Nixon, Sean (2003): Advertising and Commercial Culture In: Nixon, Sean (2003) Advertising Cultures. Sage, London

My question: What is the key aspect that distinguishes Nixons concept of  ‘commercial culture’ from the other theories (Lash/Urry, Scase/Davis, Featherstone etc.) he mentions in his article?

Answer: To answer this question the kind of definition Nixon gives at the beginning is very important. “The idea of ‘commercial culture’ also insists on the importance of grasping the generative relations with wider economic, political and cultural formations into which commercial processes are drawn with particular  historical settings” (p.2?) Nixon relates commercial culture to a specific given framework within particular historical settings. In other words time, place and all circumstances together build this kind of idea which is called ‘commercial culture’ (which can be compared to the theory of large technological systems of Thomas P. Hughes which also needs special conditions of time and place to start and foster special inventions and their further development steps).

Nixons theory isn’t linked to special situations, but refers to a framework of conditions, which distinguishes his theory from the others. Lash and Urry’s idea about reflexive organisation is caused by terms of Fordism and Post-Fordism which follows the same epochal model of change that Nixon refuses. Also the model of Scase / Davis about the coming of an information society and their four ideal types of organisations leads to a “dualistic model of cultural change” (p.10?) as Thomas Osborne mentions. And the theory of “new cultural intermediaries” mentioned by Mike Featherstone (who uses mainly the work of Bourdieu) causes a time problem. The epithet “new” throws up automatically the question of periodisation (because where something is new, there must have been something old) which leads also to a  establishing of this theory within a special timeframe. This problematic point can also be found in the consumption history studied by McKendrick.

The first theory which is mentioned, which shares the ideas of Nixons thesis is the theory of Frank Mort. Here Nixon stresses again his main point, the quality which is characteristic for his approach. Commercial culture must be viewed as a discrete object of study which stresses once again “[…] the importance of attending to particular forms taken by commercial endeavour at specific times and in specific places”(p.18?)    

Küng-Shankleman, L.(2000): What is organisation culture? In: Küng-Shankleman, L. (2000): Inside the BBC and CNN: Managing Media Organizations. Routledge, London

My questions: Why is culture a fluid term in the opinion of Küng-Shankleman? And what for problems causes this fluid behaviour in the organisational context?

Answer: The whole argumentation of this chapter by Küng-Shankleman is mainly based on the concept of Schein (1996), which describes culture as “nothing more than  the accumulated learning shared by a set of members of an organisation” (p.9). Learning founds here on three cultural levels with basic assumptions as the starting level. Something based on assumptions stands naturally not on a solid ground and is influenced by different realms. In the case of organisational cultures are the influences Schein mentions the influence of the national culture, the (powerful) role of the founder and environmental influences. All together create the basic assumptions which are finally responsible for the whole organisation culture. Based on such a fluid ground, because environmental and cultural influences are changing all the time, Küng-Shankleman acknowledges that “Culture may be difficult to change but is not static” (p.12). So it is both something stabile (the chosen organisation culture, the brand) and something fluid (the assumptions, environment, consumers etc.). So culture in this context is both, as Küng-Shankleman mentions, product and process (p.12).

This ambiguous character is a problematic one, because everything within this organisational context and finally the product is linked to the cultural realm. As The author remarks mission, strategies and competencies are linked to the cultural background, which is not stable predictable. So the close relationship to the fluid cultural term makes the whole construct vulnerable. If the environment with all its cultural meanings and values changes, strategies and competencies (based on former assumptions) can maybe become worthless.

De Mooij, M. (1998): Dimensions of Culture In: De Mooij, M. (1998): Global marketing and Advertising. Sage, London

First of all this whole model De Mooij sketches seems very clear and logical. But without knowing the exact data (e.g. in the mentioned ESM report) and without knowing enough about the cultural backgrounds of North-American or Asian culture it is impossible to me to see how right these assumptions about general cultural types and behaviours are. So my question focuses on the European area, which is an area I know a little about.

My question: Is a general differentiation between European countries not to superficial to describe such a specific term as culture?

I think the dimension model of Hofstede de Mooij uses to build categories in cultural differences reaches not far enough if you want to use it for promotional matters. I think in a period of globalisation and migration, especially in Europe, you can’t describe cultural distinctions parallel to the boundaries of the countries. Or in a melting pot as the United States you can’t use one national “scheme” to describe the culture of the whole great country, without ignoring all the immigrants and influences from South America, Europe or Asia. The same happens in the whole European community and so the systematic use of descriptions as “the Germans” “the Dutch” etc. seems to me problematic, because behaviours and cultural values can extremely differ within a country. De Mooij self mentions that there can be different positions within a country in the case of IBM studies in Italy: “In Italy, the IBM data used by Hofstede were collected in the North, where people appaered to be highly individualistic. Other studies and my own observation of Italian television advertising indicate that the Italians as a whole are much more collectivistic” (p.79). So the author mentions this problematic point, but seems to ignore it. If you look at Spain, the Basques and Catalans have created over ages special regional identities which differs from the stated national identity, the same happened in Germany, where the reunion of West- and East-Germany didn’t lead to one common identity but still to different cultural identities and behaviours. Also the increasing number of immigrants which keep their original cultural identity without any assimilation with their new home-country makes it to my mind difficult to speak about identity in terms of countries.

McRobbie, Angela (2002): From Holloway to Hollywood: Happiness at work in the new cultural economy? In: Du Gay, Paul / Pryke, Michael (2002): Cultural economy: Cultural analysis and commercial life, Sage, London/Thousand Oaks/New Dehli

My question: What is the most problematic point in a general description and definition of “working culture”?  

Answer: McRobbie mentions three key features related to the recent debate about work. These are ‘youth’, ‘permanently transitional work’ and ‘creativity’ (p.98). The first two features are closely linked to the question of age, which all its consequences (constitution, family, willing to spatial movements,  financial compulsions etc.) So in my opinion age is the “fluid” term which makes is very hard to give a general definition of actual working situations. You can see this critical factor mainly in the works of Sennett and Leadbeater. Sennett in his analyse of American workers focuses only of older people, which has a lot of problems within the new flexible economy. Leadbaetaer describing the success-stories of young dynamic selfmade-men and women shows the completely other side of this problem, by focusing only on the younger workers as McRobbie mentions “He is uncritical of the limitations of the new meritocracy and unconcerned by those hard workers in the new cultural economy who, despite great effort and some degree of success, have still only got midway up the ladder of mobility by the age of 40” (p.108).

McRobbie herself stresses this problematic age-factor within her studies by saying “Independent creative work is thus transitional in terms of lifecycle, with high levels of investment in the early years following the completion of education or training” (p.110).

The consequence of a situation of working culture, where the key features are closely linked to the term of age is clear: you can’t describe the general situation without ignoring this important age-distinction, so definitions of working situations must be separated into realms of different lifecycles.