This week’s reading has been a little confusing for me. While I understand some points, I couldn’t grasp the idea and where he was heading with them. Here’s my take on it:
The dichotomy of global and local may be seen most clearly in those markets that combine well-developed digital distribution infrastructure and platforms with strong local content industries. The preference for local content over “global” (often code for U.S.-produced) content is evident even in a mature, developed, English-speaking country such as Australia, where locally produced sports, reality shows, news, and drama offerings, such as Shaun Micallef’s political satire Mad as Hell, rank as the 10 most-watched television programs every year. – Chris Lederer & Megan Brownlow, 2016
At first glance, I got confused over which point of view we were looking at. Was it at a general statistics data or was it coming from only well-developed countries? In my perspective, coming from a third world country, we rely on global contents for our source of entertainment. Our generation heavily consume online streaming subscription such as Netflix and Spotify as our source of media and entertainment. As I read about Australia’s locally produced shows, as mentioned in the readings, I couldn’t help but wonder if franchises would also consider local produced? An example would be the “The Voice” franchise, where we now have The Voice Australia and don’t forget non-English speaking countries like China, Philippines and Germany. Would it be considered as a local produce because they are contestants from their country as well as bringing at least a judge from their own country. Also, in Americans’ perspective, would their local content be categorised as “global”?
One part in the readings stuck out, which is Lederer’s Shift 3, Consumption: Bundle of Joy. With the competitive online streaming market like Netflix and Spotify, I would have thought that cable television would slowly decline.