divided into many views:
Some people think that media economics is an applied discipline under journalism and communication, such as Professor Zhou Hongduo: "Media economics is a branch of applied communication, and its research object is the proportional relationship between input and output of people's communication activities based on high technology, with the main task of disseminating information, and the various economic activities and their operating rules caused by it." Some people think that media economics is an applied discipline under economics. For example, Professor Jin Bei mentioned in "Newspaper Economics": "Newspaper Economics is an extension of microeconomics and industrial economics in the field of newspaper industry." Others think that it should belong to management and marketing. No matter what kind of division, it seems that media economics is a hodgepodge.
Obviously, it is difficult to establish a media economics which is different from other related disciplines and has its own unique and clear research object, purpose, task and content. We must rationally abstract the elements contained in various related disciplines with the help of basic theoretical research, so as to separate the concepts and principles that are mixed and bonded with various related disciplines from these concepts and disciplines. In this process, we must make clear the unique research object, purpose, task and content of media economics, and formulate the development strategy of media economics.
Back in the 1980s, when communication was first introduced, it also showed the phenomenon of constant disputes with today's media economics research, which may be the inevitable process of the introduction of a new discipline.
At that time, a group of scholars also issued an appeal to pay attention to the basic theoretical research of communication. Just the definitions of news and communication have been discussed for many years. Searching for the papers at that time, there are many discussions about the definition, communication function, communication mode and communication effect of news. Of course, the result of the big discussion is gratifying. So far, the basic theory of journalism and communication has been basically finalized, and journalism and communication have matured and formed a complete discipline system. Similarly, the introduction of media economics should also carry out such an idea of attaching importance to basic research. Only by being deeply rooted can it flourish.
Under the background that media economics pays more attention to applied research than basic theoretical research, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of basic theoretical research of media economics. However, at the 7th World Conference on Media Economics, among the dozens of papers submitted by all domestic scholars, only Mei Xiaodong from School of Journalism and Communication of Anhui University submitted the paper "Preliminary Understanding of the Nature of Circulation Industry in Media Industry", which is to discuss basic theoretical issues. It seems that it is imperative to strengthen basic theoretical research.
We need macro and micro research.
Media economics needs macro research, but it needs macro research that is close to reality and guides practice. Microscopic research is necessary, but it needs to be abstracted and extended to universal principles.
Judging from the papers submitted at this conference, most of them study the media economy from a macro perspective, and there are also many papers on the reform of media system, the development trend of newspaper industry and the development strategy of TV industry, which mainly stems from the particularity of China's media economy. Before 1980s, the marketization of media was still a topic that needed to be avoided. Since then, the media market has been gradually liberalized, which is a process of change. Media management agencies are gradually improving and developing the media policy system suitable for the national conditions, constantly adjusting and changing, and deepening the reform of the cultural system. Under this premise, to study the media economy, we have to keep up with the changes in media policies, study the changes in the general environment that affect the operation of the media, and study its impact on the operation of the media and its prospects, which is inevitable at a specific research stage.
Similarly, the media economy of any country in the world can not run without their media policies, laws and regulations. Compared with China, only the legal system of media policy in western countries has been perfected, and it doesn't need much adjustment. In the study of media economy, there are fewer macro media environments and more micro media operations.
However, at present, the macro-research on the media economy is not close to reality, and it is difficult to guide the actual operation of the media. It is suggested to introduce the exit mechanism of newspapers and periodicals, but there is no mention of how to resettle the original personnel and solve the remaining creditor's rights and debts after the exit of newspapers and periodicals. Call on media groups to change from physical changes to chemical reactions, but how to achieve it and how to effectively and reasonably integrate resources can not take effective measures; This paper discusses how to break down industry barriers and promote investor diversification, but does not consider how to manage diversified capital and how to share its benefits after introducing diversified capital. It emphasizes the need to clarify media property rights and strengthen property rights responsibilities, but ignores the current situation of media industry. In order to become a prominent school and form its own discipline system, media economics must strengthen the communication and exchange between academia and media industry, promote theory with practice and guide practice with theory.
There are few micro-studies on the media economy, and many micro-studies belong to the media's achievements display or experience introduction, which is dubbed "debriefing" by the industry. The characteristics of this research are as follows:
The success of a certain media is often attributed to the implementation of a new measure, regardless of other factors; Talking about phenomena and problems, the research depth is not enough; Pay more attention to perceptual thinking than rational research, and rarely use mathematical logic and economic theory to build media economic models; Descriptive and explanatory results are mostly in the study, and predictive results are few; The theory is not enough, and the guidance to the practice of media operation is not strong. These microscopic studies do not have the characteristics of scientific research results, can not be abstracted into universal principles, are difficult to popularize, and the results can not be brought into play.
In view of this micro-research situation, we should build a basic research model system of media economics to make it a scientific basis for practical decision-making of general media economy. Constructing the basic research model system of media economics may not be completely equivalent to the actual situation of media economy operation, but at least it can help us grasp the core issues of media economic analysis. As long as it is used flexibly, it can help people to better explain, analyze and predict the law of media economy operation and help media operators to formulate operational strategies.
Both quantitative research and qualitative research are needed.
Media economics needs not only quantitative research, but also qualitative research.
It is necessary to avoid the research methods that attach too much importance to qualitative and despise quantitative, and also to avoid the research methods that attach too much importance to quantitative and despise qualitative.
There have been many articles criticizing that the current media economics pays too much attention to qualitative research rather than quantitative research. For example, Chen's On the Shortcomings and Breakthroughs of Media Economy Research in China (Modern Media, No.7, 2004), Pan's Research Paradigm of Media Economics (Reporter, No.7, 2004) and Research Methods of Media Economy (Reporter, No.2, 2005). Many scholars have long been aware of this problem. Mr. Chen Zhongyuan from China Education Publishing House and Professor Zheng from Renmin University of China also talked about the lack of quantitative methods in media economics research. Data demonstration can make the demonstration of research results more convincing, and quantifying research indicators and constructing mathematical models can also make the research more readable and scientific. But why do media economists in China still pay attention to studying media economy with qualitative methods? Why did some people criticize this phenomenon a few years ago and it is still widespread today?
This is mainly related to the academic background of current media academic researchers. Most of the earliest scholars who began to study media economy came from journalism and communication and related majors. Traditionally, China's journalism is mainly based on qualitative research methods, lacking the mathematical statistics analysis and research methods of economics and the accumulation of empirical research results, so it is difficult to use quantitative research methods to carry out research.
Secondly, scholars who study media economy lack the necessary data for quantitative research. Many foreign media are listed companies, and the information disclosure system requires them to disclose their business information regularly, which provides an open data source for their media economists to study. From the papers received at the 7th World Conference on Media Economics, we can see that most of the quantitative research data made by many foreign scholars come from the public data of listed media companies, such as the International Business School of Yan Xueping University in Sweden and Cinziadalzot Toandbenedet Tapario of Lugano University in Switzerland. JaeminJun g of Seoul Women's University in South Korea wrote "Merger and Acquisition of Global Media Giants: Preference for Business Fields, Integration Models and Foreign Regions" and Xu Jun of the University of Georgia in the United States wrote "Concentration of American Media Industry: Replication and Extension".
However, there are few listed companies in domestic media, and non-listed media often regard the operation of the media as an internal secret and never disclose it to the outside world. Therefore, media researchers can't get information and can only rely on the occasional and random announcements of media operators. In this case, the information disclosure of a few listed media is particularly precious. Last year, the data of Beiqing Media's semi-annual report and annual report became the darling of media economic researchers, and most research papers on newspaper economy cited the information disclosure data of Beiqing Media. This also shows from another angle that domestic scholars also attach great importance to the quantitative research of media economics, but suffer from the lack of available data, so they can only settle for the second best and seek qualitative research.
In fact, we should not be overly superstitious about quantitative research. For the study of media economy, quantification is not omnipotent, and for some problems, it can only be implemented by qualitative research methods. For example, the basic theory research can only use qualitative methods, while the media operation practice is best to use quantitative methods; The implementation of national media policy uses qualitative methods, while the implementation effect of media policy uses quantitative methods; It is best to study the relationship between the price of media products and audience selection quantitatively, and it is best to discuss the internal management mode of media qualitatively. In the paper submitted to the World Conference on Media Economics, Associate Professor Ding Hegen of School of Journalism and Communication of Nanjing University may not be able to complete his paper "Several Key Issues in the Reform of Media Management System" if only quantitative methods are used. Similarly, if Professor Zhan Chengda from the Department of Media Management of Zhejiang Media College uses qualitative methods alone, he may not be able to write "A Study on the Impact of Private Capital Entering the Media Industry in China". In the research of media economics, qualitative and quantitative are the two wings of research methods, and both are indispensable. In a certain kind of research, there is only the question of which is the main research method and which is the most suitable. There is no truth that quantitative represents advanced and qualitative represents backward.
Similarly, this thinking article needs qualitative methods of philosophical speculation and rational judgment. If we use quantitative methods, we can't start.