Cultural Industries Revisited

Author(s): Paul M. Hirsch

Source: Organization Science , May - Jun., 2000, Vol. 11, No. 3, Special Issue: Cultural
Industries: Learning from Evolving Organizational Practices (May - Jun., 2000), pp. 356-
361
Published by: INFORMS

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2640268

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2640268?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Organization
Science

This content downloaded from

195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Cultural Industries Revisited

Paul M. Hirsch
J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Department of Organization Behavior, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois 60208-2001, paulhirsch@northwestern.edu

It is a commonplace in most lines of economic endeavor that those who process raw materials, transform
them and merchandise the finished product receive the lion's share of economic rewards. The field of
cultural endeavors is relatively unique in that we strongly desire to reward our creators, commune with
their audiences, but avoid or ignore the organizational middlemen linking each to the other.
(Hirsch 1985 p. 110)

see is a wondrous expansion in the disciplinary approaches be-

Abstract
ing taken to examine the multitude of topics available for ex-
In my early "Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-
amination under the broad rubric and framiing of the term, "cul-
Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems" (1972), the middle
tural industries." Because I was a graduate student at the time
"throughput" phase, or most organizational aspect of cultural
(my roommate dared me to submit the "Processing. . ." paper
industries, was emphasized. In this depoliticized exploration of
to the American Journal of Sociology), it is a great pleasure to
what Adorno (1991) had earlier characterized as the industri-
find the concept has retained its value for other researchers since
alization of high culture, and Powdermaker (1950) as Holly-
that time.
wood's "dream factory," I emphasized the key roles of gate-
In this article, I will (1) reexamine and discuss the original
keeper and distributor organizations as critical in connecting the
framing of the term cultural industries; (2) briefly review some
artist/creators to audience/consumers of mass, or "popular"
of the more recent complementary perspectives which expand
culture (as it had more acceptingly come to be called). Alto-
the possible arenas for studying this topic; and (3) append a
gether, this network of organizations-from creators (artists, short note on how the more recent inclusion of nonprofit cul-
musicians, actors, writers) and brokers (agents), through the tural products (e.g., symphonies, museums) in this framework
cultural product's producers (publishers, studios), distributors poses interesting analytical questions and opportunities.
(wholesalers, theaters), and media outlets-collectively consti- (Economic Sociology; Organizational Field; Cultural
tute cultural industries. This article on industries producing Industry; Mass Media; Entertainment)
"cultural products" -defined as " 'nonmaterial' goods di-
rected at a public of consumers, for whom they generally serve
an esthetic or expressive, rather than a clearly utilitarian func-
tion" (Hirsch 1972 p. 641)-appeared at the same time that Revisiting the Original Framework
organizational sociology's focus on what became known as the
The concept of industry system takes the focus of atten-
"production of culture" took off, and continued to flourish into
tion away from any single firm or role in the sequence of
the 1990s (Peterson 1994, Crane 1992).
discovering, producing, and delivering a product, redi-
How has the study of cultural industries changed over the
recting attention to the interconnections and interdepen-
last generation? A simple answer is that the subject-the key
dencies between them in order to get to the final ("fin-
role of distribution and the importance of organizational mid-
ished") product or outcome. As Scott (1995) notes, it is
dlemen in the making and sale of popular culture-remains an-
similar to the concept of organizational field (DiMaggio
alytically the same. From actors, musicians, and writers;
through studios, labels and publishers, to videocassettes, movie
1991), which maps out the universe of organizations en-

theaters, record stores, and booksellers (in stores or via the In-
ternet)-cultural products flow. How this sequence is organized
and traversed remains a fascinating forest of power plays and
techniques, employed by role-occupants in the same positions
as have existed since the advent of mass media. While this
substantive field has changed little analytically, what we also
gaged in processing a product or project from its incep-
tion to completion.
In the case of cultural products, by the start of the new
millennium the organizational field would encompass
roles and organizations ranging from the talent agencies
and personal managers handling the artist's career to the

1047-7039/00/1 103/0356/$05.00 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, ? 2000 INFORMS

1526-5455 electronic ISSN Vol. 11, No. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 356-361

This content downloaded from

195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PAUL M. HIRSCH Cultural Industries Revisited
satellites carrying signals for both broadcast organiza-
tions and consumers, internet delivery of recordings and
song lyrics, and video cassettes of movies for purchase
and rental. In between these are a small number of pow-
erful "intermediate" organizations producing and dis-
tributing the movies, books, recordings, and television
programs which are developed and delivered at the earlier
(production) and later (retail) stages of these products'
creation and distribution (Stearns et al. 1987, Barnett and
Starkey 1994, Saundry 1998).
The extensive risk sharing and outsourcing of numer-
ous aspects of this production, marketing, promotion, and
distribution process began early in the history of enter-
tainment. Interestingly, these practices recently diffused
extensively throughout American business organizations,
being adopted widely during the 1980s and 1990s (Arthur
and Rousseau 1997). At GE and other large corporations,
this process mapping conception has been applied to the
full production process-from the start to finish of a prod-
uct or project. Abrahamson, and Lawrence and Phillips
have noted similar sequences of (a) symbiotic interindus-
try sequences in the production and distribution of man-
agement fads and fashions, such as "total quality man-
agement;" (Abrahamson 1996, 1999); and (b) traced the
increasing importance of (outsourced) knowledge and de-
sign components for increasing numbers of industrial and
service products (Lawrence and Phillips 2000).
Within this dynamic cultural industry field, there con-
tinues to be much jockeying for entry and positioning as
new technologies and legislation enable moves towards
vertical integration and cross-ownership of producing and
distributing organizations. "Stratification within each in-
dustry is based partly on each firm's ability to control the
distribution of marginally differentiated products. Com-
petitive advantage lies with firms best able to link avail-
able input to reliable and established distribution chan-
nels" (Hirsch 1972 p. 646). Recent large-scale corporate
mergers have increased concentration ratios and may alter
the internal composition of entertainment' s organiza-
tional field. One sign of a possibly countervailing force
is the increasing utilization of the Internet by musical
group and author "producers" to release new materials
without going through the more traditional routes of re-
cording companies and publishers as their distributors.
These developments within the cultural industry field
continue to move in various unanticipated directions. One
significant indication is the decision of its major distrib-
utor organizations to combine, in such recent megamer-
gers as: TimeWarner with Turner Broadcasting; Disney
with Capital Cities (ABC) Broadcasting; News Corp.'s
purchase of Simon and Schuster publishers, combined
with its ownership of 20th Century Fox (movies), Fox
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VO1. 11, No. 3, May-June 2000 357
This content downloaded from
195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Television Network and major newspapers; the Bertels-
mann Co.'s recent acquisition of Random House; and,
finally, AT&T's purchase of 60% of the cable television
industry.! It is important to note this overall increase in
concentration is primarily in the distribution and retail
sectors of this industry field. As the cost of technologies
for making a record, printing a book, or filming a movie
continues to decrease, control over their distribution be-
comes more critical for organizations seeking to reduce
uncertainty over the outcome of their investments (Miller
1996, 1997, Hirsch 1992, Turow 1992).
As the level of concentration increases across these me-
dia, an interesting empirical and researchable question
will be whether the diversity of what becomes available
is diminished. Particularly for books and recordings
where consumers' access to alternative delivery remains
limited, a narrowing in the number of large-selling re-
leases by new authors and publishers, or "unknown" re-
cording groups and labels may be anticipated (Schiffrin
1996, Peterson and Berger 1975, 1996, Burnett 1992,
Lopes 1992). For films and television, the increase in
available outlets (e.g., satellite channels, cassette sales)
may offset the increase in concentration of conventional
distribution resources.
A rise in the number of outlets available for film and
television productions is facilitated largely by the frag-
mentation of the retail television spectrum. From a small
number of three television networks and some ancillary
independent channels for the first 40 years of this com-
mercial medium, the 1990s have seen an explosion of
channels available via cable and satellite distribution.
Television has joined radio as a medium of formats, with
channels now specializing in headline news, courtroom
trials, stock market reports, romance movies, and car-
toons. The once dominant networks are still important
players, but less powerful-with a vastly reduced audi-
ence share, now closer to 40% than their earlier 90%. An
intriguing cultural question arising from this is whether
the U.S. still has as clear a single dominant popular cul-
ture, or whether (like radio, magazines, and now televi-
sion formats), there is less of a national pop culture (net-
work TV shows, with news at 6:00-or pothing else),
versus a multitude of what Gans (1974) and Cawelti
(1976) earlier envisioned as a variety of taste cultures,
each receiving its fare with minimal exposure to the tastes
of others.
This revisit to the original cultural industry systems
model finds the industry rife with substantive changes,
yet analytically much the same as at the time of the origi-
nal formulation. It still costs far less to produce many
books, records and films than it costs to distribute and
PAUL M. HIRSCH Cultural Industries Revisited
retail them. Competition in the industry is thus more fo-
cused in this latter activity. During the 1990s, a series of
large mergers was undertaken, probably in large part to
lower these costs and enable the reduction of uncertainty
in moving successful products through the cultural in-
dustry system. Unless (and until) these succeed in virtu-
ally ending the market uncertainty endemic to cultural
industries over which cultural product will become the
next hit or bestseller, this does not alter the analytical
focus of the industry system model. Rather, it provides a
process-orientation enabling the analyst to trace the criti-
cal points at which "cultural products" are located, spon-
sored, promoted, and retailed. This tracks the complexity
of a cultural product's routes and chances for success, at
the same time that key industry members seek to rein-
corporate aspects of production and distribution which
had previously been outsourced. The cultural industry
system model, initially part of the "production of cul-
ture" school of organizational sociology, has since been
extended and complemented by exciting developments in
other disciplines, to which I now turn.
Recent Formulations on Cultural
Industries
In an overview of the recent economics literature, Di-
Maggio (1994) noted an increase in the number of articles
addressing cultural topics. In economics and the related
field of business strategy, an impressive number of stud-
ies of cultural industries have appeared since 1990. In
Table 1 (Historical Overview of Cultural Industries), we
see these publication dates correspond roughly to the in-
dustry profile I label as the "New Gold Rush," in Col-
umn 3 (1980s-2000). During this period, not only were
the providers and distributors of programming ("soft-
ware") for the major media undergoing dramatic
changes; the very equipment ("hardware") over which it
would be transmitted and received (cables, wireless, sat-
ellites, Internet transmissions) was also in a state of flux.
(The key issues portrayed on Columns 1 and 2, for the
industry's earlier eras, were addressed in the previous
section, and are covered more extensively in the attendant
"production of culture" literature.)
For economic modelers, this poses a question of how
people will allocate their leisure time, i.e., which of the
many platforms offering competitive entertainment, and
seeking the consumer's time and money, would succeed
in gaining it? Following Column 3 of Table 1, we find
conceptions of the mass audience giving way to mass
"customization" with attendant changes in marketing
campaigns, advertising, and images presented. The 1999
358 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOl. 11, No. 3, May-June 2000
This content downloaded from
195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
annual meetings of the National Association of Broad-
casters was reported (Dretzka 1999) as presenting a con-
test in which "battle lines are being drawn between the
old guard-radio and television-and the new mavericks
of the Internet." Translated into the language of strategic
management, here is a contest between a previously dom-
inant five-forces economic framework (Porter 1980) ex-
periencing threats from new entrants and substitute tech-
nologies, as well as changes in relations with suppliers.
For disciples of Schumpeter, a possible time for creative
destruction; for D'Aveni and Gunther (1994), an example
of overdue "hypercompetition."
For researchers interested in cultural industries, these
potential transformations pose a great opportunity for
studies across disciplines, of networks, strategic alliances,
new corporate strategies, interorganizational conflict, and
the implementation of deregulation (e.g., AT&T's take-
over of 60% of the cable television industry). Researchers
in each of these subfields are, happily, responding to this
challenge and opportunity. For a cultural product to suc-
ceed, networks of relationships among a multitude of pro-
fessionals must be mobilized, coordinated, and managed
to get the job done (Burt 1992, Noria and Eccles 1992,
Granovetter 1982). In cultural industry systems, the for-
mal and informal contracts required cross-organizational
boundaries and often involve freelance professionals and
their associates. Quantitative and qualitative studies of
these networks, as well as comparisons between those
that perform best and worst, are progressing and becom-
ing available. An extensive bibliography of interesting
projects examining these social networks is found in
Jones (1996).
In the corporate strategy arena, we find the resource-
based theory of strategy (Barney 1991) has been applied
to the film industry and extended by Miller and Shamsie
(1996); and innovative studies by Robins (1993), Greve
(1996), and Eisenmann and Bower (this issue). These are
but a small sample of the expansion of frameworks out-
side of the production of culture perspective which, all
combined, lead to the conclusion that there is much left
to examine in the field, and it is well under way. An
additional area of increasing value and importance for
social scientists-but beyond the scope of this review-
is the study of meaning and discourse conveyed through
the books, films, and television programs to which we are
exposed daily.
A Note on Cultural Industries and
Nonprofit Organizations
To the extent organizational sociology has reestablished the obser-
vation that fine art and popular culture both exist in social en-
vironments which commingle elements of art and commerce, it
PAUL M. HIRSCH Cultural Industries Revisited

Table 1 Cultural Industries: A Historical Overview

1940s 1950s-1970s 1980s-2000

Industry "Industry" Stable, Controlled "Orderly" Transitions New Gold Rush

Profile (Vertical Integration)

Framings and "Mass Culture": Diversity and Segmentation begin: "Mass Customizations":

Context "film factories"; "golden age." Less Concentration - Restabilization. postmodern sensibilities;
3 Radio Networks New Record Labels; FM stations. everything everywhere, and
4 Record Companies Newspaper zoning begins; commonly owned (MTV
5 Movie Studios CATV gets going, MCI shows up. & Nick; CNN & Warner Bros.).
New entrants and entrepreneurs;

networks reeling

Locus of "Throughput" Creators ("input") freed up. All negotiable;

Control Production (intermediaries) New production companies arrive. Big mergers - multimedia;
in control Rise of new styles and players. Focus more international

Technology Software > Hardware Television arrives and conquers Computing & Media coverage;
& Legal Technology stable; Radio - Outlet for new genres. websites and Internet emerge;
Arenas mass media as wartime ally New Telecomm Act Restricts Field;
Hardware issues contested.

Analytical Bain, Industrial Peterson, recording industry studies; DiMaggio, broadening culture's
Frameworks Organization Economics Gans, high culture and popular culture. definition;
Include: D'Aveni's hypercompetition;
The Frankfurt School Turow-changing company practices;
Gitlin-political impacts.

has rendered an intellectual service. But in making this point,
we may well have glossed over the question of what are the
proportions of, and emphases on, art versus commerce found
within each area? (Hirsch 1978 p. 317)
Both sociological and economic approaches to the arts
have encouraged the conception of fine art as a "com-
modity" no different than popular culture. But in fact, it
has a far different audience (smaller, more elite), and a
greater capacity to accurately estimate its costs and the
flows of incoming revenue. Although the fine arts (for-
tunately) fall short of meeting my definition of cultural
"products" and "industries" -as the most entrepreneur-
ial, speculative segments of the industry, and far more
committed to the size of the financial return than to the
quality of the productions which yield it-the same role-
sets are analytically operative: artists and managers at the
input stages, and organizations producing and distributing
their output (classical music, monographs, art films).
With the understanding that maximal profits reign less
as the organizational goal in these settings (for nonprofits
breaking even is cause for celebration), and that aesthetic
content has clearer standards (which are taken more se-
riously than for pop culture), I am pleased to see the cul-
tural industry concept extended to the nonprofit (more
elite) sectors of the study of cultural organization. For
consumers, the key feature common to both sectors re-
mains the greater aesthetic value of the cultural produc-
tions than for more utilitarian commodities, such as Band-
Aids. The extension of the cultural industry concept in
this way suggests a continuum from cultural to utilitarian
usage of many consumer products, enabling its extension
to such additional settings as gourmet food, professional
sports, and symphony orchestras.
Conclusion
On a personal note, I am naturally delighted that the cul-
tural industry concept continues to be useful for analyzing
the popular culture around us. It connects to the wider
movements in economic sociology to analyze and con-
struct organizational fields, and address the social con-
struction of markets of all kinds. The idea of tracing prod-
ucts across organizations rather than limit analysis to a
single firm was fairly original at the time this article first

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOl. 11, No. 3, May-June 2000 359

This content downloaded from

195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PAUL M. HIRSCH Cultural Industries Revisited
appeared. With some notable exceptions, this processual
emphasis remains underrepresented in studies of organi-
zations and industries. Future developments will benefit
from addressing the "sites visited" as less static and
more of a dynamic moving target.
Finally, more consideration of whether the cultural
"products" being analyzed are considered creative and/
or well-crafted, and even good or bad by other criteria, is
a luxury which our fields can afford to include in our
analyses now and then. Our personal interest in cultural
industries invites pleasure in knowing that so long as the
prediction of demand and taste preferences remains elu-
sive, cultural goods will continue to be overproduced,
with the result that we may all have continued access to
diverse offerings-a cultural state from which we all ben-
efit.
Acknowledgment
This article is a revision of presentations at two conferences, "Research
Perspectives on the Management of Cultural Industries" and "Craft
and Commerce in Cinema, " held at New York University's Stem
School in 1997 and 1998. The author wishes to thank Joseph Lampel,
Stephen Mezias, Jamal Shamsie, and Theresa Lant for organizing these
and making this paper possible, and to thank the Northwestern Uni-
versity's Institute for Policy Research for financial support in con-
ducting this research.
Endnote
'The description of the degree of separation of these organizational
activities was noted as variable in the initial (1972) article. There, I
noted both (1) "A distinctive feature of cultural industry systems at
the present time is the organizational segregation of functional units
and subsystems." (p. 644, italics added); and (2) "In an earlier, more
stable environment, that is less heterogeneous markets and fewer con-
straints on vertical integration, the production of both films and popular
records was administered more bureaucratically: lower level personnel
were delegated less responsibility, overhead costs were less often
minimized. .. ' (p. 646). Which of these states the industry will move
towards during the coming decades remains a fascinating empirical
question.
References
Abrahamson, M. 1999. Management fashion lifecycles, triggers, and
collective learning processes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44 708-740.
. 1996. Management fashion. Acad. Management Rev. 21 (1) 254-
285.
Adorno, T. W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass
Culture. Routledge, London, U.K.
Arthur, M., D. Rousseau, eds. 1997. Boundaryless Careers: Employ-
ment in the New Organizational Era. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Barnett, C., K. Starkey. 1994. The emergence of flexible networks in
the U.K. television industry. British J. Management 5 251-260.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
J. Management 17 99-120.
360 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOl. 11, No. 3, May-June 2000
This content downloaded from
195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Burnett, R. 1992. The implications of ownership changes on concen-
tration and diversity in the phonogram industry. Comm. Res. 19
(6) 749-769.
Burt, R. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Conmpetition.
Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Cawelti, J. 1976. Adventure, Mystery, and Romance. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago, IL.
D'Aveni, R., R. Gunther. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dy-
namics of Strategic Maneuvering. The Free Press, New York.
DiMaggio, P. 1991. Constructing and organizational field as a profes-
sional project: U. S. Art Museums, 1920-1940. W. Powell, P.
DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Anal-
ysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
. 1994. Culture and economy. N. Smelser, R. Swedberg, eds.,
Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ 27-57.
Dretzka, G. 1999. Broadcasters' Bets Are On. Chicago Tribune. April
22.
Eisenmann and Bower. 2000. The entrepreneurial M-form: A case
study of strategic integration in a global media company. Org.
Sci. 11 (3). This issue.
Gans, H. 1974. Popular Culture and High Culture. Basic, New York.
Granovetter, M. 1982. The strength of weak ties: A network theory
revisited. P. Marsden, N. Lin, eds. Social Structure and Network
Analysis. Sage, Newberry Park, CA 105-130.
Greve, H. 1996. Patterns of competition: The diffusion of a market
position in radio broadcasting. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41 29-60
Hirsch, P. M. 1972. Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set
analysis of cultural industry systems. Amer. J. Soc. 77 639-659.
. 1978. Production and distribution roles among cultural organi-
zations: On the division of labor across intellectual disciplines.
Social Res. 45 (2) 315-330. Reprinted as "Institutional and Elite
Functions of Mass Media," E. Katz, T. Tedesco, eds., Mass Me-
dia and Social Change, Sage, London, 1981.
. 1985. Cultural productions in the U. S.: Do changes in ownership
matter? J. Comm. 36 (3) 110-121.
. 1992. Hollyworld: Globalization of the mass media. Comm. Res.
19 (6).
Jones, C. 1997. Careers in project networks: The case of the film in-
dustry. M. Arthur, D. Rousseau, eds. Boundaryless Careers: Em-
ployment in the New Organizational Era. 58-75. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, New York
Lawrence, T., N. Phillips. 2000. Understanding cultural industries. J.
Management Inquiry. 9 (in press).
Lopes, P. 1992. Innovation and diversity in the popular music industry,
1969 to 1990. Amer. Soc. Rev. 57 56-71.
Miller, D., J. Shamsie. 1996. The resource-based view of the firm in
two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to
1965. Acad. Management J. 39 (3) 519-543.
Miller, M. C. 1998. The crushing power of big publishing. Nation 264
(10).
, J. Biden. 1996. The national entertainment state. Nation 262 (22)
23-27.
Noria, N., R. Eccles, eds. 1992. Networks and Organizations: Struc-
ture, Form, and Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
PAUL M. HIRSCH Cultural Industries Revisited

Peterson, R. 1994. Culture studies through the production perspective: Robins, J. 1993. Organization as strategy: Restructuring production in
Progress and prospects. D. Crans, ed. The Sociology of Culture. the film industry. Strategic Mangement J. 14 103-118.

Blackwell, Oxford, U.K. 163-185. Saundry, S. 1998. The limits of flexibility: The case of UK television.

, D. Berger. 1975. Cycles in symbol production: The case of pop-
ular music. Amer. Soc. Rev. 40 158-173.
1996. Measuring industry concentration, diversity, and
innovation in popular music: Reply to Alexander. Amer. Soc. Rev.
61 (1) 175-178.
Porter, M. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Powdermaker, H. 1950. Hollywood: The Dream Factory. Grosset &
Dunlap, New York.
Brit. J Management. 9 151-162.
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institution and Organization. Sage, Newberry Park,
CA.
Schiffrin, A. 1996. The corporatization of publishing: Making books
to fit mass tastes. Nation 262 (22) 29-32.
Stearns, T., A. Hoffman, J. Heide. 1987. Performance of commercial
television stations as an outcome of interorganizational linkages
and environmental conditions. Acad. Management J. 30 71-90.
Turow, J. 1992. The organizational underpinnings of contemporary
media conglomerates. Comm. Res. 19 (6) 682-704.

Accepted by Theresa Lant.

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VO1. 11, No. 3, May-June 2000 361

This content downloaded from

195.223.85.81 on Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:40:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms