Producer push to consumer pull: Who curates

new media content? Developing strategies

for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden and
GIBS Business School, University of Pretoria, Johannesburg, South Africa, and
Devarpan Chakravorty
GIBS Business School, University of Pretoria, Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to explore if, with increasing consumer empowerment, consumers are actively pulling content through a multitude of
platforms rather than relying on media owners to dictate their product choices. How do media owners and content producers move toward a more
reciprocal and interactive business strategy to deal with the change?
Design/methodology/approach – The study was qualitative and exploratory in nature and utilized in-depth and semi-structured interviews of
media consumers and experts.
Findings – Consumer behavior has changed due to increased product control, in terms of type and occasion, across all income levels. The value of
curatorship has increased and social media has fundamentally changed consumption patterns. Using the Berthon et al. model of response functions, we
found that, content producers often suffer from inertia and operate with an Isolate strategy. The second most common approach is that of Follow or
customer orientation. There is limited engagement with the innovation orientations of Shape and Interact. It is best for the industry to move toward an
Interact model, accepting that consumers sometimes wish to create and at other times wish content to be effortlessly provided to them.
Research limitations/implications – This study adopted a qualitative approach of industry experts and consumers within a single context. The
further implications would be to develop the Interact strategy in more detail, especially toward the end of how to get media providers to change
their current orientations.
Practical implications – Business models of product producers in the new business environment seek to be more consumer-centric. This must not
be done at the expense of an innovation orientation.
Originality/value – There has been a lot of discussion on the need to change business models in the wake of changed consumer behavior. The
current paper provides guidance on how to respond to the new media world.
Keywords Innovation, Market orientation, Computer-mediated communication, Customer-orientation, Consumer empowerment,
Innovation management, Integrated marketing communications, Media business models, New media, New product management
Paper type Research paper

A fundamental question in marketing is how do we create for
and capture value from consumers. Are consumers active and
can they pull products and services as they desire? Do
marketers first find out what consumers want and then
provide it? Or are consumers passive and uncertain about what
they want and they need to have products offered or pushed
upon them? In viewing an industry under threat from digital
disruption, we hope to shed light on how to respond to the
transformative power of new technology.
Media and its content providers have, for a very long time,
held the consumer as a captive audience, forced to consume
content how, when and where the industry demanded (Cha,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
25/4 (2016) 373–386
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2015-0918]
2013; Napoli, 2011; Sundar and Marathe, 2010). The media
provider was the most important role player and acted in the
manner of a gatekeeper, and the consumer themselves had
very little control over how the content was produced,
distributed or presented (Gobé, 2010). Content entailed
information goods such as news, music, film and video.
Branded content is that which is produced by a known
production house, such as HBO. These media businesses then
sold their captured audience to advertisers who subjected
them to mass promotional messages (Jaffe, 2005; McPhillips
and Merlo, 2008). The industry was therefore the epitome of
producer-led marketing strategy.
Technology has ignited a sea change, however. Whether it is
to release entire series at once, as Netflix did with House of
Cards, or attempts at managing online streaming, as Apple is
attempting to do, or the formation of artist platforms, such as
JZ’s Tidal streaming service, the industry is being disrupted.
Nevertheless, the producers and distributors of online content
have yet to truly get to grips with the changed consumer
landscape. The strongly held media owner control has slipped
away. Brands too have felt the loss of control (Iglesias et al.,

373
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
2011), but nowhere has the threat to a business’s core
operating model been more strongly felt than in media and its
content development. New media has democratized the media
landscape; it has given its consumers power and tools to shape
their own content pathways. Media consumption has
fragmented, partaking of content from different platforms on
different devices (Kant, 2014; Millington and Wilson, 2010),
sometimes simultaneously (Berman et al., 2011; Mulhern,
2009). Consumers themselves are crafting their own
schedules, curating their news, binge-watching, creating and
sharing content among themselves (Bright and Daugherty,
2012; Mulhern, 2009; Spurgeon, 2005; Vollmer and
Precourt, 2008). Power has moved from producer to
consumer, from mass marketing to niche and from generic
products to the individualized. Not surprisingly, the academic,
and indeed practitioner, discussion is acutely aware of this.
The narrative, however, has centered on the phenomenon of
increased consumer control (Hollander, 2008; Napoli, 2011;
Nelson-Field and Riebe, 2011; Siano et al., 2011; Vollmer and
Precourt, 2008).
Largely absent from the literature are two key questions:
First, what is the point of view of the consumers themselves?
Indeed, while consumer input is viewed of greatest import in
marketing, service-dominant logic as a means of value creation
“[has] lacked a robust empirical foundation” (Franzak and
Pitta, 2011). Second, what does this mean for strategy? A few
have noted a strategy change from business pushing products
to consumers rather than consumers electing to pull products
through the value chain on demand (Kitchen and Schultz,
2009; Valos et al., 2010), but none has tested this contention
empirically with media owners themselves. The authors who
have recognized the change, however, have narrowly viewed it
in terms of consumer acceptance or rejection of messages
foisted upon them (push) and their elective access of
information at their convenience (pull).
But the shift is deeper. The move appears to be a change
from a production orientation toward a marketing one: thus,
the current study seeks to understand consumers on their own
terms and determine how the strategy of the media industry
has adapted. Berthon et al. (1999), in their interrogation of
classic push and pull strategies, conceptualized twin
approaches to marketing arising out of Drucker’s belief that
the purpose of a business is to “create and capture”
consumers. One is an innovation orientation, that which
creates consumers; it excites them and engages their
imaginations (Berthon et al., 1999). The other is the
marketing orientation, which serves consumers already
captured. These authors posit that in a changing world, a
degree of organizational ambidexterity is needed, as
companies must employ both. It is questionable if the media
industry and content developers do either: access to
consumers has been the heart of their business. A production
mindset does not necessarily entail an innovation one and it
certainly has less focus on consumer centricity. Innovation
also cannot be conceptualized purely in terms of producer
innovation; consumer creativity and invention have become
more apparent with their increased sophistication and their
ability to interact through technology (Berthon et al., 2007).
How should firms respond? Different strategies are more
appropriate for static versus dynamic environments. Berthon
374
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
et al. (1999) outline four possibilities of corporate response
shaped across the intersection of the degree of focus on the
two orientations of innovation and marketing. The results is
one of four positions: Isolate, Follow, Shape and Interact. Where
there is low focus on either innovation or the consumer, the
strategy is said to be one of isolation. Isolate is inherently
introspective and may be useful during times of stability. If
consumer orientation is high but innovation is low, the
organization is said to have a Follow strategy. Any innovation
here is driven by consumers through market research. During
times of great innovation but low consumer orientation, the
Shape strategy focuses on the ability of technology to define
human needs and shape behavior. It is only with an Interact
strategy that a partnership between customer and technology
is sought, as the firm is both highly innovative and
consumer-orientated.
The aim of the current paper is twofold:
1 to establish empirically the consumer perspective to and
shaping of product and media content; and
2 to understand how the strategy of media and content
providers has adapted with products and offerings that
have been “technologically transformed”.
To this end, the work done on consumer control and its
implications will be reviewed, followed by an assessment of
marketer response.
The key contributions of this paper have been the interplay
between consumer and producer; there is certainly much
room for the Interact strategy. Producers, however, tend to feel
threatened and attempt to monopolize the ability to innovate.
Consumers want to innovate, but not all the time and there is
remarkable heterogeneity in their conceptualizations of value.
Thus, there are times when producers will lead; times when
they will follow. The main route to success is through
corporate ambidexterity; the ability to be both innovation- and
marketing-orientated.
The age of consumer control
The upsurge of consumer control, autonomy and creativity
(Berthon et al., 2007) has been of much interest to researchers in
the past 10 years. The advent of Web 2.0 enabled consumers to
be increasingly in control of their navigational experiences,
providing them with increased freedom to do whatever they
want, whenever and wherever they see fit (Hoffman and Novak,
2009; Napoli, 2011). Empowered consumers are growing
insensitive to old-fashioned ideas of content that is pushed upon
them by the media industry (Constantinides and Fountain,
2008). Moreover, content itself has become free. Digital content
can be infinitely copied, reproduced and shared without any loss
of quality and at little or no cost. Consumers can share, create
and build their own bundles of products as per their tastes
(Mulhern, 2009), creating customized and personalized offerings
(Sundar and Marathe, 2010).
Promotion of available content has also been democratized;
user recommendation and other forms of user-generated
feedback mechanisms often can drive awareness among
consumers (Napoli, 2011). Consumers show each other their
appreciation of content through ratings, recommendations
and reviews on online platforms like Netflix, Amazon and
IMDB.com; voting on shows like “American Idol”; and
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
discussing content on Twitter (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2014).
Word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations on social media
and other outlets could have the power to make or break
professionally produced experiential media content like
movies, music and electronic games in the market
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2014). The flow of information is
changing in the media business to originate from the audience
toward each other and the content provider. Consumers are
also becoming content producers and sellers to other
consumers using the internet; they are co-creators and often
develop product extensions themselves (Berthon et al., 2007).
There is a strong sense of psychological empowerment and
civic engagement (Leung, 2009). Consumers could therefore
be said to have become more sophisticated, with more options
and more knowledge. Companies low on innovation cannot
capture the imagination of such consumers. This limits the
effectiveness of the Isolate and Shape strategies, as both do not
value consumer input at all.
Competition has also increased. There is much talk of
media fragmentation (Ksiazek, 2010; Nelson-Field and Riebe,
2011; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012), meaning that providers of
content, whether this be news, music videos or drama, are
faced with a great deal of competition from a variety of
platforms. The battle is for audience attention; how to create
and capture it. Audiences have either become fragmented,
stretched across many different providers or polarized,
avoiding providers who do not share their world view
(Hollander, 2008; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012). Greater
competition means greater consumer choice, increasing
consumer sophistication and providing an environment of
oversupply (Berthon et al., 1999). A marketing orientation will
not provide much competitive advantage, as customers have
become what Berthon et al. (1999, p.43) term “moving
targets”. Simply serving them will no longer capture them, as
they can go anywhere and frequently do. The strategy of
Follow appears to be out of the question, as this relies solely on
high consumer orientation and low innovation.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the premise of
consumer empowerment and access to greater competition has
been typically associated with consumers being able to access and
afford resources (Weidner et al., 2010). Consumers must live in
a media-abundant environment and be able to get content from
various sources (Dutta-Bergman, 2005; Taneja et al., 2012). Part
of the environment is the advent of mobile and smart devices
which make digital content available for consumption anywhere.
It has therefore been questioned if consumers from lower-income
segments are as empowered as consumers from higher-income
brackets (Hamilton and Catterall, 2005). There is a sense that
media in these environments is less under threat and old
strategies and business models are still valid.
The question thus arises: With the rise of consumer control
and media proliferation, to what degree can any one media
provider gate-keep products and content to a captive audience?
Gatekeeping has been fundamental to the status, utility and
functioning of traditional mass media, whether this be print,
television or radio (Sundar and Marathe, 2010). How has the
industry adapted? Surely this is the time for Interact, the strategy
which prioritizes high innovativeness as well as high consumer
orientation? We turn now to how business models have been
375
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
conceptualized in order to deal with the current digital
disruption.
How have the product development and distribution
models responded?
Interest and research in business models has been attributed
to the digital space itself (Zott et al., 2011). Media products
are some of the most affected. There are two main factors
which have signaled the end of the strategic orientation of
media product providers. First is the unbundling of content
(Mulhern, 2009) and the second is the fragmentation of
competition, or what Berthon et al. (1999) understood as
aggressive competition, which leads to oversupply. By
extension, these authors advise that in the long term, a
consumer creation strategy should emerge. This is inherently
innovative.
Business model response has been conceptualized in the
literature in two ways: first, how to harness consumer
co-creation, and second, how to create bottlenecks (Evens,
2010). The aim is often to revert to the situation where
consumers can be corralled into content paddocks (Berman,
2012; Berman et al., 2007, 2011). Consumer-driven models
based on capturing the long tail, such as video-on-demand
services, found these to be unsustainable (Evens et al., 2010).
Berman, one of the most prolific authors in the field, envisages
a model whereby content is either professionally or
consumer-produced and platforms are either open or
proprietary. The first cell, “traditional media”, relies on
branded content created and delivered by professionals
through a “walled” conditional-access environment and
dedicated devices (Berman et al., 2011). The second cell,
termed “walled communities”, is based on distribution of
user- and community-generated content also within a closed
system. The third model, “content hyper-syndication”, makes
professionally produced content available in open channels,
without dedicated access providers or devices. The final cell is
“new platform aggregation”, reliant on user-generated content
and open distribution platforms. These models are an either/
or conceptualization: either they are production- or
consumer-orientated. There is no middle ground; there is no
Interaction.
Indeed overall, there is very little room for an innovation
orientation in such models. In the “open” cell, where content
is provided by producers, little is said as to how it is created.
Similarly, consumer contribution is limited to that of “user
generated content” – the Follow orientation, which does not
view consumers as innovators of core business processes.
Alternatively, with the persistence of walled gardens, the
Isolate orientation would enable media product providers to
continue with a product orientation. The question therefore
remains is to what extent are innovation and consumer
creation activities used by media providers? The current
literature has not suggested an answer.
The current research investigated two propositions: First,
do consumers wish to be active creators of media products?
Are they more sophisticated and need different offerings from
what has traditionally been provided? Second, have media
owners adjusted their strategies accordingly?
 Developing strategies for new media environments Journal of Product & Brand Management
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386

Method researcher to carry out an in-depth study of individual cases.

The sample size was selected based on the above
Qualitative research was deemed most appropriate, as the
considerations. Although it has been recommended to use two
amount of knowledge available on consumer behavior through
interviews per respondent per quota category for an
the lens of content push by businesses and content pull by
exploratory qualitative study (Marshall and Rossman, 2006),
consumers is still “embarrassingly meager” (Schultz et al.,
due to issues of time, access to respondents and financial
2012, p. 176). The phenomenon that has been little
considerations, only one interview was conducted per
understood and important categories of meaning need to be
respondent. Five interviews were completed in total. The
identified (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Moreover, many
number of respondents was selected for data saturation.
studies have not touched on the felt consumer experience;
For the media producers, six semi-structured interviews
most are done through an industry lens. The very engaged and
were undertaken. Semi-structured interviews are extensively
active nature conceptualized in the Interact strategy, where
used for elites; elites defined as individuals or groups who
organizations need to be both innovative and enable the same
occupy the top echelons of an organization or society with
in their consumers, suggests the deep and rich understanding
more knowledge or status (Odendahl and Shaw, 2001). In this
enabled by qualitative methods (Agee, 2009).
technique, the interviewer has a certain amount of room to
The paradigm of push versus pull in the media landscape
add questions or modify the sequence of questions based on
has two perspectives: consumer experiences and those of
participant responses (Zhang and Wildemuth, 2009). The
media experts. Detailed narratives on consumption
interviewer is able to be flexible in soliciting information and
experiences in the media landscape from both sides were
adapt to the situation or personality rather than keeping to a
solicited. Participants had the freedom to define their reality,
prepared script (Odendahl and Shaw, 2001). Similar to the
which added to the overall richness of the data and the validity
consumer interviews, the semi-structured nature began with a
of the research project (Creswell, 2003). Thus, the research
broad question on where the media landscape is today. This
process had two phases: consumer depth and media industry
was followed by a series of more structured questions on the
expert interviews.
future of traditional media, their experience regarding the
degree of control consumers wielded and its business impact.
Universe, sampling and interview approach
Both sets of interviews covered in broad brush strokes first the
The long interview was used for the consumer interviews,
individual’s perception of the industry, whether as a user or
which takes the researcher into the lifeworld of the interviewee
provider. Both reviewed how content was accessed, paid for or
to see the content and pattern of the individual’s daily
profit generated, the nature of changes induced by technology
experience (McCracken, 1988). This method of interviewing
and the degree of control consumers had. Different media
was chosen because it enables respondents to be understood
types were contrasted.
on their own terms; much research on the topic has been
An expert was defined as covering the following: middle or
generated from the perspective of the media producer and
executive management who have been in the industry for over
focus on consumer lived experience is overdue. McCracken’s
five years. They had to be involved in their company’s strategy
(1988) structure creates an interview which is unbiased and
setting, marketing and content acquisition. The industry was
free flowing. The method has three main types of questions:
viewed as covering the following: traditional media outlets
“grand tour questions”, “fixed” or planned prompts and
(print, television or radio), digital media, media research or
“floating” or prompts which sustain the discussion. Media
media planning.
consumers were asked grand questions on how their media
Within the industry itself, experts from across the media
consumption patterns are changing their perceived degree of
industry value chain were sought from the following levels,
control in media environments. Fixed prompts concerned
which formed the basis of the quota sample (see Table II):
evaluations of current media providers, perceptions of value ● Content Creators: Entities that produce the content for
for money, their degree of content creation and number and
audience consumption and retain the rights thereto.
manner in which different content platforms were accessed
Content is produced based on consumer trends and
and used. Contrasting prompts were planned prompts used to
behaviors.
elicit differences between categories. An example of such ● Content Aggregators/Distributors: Content distributors,
prompts were questions on the perceived difference in control
aggregate the content from content creators for distribution
between traditional and newer media platforms.
across different platforms. They work in two markets: the
Consumers had to have access to multiple media platforms.
market of audiences for their media products and the market
They were all resident in South Africa and the national
of advertisers, where they sell these audience numbers to get
measure of socioeconomic status, Living Standards Measure
advertising revenue (Bornman, 2009).
(LSM), was used. As evidenced in Table I, the LSM groups
ranged from low (four) to high (10). Participants from
Table I Overview of consumer respondents
different economic groups were sourced, as consumer control
in media consumption could be affected by the level of LSM level Age group No. of respondents Sex
financial resources available. A mix of age and gender were 4 35-40 1 M
sought. These variables formed the matrix of a quota sample. 7 20-25 1 F
Paterson et al. (2001) report no fixed sample size is required, 8 45-50 1 F
provided the data generated permit comparisons among 9 40-45 1 F
selected dimensions, the data are distinct and independent, 10 25-30 1 M
are sufficient to answer the research questions and allow the

376
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
● Media Planning/Consulting Agencies: Entities which work on
behalf of advertisers and sponsors and provide specialist
advice as well as detailed audience information and analytics
to their clients (Bornman, 2009).
Judgmental sampling using researcher connections can be a
very useful method to “get through the door” to get access to
elites who are high up in an organization (Goldstein, 2002).
Nevertheless, of the six organizations interviewed, four are
listed on the stock exchange; one is the public broadcaster,
another the main cable company, both locally and across the
continent, and a third is a media house with print, digital and
radio in its stable. Six interviews were done as the quota
covered three types of respondents, and as two interviews per
category are recommended (Marshall and Rossman, 2006),
six were deemed appropriate.
All participants were made aware at the outset that their
participation was completely voluntary and they could withdraw
from the study at any time; the interview consent form was signed
by both parties. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed.
The research process and letters of consent were approved by the
business school ethics committee. The transcribed data were
analyzed using the computer software Atlas. Ti®. Atlas. Ti® is a
tool for an explorative approach for theory-building. It can
convert linear data like transcribed interviews into maps to
identify patterns and concepts (Muhr, 1991). Emerging
concepts, themes and categories from the collected data were
extracted (Merriam, 2002).
Reliability of a research study refers to the consistency of the
measures used in the study, and validity is concerned with the
extent to which the study reflects the phenomena being
observed (Wahyuni, 2012). For qualitative research, the
notion of dependability is more appropriate than validity.
Dependability can be achieved by a detailed explanation of the
processes used in the study, so future researchers can follow a
similar framework to repeat the study (Shenton, 2004;
Wayhuni, 2012). In this study, the interview guides, details of
the respondent samples, interview transcripts and the analyzed
data have been documented.
To ensure reliability of a research study, Creswell (2003)
suggests eight strategies, from which the researcher can choose
one or more to increase the reliability of the study. Of the
eight, researcher reflexivity, thick, rich descriptions and, to a
certain extent, spending time in the field were chosen
(Creswell, 2003). Thick, rich descriptions can help the reader
visualize and virtually experience the actual narrative
experiences of the participants (Creswell, 2003). During
in-depth interviews of media consumers and semi-structured
interviews of media experts, the narratives of the respondents
provided a lot of detailed experience.
Table II Overview of industry expert respondents
Industry Company No. of respondents
Content producers Public broadcaster 1 traditional media does not give him adequate value, as much
Listed media house 1 content that is provided by these services is not relevant to him.
Content providers Local cable TV 1 He actively pulls content of his choice from different sources. He
Continental cable TV 1 provided an example of downloading episodes of one of his
Media consultancy Media planners 1 favorite TV series from the internet rather than waiting for it to be
Media consultancy 1 broadcasted. Mr G also uses his internet-connected mobile
377
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
Results
During the course of the interviews, the themes that emerged
from the responses are represented graphically in the image
below (see Figure 1, overleaf). These themes demonstrate the
journey of consumer empowerment and content pull in the
media landscape similar to what the literature anticipated. As
evidenced in Figure 1 below, traditional media is viewed in
decline, empowering consumers and enabling them to pull
content at will. Business responses were mixed, weighing up
both opportunities and challenges that the new environment
presents.
From these themes, organic connections emerged to the
research questions. In the table below, the first set of
horizontal rows represent the emergent themes, and the
responses given by the respondents on those themes are shown
in the second set of rows. The first research question
concerned whether consumer control has changed the way
content is produced and disseminated from producer push to
consumer pull. A related question was whether this holds true
across income groups. The final research question concerned
the degree to which the industry has adapted its strategies to
accommodate any perceived change. Three vertical columns
RQ1, RQ2 and RQ2 represent the research questions. The
arrow connectors show the connection between themes and
the boxes represent the connection between the responses on
these themes and the research questions (Figure 2).
Primacy of the consumer: not entirely accepted
Four of the six experts denied consumer control in media
consumption in one or more instances. Evidenced in the
Table III below, the experts both deny and accept the notion
of consumer control at the same time. So we can deduce that
there is a certain degree of cognitive dissonance in the
thoughts of media experts on the consumer being in control.
When the word count for the code “consumer control” was
done individually among all media experts, the discussion was
dominated by media planning and consulting experts (22 per
cent and 24 per cent, respectively), whereas traditional media
providers contributed the least to the discussion. Thus, it is
the traditional media providers who are still to a certain degree
the most reluctant to give consumers additional agency.
Consumers demonstrated that, with the use of
internet-enabled mobile devices becoming ubiquitous at all
economic levels, they access content from different sources at
different times. Mr M, a lower-income individual, reported
that it was difficult for him to afford traditional media and that
these do not provide him with the content that he wants. The
money that he can spare he uses it to access the internet on his
mobile phone.
These usage patterns are very similar to how Mr G
(high-income) uses media in his life. Mr G is not constricted by
any financial constraints in consuming media, yet he wants
optimum value for the money he spends. In his opinion,
devices a lot to get the content of his choice whenever and
 Developing strategies for new media environments Journal of Product & Brand Management
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386

Figure 1 Map of emergent themes from the interviews

Figure 2 Overview of results by research question

Emergent Themes
Decline of Traditional Media
Respondent Responses RQ 1: Consumer control RQ2: Are all consumers RQ3: What are
Changing Consumption From able to Pull Content Businesses Doing in
Push to Pull Response
Lack of Choices
Expensive
Frustration with Current Choices
No Control on content being pushed

More Choices Available

Rise of New Media More Individualised
Non Linear Content Delivery

More Control in Media Consumption

Ability to Peruse Multiple Platforms
Consumer Empowerement
Pull Content as per Consumer Needs
Even at low income levels consumers are
empowered and able to pull content

Recognition of Consumer Control

Business Response to Need to understand Consumers better
Empowerement Tweak Tactics to Factor Consumer Pull
Need to make Changes in Business Models

wherever he pleases. He believed there is a lack of free content on
financial news services in South Africa, so he gets this kind of
information from international websites. Even for him, consumer
content communities play a very important role by providing
recommendations for movies, books and other content that he
can peruse:
If you don’t give me those options I am going to go somewhere else and get
those options. (Miss N)
Even older consumers reported that new media had changed
the way they obtained products:
Yes it has changed for me to listen to music, reading the news or getting
weather has changed as there are many more options now. (Mrs C, 50 years)

When you use traditional media outlets you are kind of forced to see what is
there and kind of believe that but with new age media outlets if you see a news
article on a topic on one website, you can quickly go onto to another website to
verify, so you can compare. Whereas with traditional media for example the 7
p.m. news, you get the news and that’s it you can’t verify it. (Mr G)
I like the idea that I know what I want and I can go and get it, and not
someone selecting it for me. Like I said I don’t like the [cable TV] giving so
many channels when I only want one thing. (Mr N)
I don’t want to wait, I want to know it right now
I have more control and watch what I like if I don’t like what is coming on
TV I can switch channels and if I do not like anything on TV, I can get
things on my PC or phone. So definitely I think I have much more control
in terms of getting what I want
There was interplay between the traditional and new world.
Even though all consumers mentioned that they liked to be
in control and pull content of their choice, the level of
control and pull that consumers exercise was sometimes
based on the individual or the situation. Mr G mentioned
that he always liked to be in control of his content choices;
to him, ease and speed of access to the content equated to
a good experience. Miss N conversely mentioned that she
values the experience of the content more and so she will
even wait for quite some time to watch her favorite TV
series or movies on pay TV channels. She believed that

378
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
Table III The debate on consumer control
Industry Denying consumer control
Public broadcaster “I think the consumers still do not have much control.
Consumers are trying to exert control but I think they are
still to quite a great extent, controlled by media
providers.”
“So I do not think Consumers are in control as of now”
“a lot of times consumers do not know what they want”
Print industry “I will give you an example from our industry; here most
of our readers do not know what they want. And we
avoid asking them what they want instead we give them
a list of content that we have available and ask them to
choose amongst them.”
Pay TV provider “I don’t think consumers will ever have absolute control”
Marketing & “the networks have an almost monopolistic control over
media consultant the content and the consumers through its platforms”
watching it on television was a good experience. Mrs M and
Mrs C both mentioned an interplay between control and
pulled content and times where they were happy to let
media providers present them with content. They would
also follow the set schedule rather than watching at times of
their choice. Schedules offered a curatorship function, as
they provided a limited choice from which they could pick
something to consume. In the words of Mrs M:
[. . .] sometimes you just run out of ideas of what to do and prefer that there
are options from which I can choose. When I just want to relax and sit back
and enjoy some mindless TV watching I prefer it to just play, like if I am at
home alone and doing house work I prefer the TV to be just on and now and
again I just look at it to see what is happening and it makes the house feel
not so quiet. (a companion)
The tension between curatorship and control was more
prominent for the experts. Box 1 demonstrates their strong
emphasis that creation is an activity for the producer: “they do
not want to create their own schedules, a schedule must be
created for them”. Most were strongly of the opinion that
producers innovate; only one admitted that the industry was
not enabling consumer voice: “we avoid asking them what
they want”. The industry solution appears to be to offer
products whose success hinges off awareness rather than
consumer creativity: “we need to advertise it more so people
know about it”.
379
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
Accepting consumer control
“Consumers are now choosing what they want; and it will
be easier for business to tell what consumers want by
seeing what they are pulling from the provider networks.
They are showing it with their actions that they want to
binge watch a complete season of something in one
sitting.”
“Consumers will be able to control what they would like
to read, watch or listen much more”
“In new media networks I think that the control is much
more evident”
“Yes, I definitely think consumers have more control. I
mean with the use of digital technology people are
choosing what to watch, when to watch.”
“So I think yes Consumer control is definitely evident and
increasing”
“Consumers definitely have more control now as
compared to earlier. So people want to be different and
get what they want and not be dictated.”
“Consumers today have little patience for device, access
or geographical restrictions.”
“Yes definitely, the consumer has more control and this is
due to the rapid spread of technology all over the world
which empowers consumers.”
“The consumer says ‘I want to watch what I want when I
want’. So what is happening that services like Netflix are
becoming so powerful as more and more consumers are
deciding that On Demand Services are much more
preferable. ”
How does the business model adapt? The problem of
monetization
Despite this reliance on producer innovation, or at the very
least a production orientation, there were acknowledged
tensions arising from technological disruption. Tension
between paid for, professionally created products against
the “free” content of the internet was certainly present.
Media houses felt that their key asset, the consumer, was
moving out of their reach. There was no sense of creating
consumers, by innovating content and formats that
captured imagination. Most hoped to continue to serve
them in the traditional manner, which relied on consumer
captivity, which is slipping away. Isolate and Follow appear
to be the main models, even though the environment is
known to be dynamic. The predominant concern is loss of
revenue, as Box 2 demonstrates. The experts believe that
their essential offering is content provision and content can
be accessed anywhere without cost. In the absence of other
means to generate value, traditional providers are unable to
capture consumers.
Experts mentioned the need to change media industry
business models a few times, but what these changes should
entail was not unpacked. Some experts said that consumer
empowerment can be also seen as opportunities for business to
leverage. Most importantly, business model innovation was
stressed as the way forward, but the shape and format of this
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
Box 1. Industry beliefs that only producers innovate
Producers create
Media Expert: Public Broadcaster: So in a sense for a large
swathe of [. . .] they do not want to create their own schedules,
a schedule must be created for them so that it works perfectly for
them.
We decide on the storylines, we decide on the content to give to
consumers, because a lot of times consumers do not
know what they want. And we sometimes take a guess at it
and decide on what we think will work with consumers.
Consumers by using your content exhibit that they have trust in
your content. [emphasis added]
Media Expert: Pay TV Provider: Push is essential. For
example - most people don’t know that [cable TV company] has
a free VOD service, and we need to advertise it more so people
know about it that is push and with that awareness consumers
will then pull whatever content they like.
I also think that a lot of times people don’t know what they want
until they see it.
Push is the acquisition and discovery whereas Pull is the
retention so the strategy of acquisition and retention need to go
hand in hand. Also as a consumer, taking myself as an example
there are lots of instances where I consume content that is pushed
to me and I would not have been aware of it if it was not pushed,
and a lot of times I am pushed content that are not relevant to
me but I will still go and watch them sometimes if they catch my
attention on an impulse. So push is exactly that where we try to
pander to users’ needs and impulses.
So I do not think consumers are in control as of now, because as
of now media providers only look for pockets that they can
monetize and some sections are not self-evidently profitable
monetarily. And this is what scares me about the digital
revolution as there is no controlling mechanism where we can say
that for the common good of all the people, do not do this or do
this. Here it happens as and when the money flows . [emphasis
added]
Media Expert: Print Industry: In South Africa I don’t think
we are there yet [Content Pull By Consumers]
Producers avoid consumer creativity.
We avoid asking them what they want instead we give them a
list of content that we have available and ask them to choose
amongst them.
was not known. The suggestions offered were all tactics, which
tweak certain parts in content delivery mechanisms or
providing content on multiple devices, or the use of consumer
preferences and behavior for better targeted advertising. Using
so-called “big data” to track consumer habits and provide
content and advertising catering to these habits was opined by
experts as a new golden opportunity. Such data were also a
tool for increased customization of content offerings and thus
a potential mechanism for capturing audiences.
Producing and providing content that the consumers can
relate to was also viewed as important. Local content was
viewed as a point of differentiation against an international
onslaught of content, as evidenced in Box 3 below. There was
a sense of audience fatigue with global content. There was
380
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
Box 2. Business model concerns
Media Expert: Media Planner
The revenue models of media businesses are based on advertising
and as and when advertising tapers off it is going to impact their
business models. So I think any of these business models whose
primary revenue source is advertising are in a precarious space.
For [cable TV company] try to create stickiness to the premium
package they give you all these add ons like Box office and
Walka [both consumer demand based products] etc. But then a
vidi service comes along and gives access to content whenever,
wherever and they also open their platform up and you are not
limited to being a premium subscriber only.
Media Expert: Marketing/Media Consultancy.
The content owners are saying that this is our asset and we have
invested money in it and we want the bigger slice whereas the
consumer is saying that I will just go get it for free somewhere
else. So it is a very challenging business model to make money
out of.
The whole problem is that a lot of these media companies are
competing against free. And you cannot compete against free,
that is a no brainer.
We are in a state of flux where brands are realizing the
importance of digital and customized offerings and somewhat
move away from the standard above the line (ATL)
advertising.
Media Expert: Print Industry
Another challenge is now days young people are so used to
getting content for free that trying and telling them to pay for the
content is difficult.
And we also see that ad spend in newspapers is declining along
with TV and Radio, where businesses are now increasing their
spending on below the line campaigns on the internet as well as
promotions, giveaways etc. to attract customers.
some sense that consumer-created content on social media,
consumption occasion as well as the time of consumption
could be leveraged in some way. The pay TV industry expert
said that businesses are presently moving away from a silo
mentality where content, delivery mechanisms and consumer
insights are compartmentalized across different parts of the
media value chain, and are now beginning to cater to the
omni-channel consumer. Both the pay TV experts mentioned
that they are implementing avenues of branching into multiple
platforms, both paid and free, to provide access anywhere and
anytime to their customers. Thus, there is limited consumer
co-creation and much discussion of using consumer insights
to shape offerings. This appears to be more of a Follow
orientation.
Discussion and conclusion
Are consumers in control?
Consumers have changed. There has been a shift in power
from producers to consumers and now consumers have
acquired more control and influence over what they consume
(Shankar et al., 2006). Content is tailored and personalized
(Bright and Daugherty, 2012), and all consumers wished to be
at the center of the media environment (Daugherty et al.,
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
Box 3. Dealing with change
Media Expert: Public Broadcaster.
Connecting this with the pull phenomenon we should look at
what consumers are pulling and create content that they would
like to pull
The platform is the enabler to the content and people come to
your platform looking for the content and not the other way
around.
We will have to craft television differently, as consumers are
already showing us what they want to do. They are showing it
with their actions.
Media Expert: Pay TV Channel.
So you have to welcome the change instead of ignoring it and
you can ignore these changes at your own peril. But there is
opportunity inherent in this changed reality.
We in the media business need to find ways to evolve and come
with new business models and products and services that would
appeal to these customers
Look at some of the Nollywood movies and how popular they are
the quality is not good but because the story is there, because the
relevance is there and the resonance is there; a lot of these movies
bring higher audience ratings than $100 million international
movies
Another thing is that in many ways now international content
has lost its relevance or appeal and the importance of local
content
Media Expert: Marketing/Media Consultancy.
The whole thing of local as [good] where people really want local
content and the service that gets the mix right will be the one that
will be successful
2008). This occurred regardless of access to resources;
lower-income individuals acted in the same manner, although
they were more reliant on smartphones to effect this change.
As expected, consumers do not want to be dependent on
media businesses to provide them with content in a linear
fashion (Valcke, 2011), instead they want to stay up-to-date
with the content they want, non-linearly and on demand
(Ksiazek, 2010). In the study, this phenomenon became
evident where consumer respondents were seen using multiple
devices to get the content they want immediately. This
cross-platform availability of content has given rise to
increased consumer autonomy in structuring their
consumption patterns (Napoli, 2011). Immediate access to
content was mentioned by consumers as a very important facet
of how they manifest control.
Another way in which respondents were seen pulling
content was sharing content and content recommendations
within content communities with other users (Kaplan and
Haenlein, 2010). The power of WOM has been multiplied
and can determine product success or failure (Hennig-Thurau
et al., 2014; van Noort and Willemsen, 2012). Consumers
interact; they make or break products. Such practice suggests
that the industry should turn to the Interact model of Berthon
et al. (1999). Organization dialogue with consumers needs to
go past market research to embrace creative consumers who
actively design products (Berthon et al., 2007).
381
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
The heart of Interact lies in the following two findings: First,
a degree of situational consumption was found to hold
influence for some but not all consumer segments. For some
consumers, ease and speed of access to the content is of prime
importance, whereas for others, the experience of the content
is more important than the speed of access. In the 2 ⫻ 2 matrix
below, which plots speed and ease of access (Y axis) versus
experience of accessing content (X axis), some consumers
always want to be at the top section of Quadrant III, where
they can get access to content almost instantly, whereas other
consumers preferred to be in Quadrant II, most of the times to
delay instant gratification in favor of savoring the experience.
These findings run contrary to the literature which suggests
that consumers in control always like speed and ease of access
to the content, with experience being a secondary
consideration (Chiu and Chou, 2011; Smith and Telang,
2010; Sundar and Marathe, 2010). By corollary, there may be
times where consumers seek to create; at other times, they may
seek simply to consume (Figure 3).
This leads to the second main finding: Some consumers felt
that they do not always want to pull content but instead rely
on media providers to curate content for them for their passive
consumption, eliminating their search costs. This findings
present another deviation from the literature where it has been
suggested that with consumer control, consumers always
engage in a meaningful directed approach of seeking content
to satisfy their needs (Hoffman et al., 2000; Kopetz et al.,
2012; Liang et al., 2006).
Thus, consumers do not desire the complete switch to the
Follow model; they wish to be led by product and brand
managers also. In this market of rapid change and a plethora
of choice, there remains comfort in the service of selection and
the consumption of a product at the same time and place as
other consumers. Many times they were actively engaged in
pulling content as per their needs, but consumers are willing to
delay gratification of instant access to the content in lieu of a
better experience. Another reason for consuming content on a
fixed platform at a fixed time was the opportunity to share it
with others. Watching the Super Bowl has a time, space,
platform and sharing value. Thus, level of control and pull that
consumers exert in getting content of their choice might be
individual- or situation-dependent. This provides additional
support for the Interact model of Berthon et al. (1999).
Consumers wish to innovate, but not all the time. Producers
should innovate, but not all the time; sometimes it is
appropriate simply to be market-orientated.
The results of the study also presented some interesting
outcomes, as lower-income segments were found to behave in
a similar manner in exercising control. Consumers from
lower-income levels contributed significantly more to the
discussion on consumer control compared to respondents
from higher-income levels. Lower-income consumers
carefully balance their financial resources and are more
conscious about money spent on media consumption. In
possession of the limited money, they must extract maximum
value out through selective pulling of content. These
consumers spend most of their resources on new media, which
gives them more control in getting what they want. Moreover,
they participate more actively in content communities and
share content among themselves. Not only do they use new
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
Figure 3 2 ⫻ 2 matrix plotting speed of access versus experience of access
media technology for entertainment, but they also use it to try
to improve their life by educating themselves, getting unbiased
news and communicating with others on issues pertinent to
their lives. While not recognized in media research, this
outcome matches literature on consumers from lower-income
markets who have limited resources and thus are forced to be
creative with these resources to extract maximum value (Kay
and Lewenstein, 2013; Mason et al., 2013; Subrahmanyan
and Tomas Gomez-Arias, 2008).
Has business recognized control and how has business
responded?
Media businesses have traditionally been the conduits and
procurers of professional content (McPhillips and Merlo,
2008). They have acted as the gatekeeper and broadcaster of
this content to consolidated large masses of audiences
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Sundar and Marathe, 2010).
Revenue was generated from selling these captured audience
eyeballs to advertisers (Lister et al., 2009; Zott et al., 2011),
who could then target them with mass advertising
(Nelson-Field and Riebe, 2011; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012).
Consumers who paid for content in one-off payments or
through subscriptions were a secondary source of revenue
(McPhillips and Merlo, 2008). In this model, the media
business was the dominant player in the landscape, as it had
control over the content and the audiences to whom the
advertisers needed access.
We found that the response to the threat of consumer
control in the new technology environment was met with some
degree of trepidation, particularly so from more traditional
media players. This is not surprising, as Berthon et al. (1999)
pointed out, the more deeply embedded a strategic orientation
is, such as the product one of the media players, the greater the
reluctance to change. They appear to be largely of the
“Isolate” and “Follow” strategies. A large degree of inertia is
present, which is symptomatic of such approaches (Berthon
et al., 1999). The need to change is accepted, but what is
proposed is limited and often harks back to more
product-orientated models, suggesting the persistent presence
of an Isolate orientation. They have invested a lot in their
delivery systems and business models to push content to their
382
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
audiences (McPhillips and Merlo, 2008) and are reluctant to
change.
Some changes center on greater consumer centricity that
digitization has enabled: “Big Data” (George et al., 2014)
generated during consumer interactions with multiple
platforms. Data provide a more granular understanding of
the consumer to customize products according to their
preferences, which could then be monetized by product and
brand placements. Media managers have also responded with
tactics such as giving programming in big blocks on television
to binge-watch, rather than following their usual schedules
(Jenner, 2014). These are all firmly fixed in the marketing
orientation, not that of innovation (Berthon et al., 1999), and
it is consumers and new technology which have forced the
change. Interact strategies are consequently consumer-driven,
with most traditional players not innovating themselves.
There are some moves toward innovation, but these are
largely created by the technology itself, suggesting a Shape
orientation. The creation of social experiences around content
is created by the ability to engage with the content on multiple
touch points (Berman et al., 2011). Similarly, the ability of
users to curate their own content for customization is a feature
of the technology (Bright, 2014). If producers were to truly
embrace the Shape possibilities of new technology, digital
convergence needs to be embraced more fully. Convergence is
where content flows seamlessly across various platforms
(Jenkins, 2008); thus, there needs to be integration and
cooperation among multiple platforms, devices and media
industries to create convergent media experiences (Bardhi
et al., 2010; Berman and Marshall, 2014; Shankar et al.,
2010). Media experts also acknowledged this in the need to
provide seamless content experiences to consumers and to get
rid of the silo mentality that is currently prevalent.
Yet the outcome is not so neat; not all consumers embrace
complete control and many of them have occasions where
communal consumption overrides personal preferences.
Again, the best strategy which explains this is one of Interact.
Consumers are not homogeneous; the product landscape is
fragmented. The greater the fragmentation, the greater the
content search costs. Efficient and effective minimizing of
such costs, as Netflix’s model attempts to do, speak to the
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
value of curatorship as a product rather than necessarily
the content itself (Ojer and Capapé, 2013). Spotify, an online
music streaming service, caters to this pull by matching the
content to suit consumers’ personal music tastes (Warr and
Goode, 2011) and creating a social content consumption
experience for all of its users (Berman et al., 2011). Both
businesses are adaptable and more representative of an Interact
orientation, which is a mix of innovate (create) and capture.
However, traditional media businesses like public
broadcasting and newspapers have yet to successfully come up
with business models that can help them steer their strategy
entirely from push to pull. It therefore still remains
questionable if all businesses in the media landscape can adapt
to content-pull to the same extent.
The contribution of the research is to put forward a strategy
for product and platform development in media in an age of
digital disruption. First, we find that the Interact strategy is
highly suitable to help the media industry navigate through
these times of turbulence. Second, the key components of
such a strategy are a mix of consumer and producer
innovation. This means that the media industry can work with
consumers to create value which engages and excites current
and potential market segments. Value creation is certainly no
longer in the domain of producers, although we found that
most traditional media providers are far from that realization.
Third, we provide input from consumers themselves who do
not wish to be creators constantly. There is certainly room for
producer innovation, as well as producer market orientation.
We found that not all consumers desire the wide open world
of content generated or curated by themselves or each other.
They acknowledge that having access to a world of choice can
be as disempowering as it is empowering. Sometimes they
wish to just follow a schedule of content curated by others.
Fourth, we found that consumption occasion is important.
Some content is fixed in time and has an enhanced experience
when consumed with others on certain occasions. Thus,
consumer choice is not unlimited nor is it singular. We found
that consumers value immediate gratification and quality to
different degrees and this impacts the nature of their
interaction with producers and content. Finally, technology
has eroded the differences between low- and high-income
consumers. The ubiquity of smartphones has enabled
low-income consumers to become more empowered, have
access to more information and use their resources more
wisely. Perhaps consumer empowerment was felt at this end of
the market the most because it was where empowerment was
most needed.
Limitations
Exploratory research provides deep insights and fuller
understanding of an issue and provides impetus for further
research of the phenomenon, but there are certain limitations
associated with this approach. Definitive conclusions cannot
be drawn on the issue being investigated from this kind of
research and the interpretations of the findings can be
judgmental (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). The absence of large
digital natives, that is companies which are borne into the
digital environment, certainly hampers the full appreciation of
the innovation approach. Nevertheless, while new media
producers appear to have a greater handle on extracting value
383
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
from the new media landscape, it is many of the traditional
content providers who have the greatest change to make.
Many are still not certain of the road ahead. They often fear
rather than embrace consumer creativity.
Practical implications
Vollmer and Precourt (2008) in their book “Always On”
stated that consumer control has generated a “mutiny in
media” (p. 79), as it freed consumers from the shackles of
traditional media control. Media consumers now have more
media outlets at their disposal than ever before. They are
multi-tasking, diversifying and moving away from traditional
mediums to new digital ones. Their communication has
changed; so has their means of interaction with content
providers, content and each other (Gironda and Korgaonkar,
2014; Pynta et al., 2014). The current research has found that
there is still a role for the media industry. They can beat “free”
if they are able to create value. Value creation comes from
consumers, whether in their active design of products and
platforms (Berthon et al., 2007), or through their data, which
enables customization and curatorship. Value in a diverse and
fragmented landscape could come from enabling consumer
management of the bewildering set of choices they face. Most
successful media models, embraced by the likes of Netflix,
operate with the Interact strategy. The company works with
and for consumers to enhance their consumption experiences.
The clarion call has been that consumers are rejecting
content, communication and marketing that are irrelevant to
them and are opting for media that give them more of what
they want (Anderson and Wolff, 2010; Truong and Simmons,
2010). Having sophisticated consumers who are selective,
skeptical and demanding, and who possess power over their
media choices (Hanna et al., 2011; Kwon et al., 2012), heralds
the era of the “creative consumer” (Berthon et al., 2007).
When such individuals are harnessed, this can aid the business
in serving a customer-centric and innovation orientation
simultaneously.
Traditional media product producers are still far from
embracing this change. In the interim, they would do well to
becoming more consumer-centric in their approach and revisit
business models to interrogate if their previous orientation of
Isolate still serves them in the current environment. Social
media enables them to focus on consumer experiences instead
of being just focused on selling them standard products or
services (Lamberti, 2013; Shah et al., 2006). Consumers need
to be partners; their creativity should be embraced.
Avenues for future research
There is a strong interaction between how the innovation of
technology changes and shapes consumer behavior. In
corollary, this affects their expectations, brand experiences
and product demands. While branding has been found to be
important as a content provider, as such its function for a
media agency is less clear. Could it be that media distributors
have value mainly as curators or is it the experience they
provide? Is this how they can beat “free”? What is the brand
equity of new media businesses?
If all content is to become consumer-driven, how is the
dilemma of innovative and different content to be solved? Will
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
the role of double jeopardy (Bandyopadhyay and Gupta,
2004) eventually reduce the fragmentation currently
experienced in online media? The possibilities for the Interact
strategy for media producers are great. We need research both
to detail how traditional providers can use such strategies as
well as research into the finer tactics thereof. Finding
sustainable business models for media providers is essential
and the only way to ensure long-term creation of valuable
content.
References
Agee, J. (2009), “Developing qualitative research questions: a
reflective process”, International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 431-447.
Anderson, C. and Wolff, M. (2010), “The web is dead: long
live the internet”, Wired Magazine, California, August,
p. 18.
Bandyopadhyay, S. and Gupta, K. (2004), “Comparing
double jeopardy effects at the behavioral and attitudinal
levels”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 13 Nos 2/3, pp. 180-191.
Bardhi, F., Rohm, A.J. and Sultan, F. (2010), “Tuning in and
tuning out: media multitasking among young consumers”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 316-332.
Berman, S.J. (2012), “Digital transformation: opportunities to
create new business models”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 40
No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Berman, S.J., Abraham, S., Battino, B., Shipnuck, L. and
Neus, A. (2007), “New business models for the new media
world”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 35 No. 4, p. 23.
Berman, S.J., Battino, B. and Feldman, K. (2011), “New
business models for emerging media and entertainment
revenue opportunities”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 44-53.
Berman, S.J. and Marshall, A. (2014), “The next digital
transformation: from an individual-centered to an
everyone-to-everyone economy”, Strategy & Leadership,
Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 9-17.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pitt, L.F. (1999), “To serve or
create? Strategic orientations toward customers and
innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 37-58.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., McCarthy, I. and Kates, S.M.
(2007), “When customers get clever: managerial
approaches to dealing with creative consumers”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 50 No. 1, p. 39.
Bornman, E. (2009), “Measuring media audiences”, in
Fourie, P.J. (Ed.), Media Studies, 3rd ed., JUTA
Publications, Juta, pp. 1-52.
Bright, L.F. (2014), “Taming the information beast: content
customization and its impact on media enjoyment for online
consumers”, Online Journal of Communication and Media
Technologies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 143-169.
Bright, L.F. and Daugherty, T. (2012), “Does customization
impact advertising effectiveness? An exploratory study of
consumer perceptions of advertising in customized online
environments”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
384
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
Cha, J. (2013), “Do online video platforms cannibalize
television? How viewers are moving from old screens to new
ones”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 53 No. 1, p. 71.
Chiu, S.P. and Chou, H.W. (2011), “Investigating the user
behavior of peer-to-peer file sharing software”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 9,
pp. 68-79.
Constantinides, E.E.C. and Fountain, S.J.S.F. (2008), “Web
2.0: conceptual foundations and marketing issues”, Journal
of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice (formerly
Interactive Marketing), Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-244.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed., Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. and Bright, L. (2008), “Exploring
consumer motivations for creating user-generated content”,
Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 16-25.
Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2005), “Access to the internet in the
context of community participation and community
satisfaction”, New Media & Society, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 89-109.
Evens, T. (2010), “Value networks and changing business
models for the digital television industry”, Journal of Media
Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 41-58.
Evens, T., De Marez, L., Hauttekeete, L., Biltereyst, D.,
Mannens, E. and Van de Walle, R. (2010), “Attracting the
un-served audience: the sustainability of long tail-based
business models for cultural television content”, New Media
& Society, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1005-1023.
Franzak, F. and Pitta, D. (2011), “Moving from service
dominant to solution dominant brand innovation”, The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 394-401.
George, G., Haas, M.R. and Pentland, A. (2014), “Big data
and management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57
No. 2, pp. 321-326.
Gironda, J.T. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (2014), “Understanding
consumers’ social networking site usage”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 30 Nos 5/6, pp. 571-605.
Gobé, M. (2010), Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for
Connecting Brands to People, Allworth Press, New York, NY.
Goldstein, K. (2002), “Getting in the door: sampling and
completing elite interviews”, Political Science & Politics,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 669-672.
Hamilton, K.L. and Catterall, M. (2005), “Towards a better
understanding of the low income consumer”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 627-632.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. (2011), “We’re all
connected: the power of the social media ecosystem”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E.C., Friege, C., Gensler, S.,
Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A. and Skiera, B. (2010), “The
impact of new media on customer relationships”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 311-330.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C. and Feldhaus, F. (2014),
“Does Twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word
of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 3, doi:
10.1007/s11747-014-0388-3.
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (2009), “Flow online:
lessons learned and future prospects”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P. and Schlosser, A. (2000),
Consumer Control in Online Environments, Elab. vanderbilt.
edu, Nashville, TN.
Hollander, B.A. (2008), “Tuning out or tuning elsewhere?
Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998
to 2006”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Casabayó, M. (2011), “Key
changes and challenges for brands in an uncertain
environment”, The Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 436-439.
Jaffe, J. (2005), Life After the 30-Second Spot: Energize Your
Brand with a Bold Mix of Alternatives to Traditional
Advertising, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Jenkins, H. (2008), Convergence Culture Where Old and New
Media Collide, New York University Press, New York, NY.
Jenner, M. (2014), “Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIII and
Binge-watching”, New Media & Society, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 1-17.
Kant, T. (2014), “Giving the ‘ Viewser ’ a voice? Situating the
individual in relation to personalization, narrowcasting, and
public service broadcast”, Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 381-399.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world,
unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Kay, E. and Lewenstein, W. (2013), “The problem with the
‘poverty premium’”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91
No. 4, pp. 21-24.
Kitchen, P.J. and Schultz, D.E. (2009), “IMC: new horizon/
false dawn for a market place in turmoil?”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 197-204.
Kopetz, C.E., Kruglanski, A.W., Arens, Z.G., Etkin, J. and
Johnson, H.M. (2012), “The dynamics of consumer
behavior: a goal systemic perspective”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 208-223.
Ksiazek, T.B. (2010), “Cross-platform audience behavior in an
abundant media environment: an integrated approach to
understanding fragmentation, polarization, and media publics
through network analysis, Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences”, Northwestern
University, available at: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?
u r l _ v e r ⫽ Z 3 9 . 8 8 - 2 0 0 4 & r f t _ v a l _ f m t ⫽ i n f o : o fi / f m t :
kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat⫽xri:pqdiss&rft_dat⫽xri:pqdiss:
3402202/nhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T⫽JS&PAG
E⫽reference&D⫽psyc6&NEWS⫽N&AN⫽2010-99210-036
Kwon, K.H., Oh, O., Agrawal, M. and Rao, H.R. (2012),
“Audience gatekeeping in the Twitter service: an
investigation of tweets about the 2009 Gaza conflict”, AIS
Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 212-229.
Lamberti, L. (2013), “Customer centricity: the construct and
the operational antecedents”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 588-612.
Leung, L. (2009), “User-generated content on the internet: an
examination of gratifications, civic engagement and
385
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
psychological empowerment”, New Media & Society,
Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1327-1347.
Liang, T., Hung-Jen, L. and Ku, Y.-C. (2006), “Personalized
content recommendation theoretical and user satisfaction:
and empirical findings synthesis”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 45-70.
Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I. and Kelly, K.
(2009), New Media: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed.,
Routledge, Oxon.
McCracken, G. (1988), “Introduction”, The Long Interview,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 9-12.
McPhillips, S. and Merlo, O. (2008), “Media convergence
and the evolving media business model: an overview and
strategic opportunities”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 237-253.
Mason, K., Chakrabarti, R. and Singh, R. (2013), “What are
bottom of the pyramid markets and why do they matter?”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 401-404.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006a), Designing
Qualitative Research, 4th ed., Sage Publications, London.
Merriam, S.B. (2002), Qualitative Research in Practice:
Examples for Discussion and Analysis, Jossey-Bass Publisher,
San Francisco, CA.
Millington, B. and Wilson, B. (2010), “Media consumption
and the contexts of physical culture: methodological
reflections on a ‘third generation’ study of media
audiences”, Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 30-53.
Muhr, T. (1991), “ATLAS/ti–a prototype for the support of
text interpretation”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 14 No. 4,
p. 349.
Mulhern, F. (2009), “Integrated marketing communications:
from media channels to digital connectivity”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 85-101.
Napoli, P.M. (2011), Audience Evolution: New Technologies and
The Transformation of Media Audiences, Columbia University
Press, New York, NY.
Nelson-Field, K. and Riebe, E. (2011), “The impact of media
fragmentation on audience targeting: an empirical
generalisation approach”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Odendahl, T. and Shaw, A.M. (2001), “Interviewing elites”,
Handbook of Interview Research, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 299-317.
Ojer, T. and Capapé, E. (2013), “Netflix: a new business
model in the distribution of audiovisual content”,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 9,
pp. 575-584.
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C. and Jillings, C. (2001),
“Meta-study of qualitative health research: a practical guide
to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis”, International Journal
of Nursing Studies, Vol. 8, available at: http://books.google.
co.uk/books?hl⫽en&lr⫽&id⫽CAW-g4DrVgwC&oi⫽
fnd&pg⫽PR9&dq⫽meta-ethnography&ots⫽DDKkYn5ijD
&sig⫽MqDzwG-p_Tr48PNUnx8ADSQbcyw
Pynta, P., Seixas, S.A.S., Nield, G.E. and Hier, J. (2014),
“The power of social television: can social media build
viewer engagement? A new approach to brain imaging of
viewer immersion”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 54
No. 1, p. 71.
 Developing strategies for new media environments
Kerry Fiona Chipp and Devarpan Chakravorty
Saunders, M. and Lewis, P. (2012), Doing Research in Business
and Management: An Essential Guide to Planning Your Project,
Pearson Education, Harlow.
Schultz, D.E., Block, M.P. and Raman, K. (2012),
“Understanding consumer-created media synergy”, Journal
of Marketing Communications, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 173-187.
Shah, D., Rust, R.T., Parasuraman, A., Staelin, R. and
Day, G.S. (2006), “The path to customer centricity”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 113-124.
Shankar, A., Cherrier, H. and Canniford, R. (2006),
“Consumer empowerment: a Foucauldian interpretation
(Tiu Wright, L., Ed.)”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 40 Nos 9/10, pp. 1013-1030.
Shankar, V., Venkatesh, A., Hofacker, C. and Naik, P.
(2010), “Mobile marketing in the retailing environment:
current insights and future research avenues”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 111-120.
Shenton, A.K. (2004), “Strategies for ensuring
trustworthiness in qualitative research projects”, Education
for Information, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 63-75.
Siano, A., Vollero, A. and Palazzo, M. (2011), “Exploring the
role of online consumer empowerment in reputation
building: research questions and hypotheses”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Smith, M.D. and Telang, R. (2010), “Piracy or promotion?
The impact of broadband internet penetration on DVD
sales”, Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 289-298.
Spurgeon, C. (2005), “Losers and lovers: mobile phone
services advertising and the new media consumer/
producer”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 47-55.
Subrahmanyan, S. and Tomas Gomez-Arias, J. (2008),
“Integrated approach to understanding consumer behavior
at bottom of pyramid (Pitta, D.Ed.)”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 402-412.
Sundar, S.S. and Marathe, S.S. (2010), “Personalization
versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy,
and power usage”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 298-322.
Taneja, H., Webster, J.G., Malthouse, E.C. and Ksiazek, T.B.
(2012), “Media consumption across platforms: identifying
user-defined repertoires”, New Media & Society, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 951-968.
Truong, Y. and Simmons, G. (2010), “Perceived
intrusiveness in digital advertising: strategic marketing
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
386
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 25 · Number 4 · 2016 · 373–386
implications”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 239-256.
Valcke, P. (2011), “Looking for the user in media pluralism
regulation: unraveling the traditional diversity chain and
recent trends of user empowerment in European media
regulation”, Journal of Information Policy, Vol. 1 No. 5,
pp. 287-320.
Valos, M.J., Ewing, M.T. and Powell, I.H. (2010),
“Practitioner prognostications on the future of online
marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 Nos
3/4, pp. 361-376, doi: 10.1080/02672571003594762.
van Noort, G. and Willemsen, L.M. (2012), “Online damage
control: the effects of proactive versus reactive webcare
interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated
platforms”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 131-140.
Vollmer, C. and Precourt, G. (2008), Always On: Advertising,
Marketing, and Media in an Era of Consumer Control,
McGraw Hill Professional, New York, NY.
Wahyuni, D. (2012), The Research Design Maze: Understanding
Paradigms, Cases, Methods and Methodologies, Institute of
Certified Management Accountants, Paragon Drive.
Warr, R. and Goode, M.M.H. (2011), “Is the music industry
stuck between rock and a hard place? The role of the
internet and three possible scenarios”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 126-131.
Wayhuni, D. (2012), “The research design maze: understanding
paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies”, Journal of
Applied Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 69-80.
Webster, J.G. and Ksiazek, T.B. (2012), “The dynamics of
audience fragmentation: public attention in an age of digital
media”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Weidner, K.L., Rosa, J.A. and Viswanathan, M. (2010),
“Marketing to subsistence consumers: lessons from
practice”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 559-569.
Zhang, Y. and Wildemuth, B.M. (2009), “Unstructured
interviews”, Applications of Social Research Methods to
Questions in Information and Library Science, Libraries
Unlimited, Westport, CT.
Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L. (2011), “The business
model: recent developments and future research”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1019-1042.
Corresponding author
Kerry Fiona Chipp can be contacted at: chippk@gibs.co.za