Is this a commentary on culture or an Economics lesson?

Reaction to “Concepts of culture: public policy and the cultural industries” –Nicholas Garnham

At first glance this reading looked like it could very subtly pass off as part of a lesson in a respectable Economics textbook. As Nicolas Garnham defines the concept of cultural industries—“It sees culture, defined as production and circulation of symbolic meaning, as a material process of production and exchange, part of, and in significant ways determined by, the wider economic processes of society with which it shares so many common features.” [Film Studies Reader, 19], the definition suggests that the analysis of cultural industries centers more around the industrial aspect than its cultural counterpart that we have grown so used to seeing in this course.

The reading as a whole is divided between the explanations of the Structure and Dynamics of these cultural industries, as well as cultural repertoire and distribution. Garnham talks about how the film industry will manipulate the types of productions based on maximization of audiences, and that some film makers tend to continue making certain types or storylines in films which they know from past audience responses to be “reliable” in terms of success, and more importantly, a profit.

It is interesting to see how this “drive to audience maximization” departs entirely from any sort of culture, and turns into a game of what I would call “economic chess” which involves maximizing profits through advertisements which influence the audience and limiting or “blocking” competition through monopolies and close connections among these industries and government.

Garnham also makes a very valid point when he writes that no matter how much film industry executives manipulate the film for the “desired” audience response, in the end, it is inherently unpredictable. Sometimes the intended meaning and audience’s interpretation of the meaning of a film can differ, which at times can be disastrous to the film maker. In order to counter this risk, film makers typically produce and release multiple films, of which maybe the overwhelming success of one can erase any losses resulting from other sub-par films.

The next claim Garnham makes is bold—but in a practical sense, it is true. Essentially Garnham states that is distribution and marketing, more so than the actual production, that is the source of “power and profit”.

I believe that while all of the aforementioned points are excellent practical observations—they are purely economical in nature. What part of these principles can be applied to areas other than “cultural texts”? The ideas of profit maximization, optimization, vertical and horizontal integration and inherent risk are all applicable in areas outside of the realm of film and related media. The main idea: everything is a business.