This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

Emerging Media Business Models Worldwide:
A Study of Leading Webcasters in 13 countries
ABSTRACT
This paper reports the findings of a 13-country comparison of 
webcasting business
practices, and the results of a test of the robustness of the 
webcasting business model framework
suggested by Ha and Ganahl (2004). The globalness of the webcast 
medium is also examined.
The study establishes the variety of business practices by different 
types of webcasters, and the
domination of domestic webcasters and domestically produced content 
in webcast services.
2
Emerging Media Business Models Worldwide:
A Study of Leading Webcasters in 13 countries
Television and radio media are no longer confined by the 
electro-magnetic spectrum,
geography or license requirements. With the increasing use of 
broadband Internet connections in
the world and the advancement of the streaming technology, the Web is 
becoming more and more
popular either as the primary or alternative delivery medium for 
television and radio stations.
For example, Home and Garden Cable Television Network began producing 
dozens of threeminute
videos on best practices in homebuilding exclusively for its 
hgtvpro.com web site
(Associated Press, 2005). The British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) 
reported 6 million unique
visitors listened to 10 million hours of its streaming radio news via 
the Web in October 2004
(Radio and Internet Newsletter, 2004).
The delivery of prepared video and audio content to Web users is 
called Webcasting.
Webcast providers range from established television and radio 
stations such as ESPN.com (also
known as clicks-and-bricks) to stand alone webcasting services that 
exist only online without any
offline media counterparts such as Real Networks (pure-plays), to 
Internet service providers
(ISPs) that also participate in the online media content delivery 
business such as America Online
(AOL).
This paper first discusses the growing importance of webcasting as an 
emerging global
medium in the context of increasing broadband penetration and the 
inheritance of the
participatory culture of the Internet by the webcast medium. Second, 
it addresses the importance
of technical characteristics for understanding emerging media and 
reviews the research literature
on the business models for online media. Third, it demonstrates the 
necessity of a cross-cultural
model that enables the globalization of a webcasting industry by 
promoting the understanding of
the dynamics between online and offline media that transcend 
individual markets. Fourth, it
presents several hypotheses and a research question based on prior 
studies of online media
3
business models and media economics theories. Finally findings of an 
original research study of
the leading webcasters in 13 countries are presented to test the 
robustness of the online media
business model theory proposed by Ha and Ganahl (2004).
Significance of webcasting as an emerging global medium
The development of audio and video service on the Web is significant 
to the consumers
and media industry at large. Unlike text-and-graphics-only web sites, 
webcasts of audio and
video can transform a web site into an entertainment center providing 
a full range sensory
experience to consumers. The delivery of such a rich and highly 
accommodating media
experience, called fluidity in sciences, makes webcasting an 
attractive medium (Lin, 2004).
Indeed, watching or downloading video and music and listening to 
streaming audio, are activities
characterize broadband users (Internet Retailer, 2004). Webcasts not 
only provide consumers
more choices, but also create a whole new landscape to the media 
industry. Traditionally, the
consumption of audio or video content usually occurred at the users' 
home. Now, consumption
of television shows can occur on transit (when people have wireless 
Internet connection either
through their laptop or cellular phones) and at work. Computers are 
increasingly common in the
work place, and much research reports the use of computers for 
entertainment at work
(eMarketer, 2003). Webcasts can be a complementary service to 
existing media companies, as
well as a competitor for revenue and audience's time.
Despite the academic widespread use of the term "emerging media," 
there is no clear
definition of what constitutes an emerging medium. We suggest that an 
emerging medium is a
message delivery vehicle that is achieving higher utilization among 
the general population, but
has neither universally accepted technical standards for content 
transmission and display, nor
established operation models such as revenue sources and content 
strategies. It is transient in
nature. All successful mass media technologies go through this 
"emerging media" status in their
nascent stage. Webcasting is an emerging medium that demonstrates 
these characteristics.
Webcast users are faced with incompatible and different file formats, 
streaming media
4
technologies such as compression and decompression techniques 
(codecs), different media
players for displaying audio and video files, and other software or 
plug-in enhancements when
using webcasts. Due to the unlimited capacity and wide open structure 
of a web site, usability is
very important. In particular, it is important for a consumer to be 
able to locate what he or she
wants to watch or listen in a webcast that provides thousands of 
videos or music playlists. This
study defines webcasting as an example of emerging media and examines 
the various business
models used by webcasters in their efforts to survive financially. To 
avoid limiting the study's
application to only one country or culture, it employs a 
cross-country comparison. Using a crosscountry
comparison is an appropriate approach to test the robustness of a 
theory (Livingstone,
2001).
Proponents of Internet TV (e.g., Noam Groebel & Gerbarg, 2004) and other media
researchers (e.g., Chang, Lee & Lee, 2004) contend the Internet is an 
efficient new distribution
outlet for video programs. By nature of the economic properties of 
video products, the Web is an
ideal video delivery medium of the future. Digitizing video content 
is becoming easier and
demands much less bandwidth requirements. The online music business 
has become a major
challenge to the established record labels, and many new Internet 
radio stations were launched in
recent years (Perebinossoff, Gross & Gross, 2005). Indeed, the most 
recent report released by the
Online Publishers Association and comScore Networks reveals U.S. 
consumer spending on
entertainment and multimedia sites (excluding game sites) reached 
US$413.5 million in 2004, a
90 percent increase over the previous year. It now ranks the second 
among online paid content
categories, following online dating and relationship services 
(McGann, 2005). Accustream
(2004b) forecasts subscription and stream-based advertising revenue 
in the United States will
reach US$864 million in 2005.
The absence of government controls and the ease of two-way communication have
created a participatory culture on the Web. This participatory 
culture, coupled with other
commercial, social, and political interests, can transform the ways 
individuals and organizations
5
disseminate audios or videos to worldwide audiences. With an almost 
unlimited capacity, the
Web can become open depositories of audio video content made by both 
professional and
amateur producers. Although webcasting for business use is another 
important application of
webcasting, it is beyond the scope of this study. The focus of this 
study is on consumer
webcasting.
Successful consumer webcasting requires the establishment of viable 
financial models
that support the emerging medium. There are many studies that examine 
the adoption of new
media by consumers primarily based on Rogers' (1995) diffusion of 
innovation paradigm.
However, consumer perception of the medium is influenced by the 
medium's business models
and its dissemination of content to consumers. The medium's business 
models can be decisive to
the acceptance of the medium. Currently there is a lack of theories 
that explain how emerging
media choose business models, and the models' influence on available 
content within the
emerging media. This study examines possible theories that help 
answer this important question.
Literature Review
Technical Standards and Consumption
One key characteristic of emerging media is the presence of competing 
technical
standards in consumption of the media content. Such competing 
standards can cause confusion
among consumers and create barriers to adoption. As Rogers' diffusion 
of innovation theory
(1995) posits, only when the technology is simple to use and 
compatible to the life-style of
consumers will it be adopted by the masses. To view or listen to a 
webcast, a webcast consumer
must have a compatible media player that can display the file format 
used by the webcaster, and a
broadband connection to receive high quality digital videos and audio 
files. Currently there are
three main media players (Windows Media Player, Real Player, and 
Apple Quicktime) and
dozens of proprietary media players that display audio or video 
content. Next, in order to locate
the channel or clip to watch, they must know how to navigate web 
sites which vary greatly by
designs and arrangements of the playlists or content (Ha, 2004).
6
Additionally, there are four different commonly used file 
transmission methods for
webcasting: 1) Downloading on demand, 2) Streaming on demand, 3) Live 
streaming, and
4) Push (Ha, 2004). Each method provides a different format for a 
consumer to use the content
service. Downloading on demand allows the user to download the media 
file to the user's hard
drive, so the user can store it and open it for later use. It is 
similar to a videocassette or DVD that
is owned by the consumer. Streaming on demand utilizes the file 
compression technology to
display the file during transmission. The files are stored on the 
webcaster's server. Users can
retrieve at any moment the content on demand, however the streaming 
does not constitute
ownership because content was never saved on the users' computer. 
Live streaming most closely
resembles the traditional terrestrial broadcast. There is a fixed 
show schedule that users must
follow in order to view or listen to the content. Push is a 
technology that automatically delivers
the content to the user's Internet reception devices through common 
computer applications such
as screensavers or e-mail programs. Users do not need to take the 
initiative in locating and
consuming the content. They are given the content passively. The 
program update of Microsoft
Windows is a common example of the use of the push method. Thus the 
webcaster's choice of
transmission method determines the way that consumers can enjoy the 
webcast content. While
peer-to-peer file sharing of audio and video content is another 
technology growing in popularity,
because its content transmission is not under the webcaster's 
control, it does not constitute a
media service that assembles content to its users.
Apart from the technical knowledge of installing the media players 
and knowing how to
locate the content, cost is another barrier to webcast adoption. The 
initial cost includes the
broadband Internet connection subscription, the purchasing of a modem 
and a multimedia
computer or Internet reception device. The eventual costs can include 
paying webcast content
services on a subscription or pay per view basis if the user chooses 
services that charge
consumers.
7
Online Media Business Models
Many consulting companies, such as McKinsey & Company (2002) and Accustream
(2004a), offer proprietary research on their forecast and analysis of 
online media business
models. Their focus is on profitability rather than the larger impact 
of various webcasting
business models on the society. The academe's strong interest in 
online media business models
is demonstrated in a recent special issue of the International 
Journal on Media Management
dedicated to business models of traditional media and the Internet. 
It received 45 manuscript
submissions. The various online media business model theories 
discussed in published research
address two major issues: whether consumers are willing to pay for 
the online media
content/services (e.g., Chyi, 2005), and whether the online presence 
of offline media will
cannibalize their offline media's revenue (e.g., Fetscherin and 
Knolmayer, 2004).
Despite the strong interest of both commercial and academic entities 
in online media
business models, the discussion of online business models is 
inconsistent and includes no
common components for comparison. For example, Picard (2002) defines 
media business models
as an architecture that accounts for "the resources of production and 
distribution technologies,
content creation or acquisition, and recovery of costs for creating, 
assembling, and presenting the
content"(p.26). Business models are modes of practices, and are 
different from strategies which
are the means to attain the business goal. Product offering, 
consumer, revenue, pricing and
delivery are proposed as the five vital components of a business 
model (Fetscherin and
Knolmayer 2004).
Ha and Ganahl (2004) offer a framework to analyze webcasting business models.
Transmission methods, content strategies and revenue sources are 
identified as the three common
components of a webcasting business model. They propose a 
parsimonious taxonomy of
ocontent aggregator and branded content as the two general business 
models for webcasting. The
content aggregator model refers to the operation of the webcaster as 
an entertainment or
information portal that works like a cable system operator. The 
webcaster assembles content
8
from a wide variety of competing content suppliers. The branded 
content model refers to the
operation of the webcaster as a media brand with unique image and 
content. Its business success
is based on specialized content or a well-known media brand. The 
content can be original or
repurposed (i.e., shown before in another medium), however, content 
from another media brand is
not available. Content aggregators provide much more content variety 
than the branded content
business model. They need to make site navigation and content 
location easy to prevent users'
loss and confusion amid the huge amount of available content from 
various sources. Users of
branded content webcasts are generally familiar with the webcasters' content.
In their study of South Korean and American leading webcasters, Ha 
and Ganahl (2004)
demonstrate that webcaster types (clicks-and-bricks and pure-plays) 
have different content
strategies because of varying competitive advantages. 
Clicks-and-bricks such as TV networks or
radio stations have the advantage of brand recognition and the 
ownership of media content. They
are likely to simulcast their content or repurpose previously aired 
content. Pure-play webcasters
can freely select content sources from a variety of competing content 
providers. They can also
provide original content to create uniqueness without the worry about 
jeopardizing offline
media's image. Additionally, webcasting's technical characteristic of 
different transmission
methods can determine the type of revenue sources and diversity of 
revenue sources of the
webcaster. For example, the on-demand streaming method facilitates 
subscription and pay-perview
revenue sources because it provides users flexibility and convenience 
of using the content
whenever they want. Also the choice of content is not limited to 
scheduled programming.
This study defines webcasting business models as the patterns of 
operation that an
organization uses to offer its customers audio and/or video services 
on the Web that utilize one or
a combination of file transmission methods, content strategies and 
revenue sources for the
purpose of achieving its business goal and sustaining the 
organization's survival. This definition
applies to both for-profit webcasters and non-profit webcasters.
9
Among the studies of online media business models, Picard (2002), 
Chan-Olmsted and
Ha (2003) both argue for an evolutionary development of business 
models. Picard (2002)
describes the development of online media business models as the 
evolution from the earliest
videotext model to the current portal model. Chan-Olmsted and Ha 
(2003) assert there is a
learning curve that media companies must go through. When existing 
media have developed their
knowledge about the Web and are able to generate Web revenue by 
meeting consumer needs,
then they will be able to sustain a profit-making business model. 
However, their online media
business models are for existing media such as TV or radio stations. 
These studies are not able to
explain the various types of webcasters that exist on the Web without 
offline media counterparts.
Other studies on media business models illustrate the issue of 
cannibalization by showing
the influence of basic economic factors such as ownership on online 
media business models. For
example, in Arampatzis's (2004) study of the web sites of British and 
Greek media organizations,
public broadcasters are more likely to experiment with new features 
than commercial
broadcasters. Kolo and Vogt (2004) argue that online media can exist 
independent of their
offline media because there is little overlap between audiences. The 
media executives' fear of the
"free-rider" Internet culture supports Fetscherin & Knolmayer's 
(2004) proposal that the risk of
cannibalization depends on the proportion of online free content and 
the degree of content overlap
between online and offline media.
Studies that define media business models as simply revenue sources 
focus on the
audiences' willingness to pay for content. For example, Mings and 
White (2000) proposes four
business models based on revenue sources: 1) advertising, 2) 
e-commerce (transactional), 3)
subscription, 4) bundled (partnership). Chyi (2005) concludes that 
the subscription business
model will not work in Hong Kong because most consumers are not 
willing to pay for the
content. Bartussek (2003) contends that consumers will be willing to 
pay for content if media can
provide content that is exclusive, user-friendly and customized, with 
other additional benefits to
10
the existing media content service. The revenue sources of online 
media will differ greatly from
offline media. Table 1 compares the published online media business 
model studies.
Insert Table 1 Here
The current discussion of online media models is limited by the 
number of markets or
settings where empirical data or anecdotal examples can support the 
theories. The models may
not be applicable to other countries without a rigorous 
cross-national testing of the theories.
Researchers have employed the multi-country approach to test the 
universality and robustness of
a theory such as cultural fit of advertising appeals (Zapour, 1994) 
or advertising as a mirror of
society (Albers-Miller and Gelb, 1996).
Ha and Ganahl (2004) proposed a cross-national framework of business 
models that
customizes for the webcast medium. Thus this study tests their 
proposed framework. The
purposes of the current study are: 1) to test the robustness of the 
cross-cultural webcast business
model framework suggested by Ha and Ganahl (2004), 2) to provide a 
picture of the webcasting
practices in the world's most developed webcast markets, and 3) to 
examine the globalness of the
webcast medium.
Although there is no inherent superiority of one business model over 
another business
model, some business models are more appropriate to one organization 
over another because of
differences in core competencies and existing assets. For example, 
clicks-and-bricks have the
advantage over pure-play webcasters of popular recognition and 
offline brand equity. But they
also carry the burden of their own proprietary content, unlike 
pure-plays that can choose to carry
competitors' content as a content aggregator (Ha & Ganahl, 2004). 
Commercial media are more
reluctant to try new Web features because of possible bottom line 
threats (Arampatzis, 2004).
The following three hypotheses are based on the propositions of Ha 
and Ganahl (2004)
that focus on content strategy, the interplay between file 
transmission methods and revenue
sources, and the usability and technical capabilities of the two 
webcast business models.
11
H1. Clicks-and-bricks webcasters are more likely to employ the branded content
models, while pure-play webcasters and ISP webcasters are more likely 
to employ
the content aggregator model.
H2. Clicks-and-bricks webcasters are more likely than pure-play 
webcasters and ISP
webcasters to repurpose or simulcast their audio-video content online.
H3. The more diversified the file transmission methods, the more
diversification the revenue sources.
H4. Content aggregator webcasters score higher than branded content
webcasters in usability.
Globalness of Webcasting
Cultural discount is a media economic theory that posits the 
preference of local
consumers for local media content (Hoskins, McFadyen & Finn, 2004). 
Such cultural discount
creates a barrier to foreign media's market entry. Only when the 
foreign media provides a much
superior content that has no domestic media substitute will the 
foreign media earn a stronghold in
the foreign market. In particular, if the domestic market is strong 
and big such as the United
States, cultural discount acts an important market entry barrier to 
foreign media. Also
domestically owned webcasters know the market demand better and 
should be able to offer more
appealing content to the consumers. Therefore, in this cross-national 
study, even though the Web
can reach across the globe without much barrier, we expect that 
domestically owned webcasters
and domestically produced content are likely to dominate among 
leading webcasters.
H5a. Most of the leading webcasters within a country are domestically owned
webcasters.
H5b. The majority of a country's leading webcasters utilize domestic 
production for most
of their content sources.
Research question
12
In addition to these hypotheses, this study intends to provide a 
picture of the types of
webcast business models being used by leading webcasters in different 
countries. This
knowledge will facilitate the further research in the areas of 
business models in emerging media,
and provide a benchmark for tracking the development of webcasting 
business models
worldwide.
RQ1. What kind of webcast business model is more prevalent across 
leading webcasters in the
world?
Method
Sampling
The content analysis method is employed to examine the hypotheses and 
the research
question on the business model practices of leading webcasters in 13 
Asian, European and North
American countries that have a high number of broadband users: 
Australia, China, Canada,
Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, 
Spain, Taiwan, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. This study is limited to leading 
webcasters because a random
sample of webcasters may yield many hobbyists that do not have 
sustainable business goals at
this nascent stage of the webcast industry's development. Also, 
leading webcasters serve as
trend-setters and role-models for other industry newcomers. They 
represent the mainstream
webcast industry and have much more impact on society than small webcasters.
The study's first sampling step identifies the leading webcasters in 
each country. It is
impossible to achieve complete equivalence among the countries in 
sampling because the webcast
industry development and web audience measurement research vary 
widely across countries.
Hence, the authors use the informant method and interviewed the 
countries' experts in the
webcast industry. These sources include webcast association officers, 
editors of magazine on
Internet and streaming media, and authoritative web audience 
measurement research reports
available in the various countries. Because of market size 
differences, we allocate a larger
sample (20) for Australia, China, Canada, Germany, Japan, South 
Korea, Taiwan, the United
13
Kingdom, and the United States, and a smaller sample size (10) for 
the remaining countries. As a
result, the sample consists of 220 leading webcasters.
Leading webcasters are defined in this study as the most popular web 
site services
offering prepared audio or video contents accessible to the public 
for free or by payment These
webcasters include terrestrial broadcasters that already have an 
offline TV or radio
station/network and an additional service online; or established 
organizations with an online
presence (clicks-and-bricks). They can also be organizations that 
provide audio and or video
service online with no other counterpart offline (pure-plays). They 
can also be Internet service
providers with their own audio and video content services in the 
Internet service (ISPs). There
was no quota for each type of webcaster. The only criterion of 
selection is the perceived
popularity of the webcasters based on the informants' knowledge or 
audience traffic
measurmenets based on web audience research companies. The only 
exception is Comcast.net, a
cable Internet service provider in the United States, which ranked 
10th in the Accustream's
(2004a) iBroadcast report in total video streams served. It is 
excluded because its service is not
accessible to all consumers. Only those residing in their service 
area have access.
Coding
The coding scheme is based on Ha and Ganahl's (2004) study and adds 
other items
including webcaster ownership and content origin. Categories were 
modified based on the input
of native country collaborators to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of 
different markets. All
research project participants used the same coding sheet except in 
countries where English is not
a common second language. In those countries, such as Japan, the 
instrument was translated by
native co-researchers. All codes and definitions of the categories 
were given to the coders. For
any uncertainty about the categories, a common explanation was given 
to all the co-researchers of
the study at the same time to minimize discrepancies. The coders were 
all native researchers of
the country of study. They used high speed Internet connection in 
their country to code the sites.
Coding was conducted during the first two months of 2005. To assess 
coder-reliability, 20% of
14
the sample were double-coded by another native coder. Perreault and 
Leigh's (1989) intercoder
reliability coefficient (Ir) is used to compute the coder reliability 
and the overall reliability of all
items is 0.91. For key variables such as webcaster type and ownership 
origin of webcaster, the
reliability coefficient is 0.94. The reliability coefficient of 
business model is 0.82.
Findings
Sample Profile
All three types of webcasters--Clicks-and-bricks, pure-plays and 
ISPs, are present in the
leading webcasters sample of the study. As shown in Figure 1, there 
is quite a different
distribution of webcaster types among the countries' leading 
webcasters. The figure listed first
the North American countries and two other English language 
countries, then the European
countries and then Asian countries. United States and Japan, the two 
large media exporters with
well-established media industries, have the lowest proportion of 
clicks-and-bricks (or established
media) as leading webcasters. In contrast, leading webcasters in 
Germany, Australia, Greece and
Hong Kong are largely dominated by clicks-and-bricks. In Hong Kong, 
no pure-play webcaster
is on the top 10 list. There are no Internet service providers in the 
leading webcaster list for
South Korea, Greece, Spain and Germany.
Insert Figure 1 Here
Content Strategies
Ha and Ganahl (2004)'s taxonomy of content aggregators and branded 
content is applied
to all webcasters in the sample. There are 111 content aggregators 
and 109 branded content
business model users. The first hypothesis posits that 
clicks-and-bricks webcasters are more
likely to adopt the branded content model. Table 2 demonstrates this 
hypothesis is supported as
almost three quarters of the branded content model users are 
clicks-and-bricks webcasters. Pureplay
webcasters and ISP webcasters are more likely to use the content 
aggregator model. Almost
70 percent of the content aggregator model users are either pure-plays or ISPs
(c2=41.9, df=4, p < 0.01).
15
Insert Table 2 Here
The second hypothesis tests the difference in content strategies 
among different
webcaster types. Clicks-and-bricks are expected to carry more high 
cost content and to be more
focused in content genres than pure play and ISP webcasters. They are 
also expected to be more
likely to simulcast or repurpose their content than pure-play and ISP 
webcasters. Table 3 depicts
mixed support for this hypothesis. More clicks-and-bricks (56%) do 
carry high cost content than
pure plays and ISPs (45%), but the difference is not statistically 
significant. All leading
webcasters have similar strategies of providing a wide variety of 
program genres to the audience.
Clicks-and-bricks score even higher in the number of program genres 
(mean=7.8 genres) than
pure-play and ISPs (mean=6.2 genres). However, in terms of the number 
of channels, pureplay/
ISP webcasters (mean=15 channels) far outpaced clicks-and-bricks 
(mean=5 channels).
Overall, repurposed content is the primary source of content of all 
webcasters. Contrary to the
hypothesis, clicks-and-bricks have a higher percentage of original 
content (23%) than pure-plays
and ISPs (21%), but they have lower percentage of repurposed content 
(40%) than pure-plays and
ISPs (50%). But consistent with the hypothesis, clicks-and-bricks 
have a significantly higher
percentage of simulcast content (24%) than pure-plays and ISPs (15%).
Insert Table 3 Here
Revenue Sources and Transmission Methods
The third hypothesis postulates a positive relationship between the number of
transmission methods and the number of revenue sources. The data show 
that webcasters
average almost two transmission methods and two revenue sources. 
On-demand streaming is the
most commonly used file transmission method while push is rarely used 
by webcasters (Table 4).
Insert Table 4 Here
Advertising is still the most common revenue source. Almost 70% of all leading
webcasters have advertising as a revenue source. But it is not as 
dominant (90%+) as reported in
other previous online media business model studies such as Ha and 
Ganahl (2004). E-commerce
16
seems to be quite important as a revenue source for webcasters. 
Almost 40% of all leading
webcasters support e-commerce on their sites. The products sold on 
the site are either mediarelated
such as music or program dowload and the sale of the videos, or 
commercial products
(both are present in 75% of all e-commerce sites). Subscription is 
the third most popular revenue
choice used by one third of the leading webcasters in the study.
Insert Table 5 Here
A bivariate regression of the number of transmission method on the 
number of revenue
sources shows a significant positive relationship between the two 
(b=0.18, p< 0.01). Thus,
hypothesis 3 which predicts that more transmission methods will 
facilitate more diversification
of revenue sources is supported. But it should be noted that the 
coefficient is not very high.
While the relationship does exist, it is not strong.
Usability
Hypothesis 4 which predicts higher usability among content 
aggregators than branded
content webcasters is only partially supported. If usability is 
measured by the presence of search
engines or directories that facilitate users' navigation and location 
of content, then this hypothesis
is supported because 78% of content aggregators have search engine, 
while only 63% of branded
content have search engines or directories. However, if usability is 
measured by other
dimensions such as provisions for file size and description to users, 
the elimination of additional
software installation to display the content, the availability of 
connection speed choices, the
accommodation of multiple media players, and the presence of 
participatory content, then there is
no significant differences in usability between content aggregators 
and branded content
webcasters. Table 6 depicts almost 70% of both business model users 
do not require their users to
install additional software to display their content. Slightly less 
than one half of the leading
webcasters accommodate users' different Internet connection speeds. 
Most of the webcasters try
to accommodate more than one media player. On average, they supported 
1.4 media players. The
most common media player is Windows Media Player (58%), followed by 
Real Player (29%) and
17
Apple Quicktime Player (7%). File formats also follow the media 
player preference. Windows
Media Player-compatible formats ASF/WMA/WMV/WM and ASX/WAX/WVX/WMX/WPL are
the most commonly found file formats (44%), followed by Real 
Player-compatible formats of
RA, RAM and RM (21%), WMP (15%), and MP3 (12%).
Insert Table 6 Here
This study also illustrates the participatory culture of webcasting. 
More than 60% of all
leading webcasters have some sort of participatory content features 
such as chat rooms, message
boards, video ratings, and polls, etc. Many sites also encourage 
members to submit their own
videos to be viewed by other site members.
Globalness of the Medium
No webcaster achieves a leading position in more than six countries 
in this study. Only
four webcasters are identified as leading transnational webcasters 
that rank as the top 10/20
webcasters in more than one country. These four are all US-based 
webcasters. It should be noted
that all transnational webcasters have their web sites' localized 
versions listed as the host
countries' leading webcasters, not the US version of their sites. 
Yahoo is the most transnational
webcaster, ranking as the leading webcaster in six countries (United 
States, Canada, United
Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Taiwan). The second most transnational 
webcaster is Microsoft
Network (MSN). It is ranked as the leading webcasters in five 
countries (United States, United
Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Taiwan). America Online captures leading 
spots only in three
English-language countries including the United States, Canada and 
the United Kingdom. Real
Networks ranks as a leading webcaster in both the United States and Japan.
Even though some transnational webcasters rank as leading webcasters 
in a foreign
country, the majority of leading webcasters are still domestically 
owned webcasters. Hypotheses
5a and 5b predict the domination of domestically owned webcasters and 
domestically produced
content and based on the cultural discount theory. Both hypotheses 
are supported. Hypothesis 5a
is overwhelmingly supported as 82% of all leading webcasters are 
domestic webcasters.
18
Hypothesis 5b is supported as almost 80 percent of all leading 
webcasters carry either solely or
mostly domestically produced content.
Figure 2 shows the distribution by country of the country of origin 
of the webcaster
ownership. The cultural discount effect is most pronounced in large 
markets such as the United
States and China where none of the leading webcasters are foreign 
webcasters or joint ventures
with foreign webcasters. Australia and Germany, two other large 
markets, have no pure foreign
webcasters on their leading webcaster rosters. Japan and the United 
Kingdom, both island
countries, are the only two countries with almost half of their 
leading webcasters coming from
foreign countries. But as noted earlier, the foreign webcasters in 
Japan have all localized their
content to meet the needs of the Japanese consumers.
Insert Figure 2 Here
Figure 3 compares the 13 countries' webcast content origins. Most 
webcast content
originates in the native country. The pattern of content origin 
mirrors the pattern shown in the
country comparison of webcaster origin. Webcast content in China is 
either primarily or only
domestic content. Leading webcasters in Germany and Japan also employ 
primarily or purely
domestic content. The United Kingdom is the only country that no 
leading webcaster uses solely
domestically produced content. But still a majority of the British 
leading webcasters' content is
still domestically produced content.
Insert Figure 3 Here
The business models of webcasters are compared by country in Figure 
4. In general, the
distribution between content aggregator models and branded content 
models is quite different
among countries. The content aggregator model is the most prevalent 
among Japan's and
Taiwan's leading webcasters. The branded content model is the most 
dominant in Hong Kong,
Greece, Spain and South Korea.
Insert Figure 4 Here
19
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings of this 13 country-comparison of webcasters' practices 
demonstrates the
webcasting business model framework proposed by Ha and Ganahl (2004) 
is quite robust in
different market environments. All webcasters can be categorized by 
the content aggregator or
branded content model. Their prediction that clicks-and-bricks 
webcasters are more likely to
adopt the branded content model, and that pure-play media and ISPs 
are more likely to adopt the
content aggregator model is also supported by the findings. The 
number of transmission methods
is indeed a facilitator of the diversification of revenue sources.
But this study's findings also demonstrate the limitation of this 
framework. For example,
in terms of content strategies, some of its predictions are not 
applicable to this study's 220
leading webcasters. Although the framework is still able to predict 
the higher probability of
clicks-and-bricks webcasters to carry high cost content such as 
full-length movies and sports, and
that pure-play webcasters have more channels than clicks-and-bricks, 
it is unable to predict the
diversity of program genres and similar proportion of original 
content between the two webcaster
types.
One possible reason for this is the presence of non-profit webcasters 
in some countries
within this study. In many European countries and Canada, public 
broadcast is still the dominant
ownership mode of electronic media and their webcasts reflect their 
non-profit and diverse
programming mission. In Hong Kong, three of the leading webcasters 
are funded by the
government. Two of them webcast for educational and marketing 
purposes: The Edcity and the
Trade Development Council. They are special types of 
clicks-and-bricks because they are not
media organizations, but governmental units that utilize the Webcast 
medium to disseminate the
audio and video content. Also, some webcasters, such as NHK and Anime 
Express in Japan,
view their webcasts as a tool for self-promotion, a customer service 
or an intelligence gateway of
audience's feedback and information as discussed by Chan-Olmsted and 
Ha (2003). These web
sites may not directly apply a profit generation mode when devising 
their content strategies.
20
Their decisions regarding content offerings are not based on bottom 
line considerations. Another
possible explanation is that the increasing intensity of competition 
for audience forces more
clicks-and-bricks webcasters to diversify their webcast program 
genres to compete with pure-play
media. For example, in the United States, the declining audience 
share of clicks-and-bricks
webcasters has been documented by Accustream's (2003) streaming 
traffic report. The report
shows that broadcast and cable TV brands used to capture 86% of the 
streams served by the top
10 sites in 2001, but their share fell to 5 percent in October 2003.
In general, all leading webcasters in this study offer a large 
selection of content to its
Web users through multiple program genres that are packaged into a 
variety of channels or
playlists available on-demand. But identifying these many webcasters 
and locating the specific
content is a challenge to consumers. Most leading webcasters address 
this problem with search
engines and directories. Sill one third of them do not provide site 
search tools. Many do not
require that users install any additional software.
But there are still some accessibility problems to the webcasts. Less 
than half of the
webcasters have file size and description information for the users 
about the video or audio
program, connection speed accommodations for users with different 
Internet connection speeds.
Without knowing how much time is required for the program, many users 
may be reluctant to try
an unfamiliar title, especially when the user is faced with hundreds 
and thousands of clips or
programs to choose from. Additionally, coders reported problem 
accessing to about one fifth of
the leading webcasters' content using high speed Internet connection. 
These include garbled
images, incomprehensible audio, and broken transmission. These 
technical problems can also
become obstacles to webcast consumption and reduce the consumers' 
willingness to pay for the
content.
There is a clear trend in the diversification of revenue sources by 
leading webcasters in
this study. Webcasters are still searching for different ways to make 
their sites financially viable.
Most webcasters use two or more revenue sources. Indirect consumer 
payment revenue sources
21
such as advertising and electronic commerce are still the most 
popular choice. This reflects the
webcasters' acknowledgement of the consumers' unwillingness to pay 
for webcast content.
Revenue that is directly linked to media content such as subscription 
and pay-per-view are still
moderately used. It is particularly interesting to note that apart 
from government or corporate
funding, there are also many creative ways that webcasters generate 
revenue such as consulting
and web hosting service.
The presence of participatory content in most of the webcast services 
constitutes a
distinct feature of the webcast medium, making it superior to the 
traditional broadcast medium.
The encouragement of video submission such as iFilm and AOL makes the 
webcast medium an
amateur producers' paradise, and will foster a new generation of 
producers with alternative and
diversified viewpoints and style.
The difference in popularity of the branded content model and the 
content aggregator
model across countries indicates that one model is more accepted than 
the other. The
development of the webcast industry also varies among the countries 
under this study due to
different broadband penetration levels, media production industry 
maturations, and technology
gaps among webcasters. These are areas to be further explored as 
determinants of business
models. Future research on business models of other emerging media 
such as digital video
recorders and interactive television can modify the framework 
proposed by Ha and Ganahl (2004)
on specific items such as specific content strategies. The emphasis 
of the interplay among the
transmission method/technical standards (accessibility), content 
strategies and revenue sources as
components of emerging media business models will facilitate the 
tracking of the development of
business models of emerging media.
Finally, this study also demonstrates the limitation of webcasting as 
a global medium.
Despite the ease to achieve a global reach and the lack of license 
constraints or ownership
requirements in most countries, webcasting is still primarily a 
domestic medium dominated by
domestically owned webcasters offering domestically produced content. 
The study not only
22
reaffirms the cultural discount theory, it also indicates that the 
"global" audience of a webcaster
may concentrate among the peripheral groups of different countries, 
and not in the countries'
mainstream. Government regulation is another factor that will affect 
the globalness of webcasters
in some countries. For example, in China, to set up online video and 
audio business, webcasters
need to have official approval from the government authorities, and 
only domestic webcasters are
allowed to access to webcasting business. Hence future research that 
attempts to examine the
globalness of the Web medium in countries with ownership regulation 
must take both the cultural
discount and the absence or presence of government regulations into 
consideration to better
explain the country origins of media content and ownership.
23
References
Accustream (2003). Accustream research report shows declining market 
share for broadcast and
cable TV networks as stand alone brands in streaming media. Retrieved 
November 12
from http://www.webcasters.org/news/20040219.htm.
Accustream (2004a). iBroadcast stream report. September 16, 4(3).
Accustream (2004b). Accustsream Research: Streaming advertising and 
subscription revenue
forecast at $625 million in 2004. Retrieved November 12, 2004, from
http://www.accustreamresearch.com/news/june-12-04.html.
Albers-Miller, Nancy D., and Betsy Gelb (1996) "Business Advertising 
Appeals as Mirror of
Cultural Dimensions: A Study of Eleven Countries," Journal of 
Advertising, 25(4),
57-70.
Arampatzis, A. (2004). Online business models in Greece and the 
United Kingdom: A case of
specialist versus generic and public versus privately owned online news media.
International Journal on Media Management, 6(1 & 2), 88-101.
Associated Press (2005). Scripps takes latest channel direct to Web. 
New York Times, March 21.
Retrieved March 21 from 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-HGTVProcom.
html.
Bartussek, J. (2003). From newspaper to news filter. In A. Vizjak & 
M. Ringlstetter (Eds.).
Media management: Leveraging content for profitable growth (pp. 
43-52). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Chan-Olmsted, S. & Ha, L. (2003). Internet business models for 
broadcasters: how television
stations perceive and integrate the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting 
and Electronic
Media, 47(4), 597-617.
Chang, B., Lee, S. & Lee, Y. (2004). Devising video distribution 
strategies via the Internet:
Focusing on economic properties of video products. International 
Journal on Media
Management, 6(1 & 2), 36-45.
24
Chyi, H. I. (2005). Willingness to pay for online news: an empirical 
study on the viability of the
subscription model. Journal of Media Economics,18(2), 131-43.
eMarketer (2003, February). More than one-third of working Americans 
go online at office, new
online journal/eMarketer report finds. Retrieved February 20, 2003 from
http://www.emarketer.com/news/ article.php?1002068.
Fetschrein, M. & Knolmayer, G. (2004). Business models for content 
delivery: An empirical
analysis of the newspaper and the magazine industry. International 
Journal on Media
Management, 6(1 & 2), 4-11.
Ha, L. & Ganahl, R. (2004). Webcasting business models of 
click-and-bricks and pure-play
Media: A comparative study of leading webcasters in South Korea and 
the United States.
The International Journal on Media Management, 6 (1 & 2), 75-88.
Ha, L. (2004). Webcasting. In Hossein Bidgoli (ed.), The Internet 
Encyclopedia. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 674-686.
Internet Retailer (2004). Webselling statistics: Broadband is here to 
stay. August, 56.
Hoskins, C. McFadyen, S. & Finn, A. (2004). Media economics: Applying 
economics to new and
traditional media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kolo, C. & Vogt, P. (2004). Traditional media and their Internet 
spin-offs: An exploratory study
on key levers for online success and the impact of offline reach. 
International Journal on
Media Management, 6(1 & 2), 23-35
Lin, C. (2004). Webcasting adoption: Technology fluidity, user 
innovativeness and media
substitution. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48(3), 446-465.
Livingstone, S. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national 
comparative media research.
European Journal of Communication, 18(4), 477-500.
McKinsey & Company (2002). Can broadband save online media? McKinsey 
Quarterly, June
2002. Retreived March 13, 2005 from http://news.com.com/2009-1023-934441.html.
25
McGann, R. (2005). Entertainment Leads Content Spending Growth. 
Retrieved March 11, 2005.
ClickZ Statistics. Retreived March 15 from
http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/entertainment/article.php/3489161.
Mings, M. S. & White, B. P. (2000). Profiting form online news: The 
search for viable business
models (pp. 62-97). In B. Kahin & R. H. Varian (Eds.) Internet 
publishing and beyond:
The economics of digital information and intellectual property. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Noam, E., Groebel, J. & Gerbarg, D. (2004 Eds.) Internet television. 
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perebinossoff, P., Gross, B. & Gross, L. S. (2005). Programming for 
TV, radio & the Internet:
Strategy, development, and evaluation. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
Perreault, W.D., Jr. & Leigh, L.E. (1989). Reliability of nominal 
data based on qualitative
judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(May) 135-148.
Picard, R. G. (2002). The economics and financing of media companies. 
New York: Fordham
University Press.
Radio and Internet Newsletter (November 30, 2004). BBC releases first 
of monthly online
listening totals. Retrieved December 1, 2004 from
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/113004/index.asp.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. NY: Free Press.
Zanpour, F., Campos, V., Catalano, J., Chang, C., Cho, Y. C., 
Hoobyar, R., Jiang, S., Lin, M.,
Madrid, S., Scheideler, H., & Osborn, S. T. (1994). Global reach and 
local touch:
Achieving cultural fitness in TV advertising. Journal of Advertising 
Research, 5, 35-63.
Table 1
Online Media Business Model Theories
Study
Arampatzis
(2004)
Bartussek
(2003)
Chan-Olmsted
& Ha (2003)
Fetschein &
Knolmeyer
(2004)
Ha & Ganahl
(2004)
Kolo & Vogt
(2004)
Mings & White
(2000)
Picard (2002)
Empirical method.
Country.
Interviews/Case
studies.
Greece, United
Kingdom
Anecdotal examples.
Surveys.
U.S. Broadcast TV
Stations
Surveys.
European and U.S
newspapers and
magazines with both
offline and online
versions.
Content analysis.
United States, South
Korea
Secondary Analysis.
Germany
Analysis from industry
press.
U.S. online
newspapers.
Anecdotal examples.
26
Theoretical Propositions
Without worrying about the bottom line, public
service media are more innovative than commercial
media in offering online media services. Other than
innovativeness not much difference in business
models between old media and online media.
Online media need to adopt a different business
model from parent offline media. Consumers'
willingness to pay for online media content is based
on exclusivity, added benefits and user-friendliness
of the online content.
Development of Internet competency over time and
evolution of business models from 1) online
competency development, 2) enhancement of the
value of online products and 3) generation of online
revenue.
Risk of cannibalization is determined by the
percentage of free digital content and the percentage
of content that both offline and online media overlap.
The higher the percentage, the higher the risk.
Clicks-and-bricks and pure-play media adopt either a
content aggregator or a branded content business
model with different transmission methods, content
strategies and revenue sources and these elements
influence one another. More transmission methods
leads to more revenue sources and content strategies
are different between clicks-and-bricks and pure play
media.
Online media have their own distinct users. They are
destination sites relatively independent of their
offline media counterparts. Their business models
should be different from the offline media
counterpart.
Proposed 4 online media business models based on
revenue sources : 1) Advertising, 2) Transactional, 3)
Subscription and 4) Bundled (partnership).
Online media content services business models
evolve over time, with the best model adopted by
most providers at the time. Four abandoned models
are the videotext model, the paid Internet model, the
free Web model and the Internet/Web ad push
model. The current model is a portal model and the
emerging model is a digital portal model.
Table 2
Business Models by Type of Webcasters
Clicks-and-Bricks
Pure-Plays
ISPs
c2= 41.9, df = 4, p < 0.01
model. The current model is a portal model and the
emerging model is a digital portal model.
Content Aggregator
N=111
29.7%
50.5%
19.8%
27
Branded Content
N=109
72.4%
23.8%
3.8%
Table 3
Content Strategies by Webcaster Type
Clicks-and-bricks
N=111 N=109
Source of content
Original
Repurpose*
Simulcast*
High cost content1
Average no. of program genres* 7.8
Average number of channels* 5.6
1full-length movies, popular TV shows, sports, news
* p < 0.05
28
Pureplays/ISPs
23.6% 21.5%
40.3% 50.2%
24.0% 15.4%
45.0% 56.0%
6.2
15.6
Table 4
File Transmission Methods by Business Models
Content Aggregator Branded Content
48.6% On-Demand Downloading
77.5% On-Demand Streaming
45.0% Live Streaming
8.1% Pushing
Note: Multiple Response Items
Mean number of transmission methods=1.8
29
35.6%
77.9%
59.6%
6.7%
Table 5
Revenue sources by Business Model
Content Aggregator Branded Content Total
Advertising
E-Commerce
Subscription
Pay-per-view
Content syndication
Tip-Jar/
Voluntary Contribution
Other
(e.g., government/corporate funding)
Note: Multiple Response Items
Mean number of revenue sources=2.0
N= 111 N=109
72.4% 67.6%
38.1% 40.5%
28.6% 37.8%
14.3% 25.2%
22.9% 12.6%
3.8% 1.8%
25.7% 12.6%
30
N=220
69.9%
39.4%
33.3%
19.9%
17.6%
2.8%
19%
Table 6
Usability and Technical Capability
Presence of search engine and directories*
Text description of content with estimated
file size
Have connection speed choice
No need to use additional software
Average number of media players accommodated 1.49
Presence of Participatory Content
(such as video ratings, chat rooms)
*p < 0.01
31
Content Aggregators Branded Content
63.8% 78.4%
36.2% 36.9%
45.7% 44.1%
63.8% 67.6%
1.33
65.7% 60.4%
Figure 1
Profile of leading webcasters in this study
32
Figure 2
USA
NETHERLANDS
SPAIN
COUNTRY OF STUDY
Webcast Ownership Origin by Country
CANADA
UNITED KINGDOM
AUSTRALIA
GERMANY
GREECE
HONG KONG
CHINA
JAPAN
KOREA
TAIWAN
0
Count
10
33
webcast ownership
foreign webcaster
joint venture
domestic webcaster
30 20
Figure 3 Webcaster's Content Origin by Country
34
Figure 4
35
business model
branded content
content aggregator
30 20
Webcast Business Models by Country
USA
CANADA
UNITED KINGDOM
AUSTRALIA
GERMANY
NETHERLANDS
SPAIN
GREECE
HONG KONG
CHINA
JAPAN
KOREA
TAIWAN
10 0
Count
COUNTRY OF STUDY