Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media “Convergence-Divergence-Coexistence” IS King

Abstract

This chapter presents the triadic phenomenon of “convergence-coexistence-divergence” as model for describing the dynamics of current developments taking place within the media industries. Indeed, convergence and divergence processes happen in parallel, thus coexisting, as well as at different levels influencing each other. The variety of contributions to this edited book testifies this evolution and the analysis of the 38 book chapters that we have been conducting to conclude the study well shows it. By applying a qualitative and quantitative methodology to analyze the content of the different chapters we shed light on the reasons why convergence is not the only king driving the evolution process within the media industry, but on the contrary it shares the driver’s seat together with divergence and coexistence factors. Several practical examples as well as links for further reading enrich the chapter.

Full text

1Media Convergence is NOT King: The
2Triadic Phenomenon of Media
3“Convergence-Divergence-Coexistence”
4IS King AU2
AU1
5
Artur Lugmayr and Cinzia Dal Zotto
61 Introduction
7Convergence is a heavily discussed term in the media field today. Where many
8marketing departments are tagging almost any new digital activity to ‘conver-
9gence’, the underlying meaning of this term in a larger context is rather poorly
10understood. The multiplicity of uses of the word “convergence” already creates
11diverging views, conceptualizations and understandings AU3(Arango-Forero, Roncallo-
12Dow, & Uribe-Jongbloed, 2015). With the introduction of digital TV in Europe, one
13single standard called DVB was ought to emerge and convergence was to bundle all
14Internet based services on one single set-top-box. Even radio was ought to be
15digitalized under a single standard called DAB to provide the consumer with a
16single platform in enjoying digital services. Reality is far away. Consumers diverge
17and use multiple platforms such as mobile TV, IP-TV, or Internet TV services to
18enjoy their interactive experiences. Marketing departments brand this service
19eco-system as convergence; however, this never really happened as consumers
20diverge in their use, habits and perceptions.
21Discussing convergence or divergence within a media industry context requires
22a more general and abstract discussion about the evolution of media and its
23principles. For this purpose we extend our reflection to a larger context, and
24consider evolution from a biological point of view. In biology evolution is under-
25stood as a “process of continuous change from a lower, simpler or worse to a higher,
26more complex or better state” (Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.
27com/dictionary/). Evolution theory tries to explain all phenomena related to the
28development of species, and how these species reached their current state.
A. Lugmayr (*) • C. Dal Zotto
∎,∎,∎
e-mail: artur.lugmayr@curtin.edu.au
#Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
A. Lugmayr, C. Dal Zotto (eds.), Media Convergence Handbook - Vol. 1, Media
Business and Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-54484-2_21
389
A. Lugmayr and C.D. Zotto, “Convergence is NOT King - The Tripe "Convergence,
Coexistence, and Divergence IS King,” Media Convergence Handbook (Vol. 1):
Journalism, Broadcasting, and Social Media Aspects of Convergence and Media
Convergence Handbook (Vol. 2): Firm and User Perspective, A. Lugmayr and C.D.
Zotto, eds., Germany: Springer Verlag, 2015.

29 Two main theories attempt to explain the evolution process (Wikipedia, http://en.
30 wikipedia.org/): The first theory (convergence theory) assumes, that the present
31 state of a specie was determined, and was bound to develop as it is today.
32 Additional features of individual species developed independently and had to
33 emerge due to natural preconditions (e.g., wings of species had to develop due to
34 the existence of air). The second theory (contingency theory) assumes that the
35 present state was determined by randomness and particular contingent events. Thus,
36 new features of species would emerge accidentally, and the present state would not
37 be replicable, even if the same pre-conditions would exist. No matter which theory
38 better describes the phenomenon, sound investigations confirm that the biological
39 evolution led to (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) processes of adaptation,
40 co-evolution, cooperation, specialization, and extinction.
41 Comparing media evolution with the process of biological evolution seems now
42 to be far-fetched. Nevertheless, we believe it is an excellent starting point for
43 gaining more insights and understanding media industry developments. As follow-
44 ing step, we thus link the idea of biological evolution to the world of media, and in
45 particular to the phenomena of convergence, divergence, and coexistence. Indeed,
46 each new form of media has a new set of features that either develops independently
47 or in dependence to other media forms. According to McLuhan’s law of retrieval
48 (McLuhan, 1994; McLuhan & Lapham, 1994), each new media retrieves features
49 from an old media. For instance, the World Wide Web inherited features from
50 textual and visual media in form of web pages. Following this argumentation, our
51 main consideration is—can we consider this media evolution as a matter of
52 convergence, divergence, or coexistence? Are we dealing with a parallel develop-
53 ment of media, where each media form develops similar additional features inde-
54 pendently of other media? Are we dealing with a convergence evolution process,
55 where each new media form is inheriting certain features from other existing media
56 forms? Or is media evolution a matter of contingency, according to which new
57 media forms emerge accidentally? Or is convergence and divergence a phenome-
58 non on markets how new media environments are perceived by customers, follow-
59 ing the argumentation in Montpetit (2015), where convergence “is disrupting [and]
60 engendered dislocation and divergence in the way next generation media dissemi-
61 nation and consumption are perceived and marketed”?
62 As mentioned above, no matter if the root of evolution is convergence or
63 contingency, from a biological perspective the process of evolution leads to adap-
64 tation, co-evolution, cooperation, specialization, and extinction (Wikipedia, http://
65 en.wikipedia.org/). We can find numerous examples for these phenomena within
66 the media industry: considering the history of mass-communication and media the
67 biological phenomenon of specialization well resembles that of fragmentation,
68 which characterized the development of mass-media towards niche media (see
69 e.g., Kueng, 2008). TV content evolved from fixed program schedules to video
70 on demand options; TV content, if previously delivered through a few channels
71 only to masses, now reaches infinite niche audiences by delivering highly
72 specialized content. The notion of adaptation can be compared to the needs of
73 media to adapt to technology developments. Newspapers are finally adapting and
390 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

74moving from print to online publishing, allowing micropayments and online sub-
75scription models. Cooperation is clearly identifiable with the merger and acquisi-
76tion activities taking place to allow firms to compete within a changing media
77landscape or to gain knowledge about how to successfully operate in the digital
78domain (Lugmayr & Zotto, 2013; Zotto, Galichet, & Lugmayr, 2011). Traditional
79media houses that are too slow in adapting to the new digital environment might
80face extinction, as Manroland and Schlott in Germany or Border Books in the USA
81well show. And we could enlist many more examples at this place. Media are
82currently experiencing a rather complex evolutionary step in their development, a
83step which was initialized by the advent of digital technologies and the Internet and
84of which convergence is just one single aspect. Adaptation, specialization,
85co-evolution and extinction of media are phenomena resulting not only from
86media convergence but also from divergence and coexistence processes, as
87depicted in Fig. 1.
88The aim of this book chapter is to analyze all contributions to the two volumes of
89this edited handbook, and extract the trendsetting ideas within the media conver-
90gence research field. On the basis of the chapters, we will thus discuss examples of
91convergence, coexistence and divergence processes at different levels. For doing so
92we will proceed as follows. First of all, we will describe the method that we used to
93detect the most frequently discussed topics within the book chapters, and thus to
94create topic clusters. Then, we will continue with an in depth analysis of the
95sub-themes that within those clusters mostly reflect phenomena of media evolution
96and of the interplay between media convergence, divergence and coexistence
97processes. In particular the tag cloud produced from all book chapters (presented
98in Fig. 2) demonstrates the one sided approach in research in dealing with the
99interplay between these three processes. This emphasizes the fact, that scholars
100need to address more research in all three directions rather than focusing only on
101investigating one. Finally, an overall discussion will conclude the chapter, raise
102new questions and open the horizon to further research in the field.
AB AB A
CCCDC
Features
Af1
Bf1
Cf1
...
Features
f1
f2
f3
...
Features
f1
f2
f3
...
Features
f1
f2
f3
...
Features
f1
f2
f3
...
Features
Af1
Cf1
...
Features
Bf1
Cf1
...
Features
f1
f2
f3
...
Features
Af1
Cf1
...
Features
Af1
Df1
...
Convergence Coexistence Divergence
This figure will be printed in b/w
Fig. 1 Convergence, coexistence, divergence: the three processes characterizing the evolution of
media
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 391

103 2 Methodology and Approach
104 All 38 book chapters of the two edited volumes have been examined within the
105 scope of this study (please see Ala-Fossi, 2015; Arango-Forero et al., 2015;
106 Damasio, Henriques, Teixeira-Botelho, & Dias, 2015; Deliyannis, 2015;Denward,
107 2015; Dey, 2015; Duh, Meznaric, & Koros
ˇak, 2015; Ebner, Schon, & Alimucaj,
108 2015; Fleury, 2015; Foster & Brostoff, 2015;Gershon, 2015; Georgiades, 2015;
109 Giesecke, 2015; Gru
¨blbauer & Haric, 2015; Hamacher, 2015; Ibrus, 2015;
110 Innocenti, Pescatore, & Rosati, 2015; Immonen & Giesecke, 2015; Karmasin,
111 Diehl, & Koinig, 2015; Leminen, Huhtala, Rajahonka, & Westerlund, 2015;
112 Matteucci, 2015; McKay, 2015; Montpetit, 2015; Mustic & Plenkovic, 2015; NS,
113 Varghese, Pal, & NK, 2015; Reichl, 2015; Sabiha, Morrison, Annika, & Obal,
114 2015; Sacco, 2015; Sousa, de Lemos Martins, & Zagalo, 2015; Spyridou & Veglis,
115 2015; Svahn, Wahlund, Denward, & Rademaker, 2015; Tuomi, 2015; Veglis,
116 Dimoulas, & Kalliris, 2015; Villi, Matikainen, & Khaldarova, 2015; Vukanovic,
117 2015; Wellbrock, 2015; Tavares & Schofield, 2015; Zlatanov & Koleva, 2015).
118 Together with the literature review that we have incorporated in the introduction to
119 the edited volume and to this chapter, the corpus of the 38 handbook chapters
120 provided us with sufficient material to identify key discussion clusters within the
121 media convergence research field and to gain deeper understanding of the thematic
122 area to conduct:
Fig. 2 The triad of media
progress: convergence–
coexistence–divergence
392 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

123• investigation of several contributed book chapters to understand the underlying
124phenomena, driving forces, and their impact on the transformation of media
125industry;
126• contribution with a new theory to the field of media studies, in particular how
127convergence-divergence-coexistence implicates in the field of media
128development;
129• understanding traditional perception of media business, and the impact on
130business emerging from new media ecosystems;
131• raising questions about current discussions in research, and pinpointing to areas
132that are rather scarcely emphasized.
133To conduct the study, we aimed at an exploratory process, where we emphasized
134quantitative methods based on text mining techniques. We adopted the methods
135presented in Jockers (2014) and AU4Williams, G. Available: http://handsondatascience.
136com/, resulting into the process illustrated in Fig. 3. Our main tool for conducting
137the study was the statistical software package R which includes various text mining
138packages such as tm, NLP, LDA, and worldcloud (R-Project, http://www.r-project.
139org). We utilized R including its text mining packages in combination with the text
140mining software package KHCoder (Coder, K. Available: http://khc.sourceforge.
141net/en/) to simplify the execution of the study. We also experimented with the
142RQDA package of R, but conducted the qualitative analysis thereafter based on
143Keyword in Context Concordance (KWIC) (see Jockers, 2014; Williams,
144G. Available: http://handsondatascience.com/) searches to speed up the process.
145Our basic data material was represented by the 38 book chapters contained in the
146two edited volumes. The analysis of the book chapters and the review of existing
147literature in the field of convergence allowed us to synthetize at the end of this final
148chapter a new viewpoint on this thematic area.
Data
Preparation
Quantitative
Analysis
Qualitative
Analysis
•Data cleaning
•Stemming
•Lemmatization
•Removal of
particular words
•Stripping of
punctuation ,
whitespaces ,
•Removal of
references
•Investigation of
the corpus
•Document
clusters
•Worldlist and
Ter m F requ en cies
•Lexicalisation
•To pic a nalysis
•Word clusters
•
Keyword in
Context
Concordance
(KWIC
)
•
Chapter review
•
Keyword analysis
•
Word
associations
•
Inference with
existing literature
Fig. 3 Methodology and approach
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 393

149 Data Collection and Preparation The corpus of the study is based on the 38 book
150 chapters, which provided us with sufficient material to perform the study and gain a
151 deeper understanding of the thematic area. In the data preparation phase, we
152 performed low level steps such as conversion to machine readable formats, remov-
153 ing special characters and references from each paper. Particular words, that should
154 not be part of the analysis process, have also been removed from the corpus. For the
155 experiments conducted in R, we performed essential corpus pre-preparation tasks
156 such as stripping whitespaces, punctuations, and non-alphanumeric and numeric
157 characters. After some experimentation in R, we decided to avoid stemming, as it
158 led to some misleading results at a later stage of the study. While using KHCoder
159 we relied on the preparation functions of this tool, and the lemmatization function
160 via the Stanford POS tagger in particular became a very handy solution.
161 Quantitative Analysis This analysis focused on the investigation of the corpus
162 through the generation of word clusters, word frequency lists, the term frequency
163 distribution, the document frequency distribution, TF-DF plot, word association
164 calculations, cluster analysis, and an LDA analysis. The methods applied for the
165 quantitative analysis are based on descriptions in Jockers (2014) and Williams,
166 G. Available: http://handsondatascience.com/. The results of the quantitative anal-
167 ysis are presented in the appendix of this book chapter. These results were analyzed,
168 and led was the basis of the qualitative analysis.
169 Qualitative Analysis The main tool for the qualitative analysis was the keyword
170 in context (KWIC) technique, according to which we analyzed the context of the
171 keywords convergence, coexistence, and divergence. In this part of the analysis, we
172 tried to understand the different key-ideas brought forward by the different chapters
173 which we summarized in the following sections of this book chapter.
174 3 The Dynamics of Media Evolution, or the “Convergence–
175 Divergence–Coexistence” Triad
176 As a result of our analysis and with reference to the content which the book chapters
177 have been based on, we defined six main topics. Within the scope of the identified
178 topics, we further focused on a few sub-themes more clearly reflecting the media
179 evolution phenomena discussed within the book chapters, as illustrated in Table 1.
180 In the following subsections the identified sub-themes are extensively discussed
181 through direct references to the related book chapters.
394 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

1823.1 Divergence of Traditional Media Firms’ Perception
183of Business, and the Emergence of Convergent Media
184Ecosystems
185Today’s media industry requires a rethinking of existing managerial and organiza-
186tional models. Organizational practices within media organizations seem to diverge
187and thus not to be appropriate for the reality in which media firms are currently
188operating. As Karmasin et al. (2015) states, there is a “need [for convergence
189mastering organizations and collaboration oriented management competences.
190This requires] that companies [...] not only have to understand [...] changes in
191society, consumer behavior and business models, but [...] also [...] have to be able
192to react appropriately and proactively”. The divergence between managerial
t:1Table 1 Topics and themes across the contributed book chapters
Themes Discussion topics Chapter numbers and references
t:2
Business,
market, and
quality
Divergence of traditional media firms’
perception of business, and the
emergence of convergent media
ecosystems
Wellbrock (2015), Ebner
et al. (2015), Matteucci (2015),
Karmasin et al. (2015),
Vukanovic (2015), Leminen
et al. (2015), Reichl (2015),
Immonen and Giesecke (2015)
t:3
Social,
interaction and
networking
New modes of interaction and media
consumption
Arango-Forero et al. (2015),
Gershon (2015), Foster and
Brostoff (2015), Tavares and
Schofield (2015), NS et al.,
(2015), McKay (2015), Sabiha
et al. (2015)
t:4
Content and
technology
The “convergence divide”—
convergence through divergence,
divergence through convergence
Montpetit (2015), Veglis
et al. (2015), Deliyannis (2015),
Tuomi (2015), Damasio
et al. (2015), Fleury (2015)
t:5
Media form
and audience
Emergence of new media forms:
transmedia, social media, ambient
media, and the challenges for
advertising
Arango-Forero et al. (2015),
Tuomi, (2015), Villi
et al. (2015), Denward (2015),
Sousa et al. (2015), Innocenti
et al. (2015), Ibrus, (2015),
Sabiha et al. (2015), Svahn
et al. (2015), Sacco, (2015)
t:6
Information,
intelligence and
networks
Effects on communication and
information processing: data,
information, knowledge, and networks
of communication
Hamacher (2015), Mustic and
Plenkovic (2015), Duh
et al. (2015), Gru
¨blbauer and
Haric (2015), Giesecke (2015),
Immonen and Giesecke (2015)
t:7
Media
organizations
and profession
Driving forces, power, and coexistence
of evolution of traditional policies and
media
Dey (2015), Spyridou and Veglis
(2015), Ala-Fossi (2015),
Zlatanov and Koleva (2015),
Georgiades (2015)
t:8
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 395

193 strategies and business reality appears to be a major dilemma for the media
194 industry, engaged since more than a decade in a structural transformation process.
195 This dilemma has been well discussed in Vukanovic (2015). The paper underlines
196 the need for media companies to embrace emerging technologies and recognize that
197 media divergence can “successfully perform as vendor lock-in, top-down corporate
198 process and a bottom-up consumer driven process”. On the same path Leminen
199 et al. (2015) points out that the divergence between media strategies and business
200 reality increases if existing business models are not abandoned and new models
201 introduced into the market. According to Leminen et al. (2015) the rigid belief
202 system of traditional media firms prevents them to innovate and develop their
203 business models according to industry and technological changes. New entrants
204 coming from other industries foster cross-industrial convergence as well as industry
205 specific convergence of different business models elements such as technology
206 platforms, revenue logic, content production and value creation as the publishing
207 industry case shows.
208 A market driven business model convergence can though have a reverse side and
209 lead to journalistic quality divergence of content in traditional and online media
210 (Wellbrock, 2015). The authors of this chapter argue that, because advertising
211 represents their main source of income, online news media are acting as “audience
212 production plants” so that serious biases with regard to high quality content and
213 minority issues might arise. An extension of the activities of public service
214 broadcasters to the online market is suggested as a possible solution to regulate
215 that market, and stimulate news media to engage in fulfilling their public service
216 mission. This is a clear argument driving all news media to converge in ensuring
217 their watchdog and democracy enhancing function.
218 The case of traditional Television operators seems to minimize the divergence
219 between their perception and the reality of the business situation. TV operators have
220 acknowledged rather early the incoming Internet threat and have been working
221 hard, in several domains to prepare themselves and accommodate convergence
222 while exploiting their TV market incumbency. As Matteucci (2015) concludes,
223 despite a high technological turbulence established TV and telecom operators strive
224 to keep market shares through walled garden solutions and by lobbying for stronger
225 IPR protection. However, audience trends signal already a new storm coming with
226 online TV viewing progressing at high rates and at the expenses of traditional TV
227 consumption. Standardization and regulation have thus been enabling technological
228 and business convergence for a while, but they might not be sufficient to prevent a
229 diverging business trend with the emergence of hybrid media forms in the future.
230 A media ecosystem where convergence and divergence coexist seems thus an
231 emerging reality within the media industry. Nevertheless, how the industry will
232 cope with the dynamics of such an evolution from a management point of view still
233 remains an open question. A cross-disciplinary approach appears to be the starting
234 point to tackle this issue, and for this purpose the concept of communication
235 ecosystems has been introduced by Reichl (2015). According to the authors that
236 concept represents a multidisciplinary framework to simultaneously address con-
237 vergence issues from an economic, technical and user perspective. By opening up
396 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

238communication with users and taking into consideration their input, the quality of
239user experience can be improved and problems of divergence at consumption level
240might be overcome.
241The importance of establishing and nurturing network relations with key
242stakeholders and in particular with users and customers is underlined also in
243Immonen and Giesecke (2015). Such relations would increase the possibility to
244combine new technologies and new meanings into innovative business product
245ideas. Following a holistic approach the paper claims that applied business concepts
246have a direct impact on the entire organizational system including the technologies
247in use, tasks, processes as well as staff roles and competences. Clearly in line with
248classic organizational development theories, Immonen and Giesecke (2015) points
249out that losing the customer focus—thus diverging from the customer view—might
250blur the value proposition picture and bring a company to develop in a wrong if not
251destructive direction. The impact of customer oriented applications of new technol-
252ogy on business models has been addressed and discussed also in Ebner
253et al. (2015): the possibility of printing a personalized scientific book is seen as a
254solution to bridge the gap between open access and printed journals, and thus as a
255further step towards media convergence. This again requires organizational forms
256to adapt accordingly and develop into network like converging structures, as stated
257in Gershon (2015). A cross-disciplinary discussion seems to be appropriate to better
258understand audiovisual media production, and in particular serial narratives, where
259planning and practice diverge (Innocenti et al., 2015).
2603.2 New Modes of Interaction and Media Consumption
261The way how we interact with media and information technologies has been greatly
262developing and will continue to evolve. If technological convergence is allowing
263this development, along this path we can already see a divergence process emerging
264as always more specific and individualized solutions appear with regard to spaces,
265devices, and modalities in which interaction takes place. One example of diver-
266gence in this field has been discussed in Foster and Brostoff (2015), where the
267authors analyze the application of media interaction in game design and urban
268planning, two distinct areas which though share the goal of building up a cohesive
269and user-friendly visual narrative about alternative realities. The dynamics of media
270evolution extends the impact of interaction modes’ development towards other
271domains, such as urban planning, and considers for instance how people interact
272with objects in urban spaces. Divergence effects are clearly visible in interaction
273design and user experience both in urban planning and game design. More and more
274multisensory devices stimulate human senses, it is thus essential to develop
275strategies which allow humans to interact with technology in a multimodal way
276and to “design systems that are sensitive to what the user wants without having been
277given explicit commands” (NS et al., 2015). As a consequence, video game
278simulations might be applied to urban planning and urban planning data might
279enrich game design. As authors state in Foster and Brostoff (2015), it may only be a
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 397

280 matter of time for “real world urban planning and game simulation to converge to
281 the point where both are subsets of some larger field of study”. As embedded media
282 are diverging, the development of user interfaces will help to cope with the personal
283 and divergent media stimuli. A solution might be multisensory interaction design,
284 as addressed in Tavares and Schofield (2015). This chapter enhances the need for
285 user interfaces to be designed taking “plurality, adaptability, and cognitive ability
286 aspects” into consideration (Tavares & Schofield, 2015) so to help the consumer
287 cope with a diverging media landscape.
288 A quite far more complex issue is information system design—in particular the
289 information system design within media industries. The question is to which extent
290 information systems at corporate level can be designed to fulfil the needs of user
291 experience and new media consumption modes, while capturing the tacit intellec-
292 tual capital within knowledge intensive firms. This issue has been addressed in
293 McKay (2015). If we further consider, as we have already discussed, that for the
294 media industry the key product is still content and convergence leads to the
295 emergence of new forms of media such as transmedia storytelling, then corporate
296 information systems should be designed to support those new media forms as well
297 as the interaction and user-friendly modalities they require as e.g., described in
298 Sabiha et al. (2015).
299 The change of media consumption behavior is critical issue in the evolution of
300 media, to which chapter Hamacher (2015) devotes particular attention by
301 questioning if traditional media houses are targeting a specific selected audience
302 through their content offerings. Besides presenting an excellent methodology to
303 analyze textual online content, Hamacher (2015) presents a solution for media
304 houses to optimize their portfolios to target particular audience niches.
305 3.3 “The Convergence Divide”: Divergence through
306 Convergence, Convergence Through Divergence
307 The evolution of media has brought about convergence processes. However, as we
308 have already mentioned above, simultaneous divergence processes can be detected
309 and the issue of a potential “convergence divide” has emerged. Looking at evolu-
310 tion of technology, McLuhan already emphasized (McLuhan, 1994) that techno-
311 logical development has clear social implications. Thus, when discussing media
312 convergence, discussing if technology convergence may or may not lead to social
313 convergence seems to be inevitable. This illustrates the fact that convergence on
314 one level does not essentially lead to convergence on another level. Within the
315 scope of this section, a few examples shall illustrate the “convergence divide”,
316 which has been underlined by many chapters in this book. In particular, we recall
317 here the tension arising between “technological convergence” and “social diver-
318 gence” in mobile Internet discussed in Damasio et al. (2015).
319 The issue of a convergence divide is especially visible when considering con-
320 vergence at technology level leading to divergence at cultural and economic level.
321 Such a divergence process is evident in the field of networking, which has been
398 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

322excellently described in Montpetit (2015): the cornerstone of the Internet is network
323neutrality—each user on the Internet is treated equally, as well as all her/his traffic.
324Thus, the Internet is a place where traffic is “not managed” and coordinated by a
325non-central authority. With network providers pushing towards new digital pay-
326ment models, and the idea of prioritizing consumer traffic related to online paying
327services, network neutrality seems to be an issue of the past, while the time of
328managed internet services has come. As stated in Montpetit (2015), Netflix,
329Instagram, Amazon, Hulu, and Vines are applications that are built on a principle
330of network neutrality. However, for other services such as IPTV, TV interactive
331service offerings, and mobile phone TV services the “friction between managed and
332unmanaged services will continue” (Montpetit, 2015). Even if we know today that
333on February 26 the US Federal Communication Commission has approved a law
334enforcing net neutrality, we also know that in the rest of the world the net neutrality
335issue is still open. Thus, this book chapter nicely demonstrates a good example of
336convergence divide showing that, while technologies converge, culture and busi-
337ness models are diverging. Thus, convergence on one layer (technology) is leading
338to divergence on another (social).
339An interesting aspect of convergence has been discussed in Deliyannis (2015)
340where the author states that “interactive TV broadcasting provides [...] backward
341compatibility that avoids divergence”. Following this argumentation, media con-
342sumption does not essentially diverge based on interactive content; in fact, content
343with novel interaction requirements may act as a driver for convergence through the
344development of interactive television systems featuring advanced interactive and
345presentation methods. In this example, divergence may thus lead to convergence. A
346similar line of argumentation has been followed in Tuomi (2015), where this
347relation has been examined through the example of television and mobile devices
348acting as second screens and facilitating television watching experiences.
349A counter example, convergence as a result of divergence, has been presented in
350Mustic and Plenkovic (2015). Here the authors discuss the diverging requirements
351of consumers in terms of visual presentation to increase information credibility, and
352show how the use of convergent graphic media represents a convergent answer to
353consumers’ diverging perspectives. A discussion around the thematic area of digital
354TV, which has been conducted in Matteucci (2015), highlights again the interrela-
355tion between technological convergence and divergence. The chapter argues that
356technological standardization led to technical convergence on one hand; however, it
357might have contributed to the development of different platforms and thus to
358divergence on the other hand. Technological standardization could thus be consid-
359ered also as enabler of diverging consumers. This thesis is sustained also in
360Ala-Fossi (2015) where the convergence divide has been exhaustively discussed
361with reference to television broadcasting. According to the authors, the develop-
362ment of standardized television platforms did not essentially lead to convergence on
363other levels. On the contrary, with the digitalization of terrestrial television an
364increased divergence at content production, distribution and consumption level—
365rather than convergence—could be observed. Even the number of terrestrial
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 399

366 broadcast standards increased from three to five, and with it—following Ala-Fossi
367 (2015)—the consumer divergence.
368 This phenomenon has also been illustrated in Karmasin et al. (2015), where the
369 authors state that “while content is used on multiple platforms [...] and convergent,
370 it takes more devices to display it”, meaning that technology is diverging. To cope
371 with these developments, and allow media organizations to apply the latest tech-
372 nology in distributing their content across platforms, a coherent organizational
373 model for cross-media publishing is required. A framework solution for creating
374 such a model has been presented in Veglis et al. (2015).
375 To conclude the discussion about the interrelationship and mutual influence of
376 convergence and divergence processes, maybe a completely different approach is
377 required to cope with the convergence divide. A user centered approach is proposed
378 in Fleury (2015), in which authors ask themselves if it would not make more sense
379 to find a solution to understand and meet end users’ needs to benefit from the
380 evolution of media rather than to statically analyze phenomena of convergence
381 divide. Thus, “how [is it possible] to understand and support end users [...]in
382 making sense and benefiting from the evolution [of] media” (Fleury, 2015). Taking
383 the example of convergence between television and mobile technology, the authors
384 show how media consumption is becoming increasingly tight to individual
385 preferences and activities, while media consumers are still bound to content
386 providers as communication channel. Challenges that need to be tackled here are
387 thus mostly of usability nature such as content synchronization across devices
388 which is relevant both for end users and broadcasters. Eventually, a coherent
389 model for cross-media publishing is required to allow media organizations to utilize
390 latest technology in distributing their content across platforms, and a solution
391 framework has been presented in Veglis et al. (2015).
392 3.4 Emergence of New Media Forms: Transmedia, Social Media,
393 Ambient Media, and the Challenges for Advertising
394 The history of information processing (see e.g., Available: http://www.
395 historyofinformation.com/index.php) for a complete overview] goes in parallel
396 with the emergence of new media forms. Indeed, the introduction of new
397 technologies brought to the emergence of new forms of media. McLuhan (1994)
398 understood this phenomenon long ago, as also others did when discussing the
399 effects of new media forms. The evolution of media implies the continuous
400 re-invention, testing of new ideas, adapting these to the current state, and the
401 development of new theories in the field of media studies to describe the phenome-
402 non. New media features are added, other features mutate and some others get
403 completely removed within processes of both convergence and divergence. A
404 lengthy discussion illustrating the multidimensional nature of convergence, as
405 well as the coexistence of convergence and divergence processes within the
406 dynamic evolution of media is featured in Ibrus (2015). Convergence as part of
407 an historical media evolution process has been underlined also in the introduction
400 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

408section of this book chapter and in Arango-Forero et al. (2015), where the multi-
409faceted use of the word convergence has been addressed.
410A consequence of technological convergence and media convergence processes
411in terms of new media forms is transmedia storytelling, i.e., the possibility to tell
412stories though and across different media. As stated in Sousa et al. (2015),
413transmedia storytelling requires the addition of new information pieces via each
414of the different communication channels engaged in telling the story. This is what
415makes the difference from traditional storytelling where one complete content piece
416is then published across different media forms. Alice in Wonderland published as
417film, novel, videogame, website, and illustrated book is an example of traditional
418storytelling (Sousa et al., 2015). The emergence of new cross-media technology
419enabling new ways to develop content and tell stories across media is discussed also
420in Ibrus (2015) and Innocenti et al. (2015), as well as in Denward (2015) where a
421practical example of transmedia storytelling has been presented: Sanningen om
422Marika (The Truth about Marika), a program which has been produced by the
423Swedish public broadcaster SVT in collaboration with a pervasive games startup
424company.
425Such examples emphasize the fact that media evolve also at a narrative and
426semiotic level and media convergence affects not only the industry as such but also
427culture and society (Sabiha et al., 2015). This is why a cross-disciplinary approach
428is necessary to understand nature of media convergence, the impact of which is
429evident also in the development of notions such as narrative and/or story as
430discussed in Innocenti et al. (2015). The need for clearer understanding and defini-
431tion of narrative as we know it today, and in particular of transmedia storytelling as
432a result of media convergence, is highlighted also in Sabiha et al. (2015)by
433focusing on the importance of considering user experience design early in the
434story writing process. According to the authors of this chapter transmedia storytell-
435ing “discards linearity, provides several perspectives to a story, promotes a partici-
436patory culture, and often harnesses the added value of collective intelligence”.
437Diversity and creativity, the two main characteristics of “all innate learning beings”
438(Sabiha et al., 2015), are thus at the very base of media convergence and divergence
439processes: learning beings participate, share, thus converge; however, by adding
440new perspectives to a story they stimulate divergence as well. A contemporary
441example of converging different perspectives into one channel is represented by
442today’s social networks such as Twitter. The convergence of news distribution in
443such networks has been discussed in Villi et al. (2015), and authors conclude that
444delegating news diffusion through social networks enables the news corporations to
445connect to a diverging audience on diverging devices.
446Social media have a further effect that is to be included in the dynamics of media
447evolution. By illustrating the complex relationship existing between professional
448journalists and social media, Sacco (2015) points out how journalists can act as
449moderators within social networks so that multiple functions such as those of
450producer, mediator and curator of news converge within the role of a professional
451journalist.
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 401

452 Another example well representing another side of the media evolution process
453 is ambient media (also known as ubiquitous media or pervasive media). This term
454 describes media embedded throughout our environment, integrating sensor data
455 such as location based services, and adapting to the context of the consumer
456 (Lugmayr, Serral, Scherp, Pogorelc, & Mustaquim, 2013; Lugmayr, Zou,
457 Stockleben, Lindfors, & Melakoski, 2013). One very basic example of ambient
458 media is Foursquare, or Facebook displaying location based information. User
459 interfaces enabling interaction with content are becoming part of our daily living
460 environment and constitute a base for further developments of interaction forms
461 and towards “ambient media convergence” (Immonen & Giesecke, 2015). Under-
462 standing the dynamics of media convergence is or utmost importance in order for
463 media evolution processes to be sustainable. Thus, the discussion about the evalua-
464 tion and development of advertising within a converging media world, as well as
465 the inclusion of converging media solutions in media and advertising planning, as
466 problematized in Svahn et al. (2015), becomes fundamental.
467 3.5 Effects on Communication and Information Processing: Data,
468 Information, Knowledge, and Networks of Communication
469 To further elaborate the argumentation of Zlatanov and Koleva (2015), technology
470 convergence leads to wider and easier accessibility to information, and thus to
471 information overload. In order to cope with information overload and to interpret
472 the information stream of individuals new social structures emerge. Technology
473 savvy brokers of information and influencers alter the structure of existing social
474 networks within the process of information diffusion (Zlatanov & Koleva, 2015).
475 As a consequence, we can say that technology convergence leads to social diver-
476 gence. Nevertheless, the divergence of information overload into different social
477 network information streams requires a minimum of visual convergence in
478 representing information and knowledge. As suggested in Mustic and Plenkovic
479 (2015), visual communication allows for acting as carrier, and for easy interpret-
480 ability of media messages. Thus, if information overload is one aspect of conver-
481 gence, the way how information spreads through networks and peers is both an
482 aspect of visual convergence and of consumption divergence. To make it more
483 predictable new models are required and one possible solution has been presented
484 in Duh et al. (2015). This paper defines a predictive model describing how infor-
485 mation can spread between nodes within a communication network. From a com-
486 munication theory point of view, measurements and in particular quantitative
487 metrics for building theoretical models of information are a necessity. An excellent
488 overview and introduction into the basic metrics that can be used in gaining
489 quantitative results from empirical data have been presented in Hamacher (2015).
490 So far theoretical aspects related to information processing and communication
491 have been discussed. However, to a larger extent, information processing and
492 communication have a direct impact on organizational practice. For instance,
493 convergence through company mergers most probably leads to divergence in
402 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

494content handling—due to different ways of processing information and different
495company cultures—and thus to a higher content management complexity
496(Gru
¨blbauer & Haric, 2015). This is a rather tricky issue, as content and information
497typically represent the main product of any media firms. In Gru
¨blbauer and Haric
498(2015) authors discuss this aspect of convergence by problematizing the complexity
499of business intelligence and corporate information systems. In Gershon (2015) this
500discussion is extended to transnational corporations. The author highlights the
501importance of having an intelligent network system in place to allow international
502business communication, as well as the fact that intelligent network systems
503directly affect the spatial design and operations of transnational organizations. In
504other words, convergent communication networks allow organizational structure
505divergence. This diverging organizational process, which can be defined as an
506ecosystem of which media firms are part, is discussed in Giesecke (2015) where
507diversification processes through the example of live event ticket selling are
508presented. The emergence of ecosystems where convergence and divergence pro-
509cesses coexist have been also discussed in Immonen and Giesecke (2015).
5103.6 Driving Forces, Power, and Evolution of Traditional Policies
511and Media
512Where does convergence come from, and who is the driving force behind conver-
513gence? Is convergence a phenomenon that media and IT firms are pushing forward
514in order to expand their business and reach a dominant position in the digital world?
515According to Dey (2015) “The inherently disaggregated, divergent structure of the
516Internet has spawned a democratic culture [where] it is unlikely that even media
517conglomerates will find it easy to dominate the media”. This perspective is shared
518also in Immonen and Giesecke (2015), where the authors argue that convergence is
519the driving force allowing large media companies to stay in power, and divergence
520empowers small and innovative newcomers to flourish in niche markets. This might
521explain the current dilemma of mid-sized media companies attempting to compete
522with emerging digital companies such as music services as e.g., Spotify, which are
523pushing audiences to diverge (https://www.spotify.com). This last viewpoint leads
524to another argumentation, which has been presented in Ala-Fossi (2015) citing the
525case of the integrated digital broadcasting system in Japan: “convergence [must] be
526pursued and initiated by people in power [as] it [does not happen by itself] as an
527automatic process”.
528The case of information spread discussed in Zlatanov and Koleva (2015)
529represents a good example of how technological convergence may lead to diver-
530gence. The chapter points out that while the quantity of available information rises
531and converges into certain social media networks, technology savvy actors’ ability
532to process information leads to their superiority in influencing information spread
533and stream direction. Information spread, which is fundamental to form public
534opinion, depends on how information is altered and interpreted by individuals
535within communication processes. When people are confronted with an information
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 403

536 overload, information brokers interpreting the flood of information become neces-
537 sary. Furthermore, media channels’ convergence together with the dominance of
538 social media as information diffusion tools leads to divergence at social level, as the
539 structure of existing information networks is altered in the information diffusion
540 process and technology illiterate actors are unconsciously segregated. As a practical
541 case, we would like to refer to Zlatanov & Koleva (2015), where this effect has been
542 illustrated on the example of the introduction of Blue-Ray and HD DVD.
543 The superiority of technology literate actors is well described also in Veglis
544 et al. (2015) where the transformative power and effects of convergence processes
545 within news media firms are discussed. If on one hand technological convergence
546 seems to open up new opportunities for established media to consolidate and new
547 media to emerge, on the other hand its effects on journalistic content quality,
548 newsroom structures and working conditions are diverging from traditional
549 standards and raise serious doubts. Organizational issues have also been discussed
550 in Georgiades (2015), where the author problematizes the media managers’ under-
551 standing of information provision/communication. He argues that media managers
552 provide information in order to achieve employees’ trust and focus on ensuring
553 employees’ independence in their job instead of trying to build up a convergence
554 enhancing dialogue. This leads not only to diverging understandings but also to
555 diverging organizational behaviors. Especially the pressure to transform towards
556 digital media houses and work more efficiently causes divergence on organizational
557 level. As pointed out in Spyridou and Veglis (2015) on the example for journal-
558 ism—the pressure to create a super-journalist, thus a journalist literate in all new
559 technologies, causes a divergence between journalistic quality and efficiency. A
560 similar issue is raised in Georgiades (2015), which emphasizes employee involve-
561 ment, and communication to achieve convergence rather than pure efficiency.
562 4 Discussion
563 Browsing and analyzing the content of all chapters within the two volumes of this
564 edited handbook on media convergence we cannot conclude that convergence is the
565 only process actually characterizing and shaping the evolution of media. Media
566 evolution appears to be more the result of convergence, divergence and coexistence
567 processes at different levels: technological, organizational, and social, to name the
568 ones that have been mostly approached in this handbook. There is a strong interac-
569 tion between the processes taking place at those levels, so that convergence
570 processes are not independent from divergence processes and vice versa. More
571 appropriately we can speak of an evolution where media convergence and diver-
572 gence processes happen simultaneously, coexist and often influence each other
573 building up on and developing existing features, forms and structures. Furthermore,
574 sometimes media convergence hinders divergence in terms of business diversifica-
575 tion as for instance discussed in Deliyannis (2015). Here the authors point out that
404 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

576interactive television should offer new features of television experience but always
577allow the consumer to jump back to an old passive non-interactive content mode at
578the same time. Such an offer is based on modular software components enabling the
579support of new interactive features by simplifying the “tuning” process. In this case
580convergence is basically hindering business diversification—such as the creation of
581a new device—through the requirement of e.g., backward compatibility within an
582existing device, i.e., the television. This would lead to the conclusion, that conver-
583gence might be a hurdle in the development of innovations in the world of media.
584Most contributions to this edited handbook focus on the thematic area of
585convergence, only a few touch upon divergence, and almost none on the notion
586of co-existence. This clearly demonstrates a general lack of research in wider and
587more diverse directions for gaining understanding on the phenomenon of media
588evolution. Media divergence processes characterized by the development of addi-
589tional features, and thus of new media forms emerging from similar forms, in each
590evolutionary step are still poorly investigated. Coexistence processes, in which new
591media rather develop in parallel to similar media forms, are poorly investigated,
592too. Chapters’ contributions further highlight the notion of media ecosystem
593opposed to the one of “single” media entities; they underline the complexity of a
594dynamic media context, the evolution of which is characterized by the interplay of
595media convergence, divergence and coexistence processes.
596We believe that focusing research on the sole phenomenon of convergence, thus
597neglecting other perspectives explaining media evolution, will hinder the building
598of theory in media studies. On the contrary, considering media convergence,
599coexistence, as well as divergence processes as part of a larger context such as
600the wide and dynamic evolution of media—where new features emerge, disappear,
601or are combined with one another as a matter of convergence or contingency—is
602the real key to understand them as well as their future development. Biology
603evolution docent and so do the chapters included in this edited handbook. We can
604thus conclude that future research within media divergence and coexistence pro-
605cesses as well as combining media convergence, divergence and coexistence
606phenomena is therefore very much needed.
607Appendix A: Quantitative Analysis
608Topic Analysis (LDA)
609The topic analysis has been performed based on R, (R-Project, http://www.r-
610project.org), and consisted on the building of a lexicon, whose vocabulary was
611used as input for the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) analysis. We used a Gibbs
612sampler and built six topic clusters, which have been examined for topic clusters to
613identify higher level phenomenon based on the techniques described in Jockers
614(2014) (Table 2, Fig. 4).
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 405

t:1Table 2 Topic analysis
Business, market,
and quality
Social, interaction, and
networking
Content and
technology
Media form and
audience
Information, intelligence,
and networks
Media organizations, and
profession
t:2
1 Business Interaction Mobile Media Information Journalismt:3
2 Market Design Content Transmedia Data Broadcastingt:4
3 Model User Social Audience Event Informationt:5
4 Media Multimodal Interactive Story Media Organizationalt:6
5 Quality Human Television News Network Europeant:7
6 Services Information Users Game News Radiot:8
7 Models Tools Devices Games Roles Employeest:9
8 Open Speech Internet Storytelling Content Policyt:10
9 Markets Knowledge Services Production Ecosystem Digitalt:11
10 Industries System Access Medium Social Employeet:12
11 Company Experience Networks Jenkins Role Networkt:13
12 Product Intelligent Video Narrative Model Regulationt:14
13 Companies Virtual Media Social Business Standardt:15
14 Industry Interface Phone Series Article Managerst:16
15 Service Systems Screen Audiences Thus Ownershipt:17
16 Publishing Gesture Convergence Twitter Actors Regulatoryt:18
17 Billion Learning Network Brand Results Managementt:19
18 Book Game Interaction Facebook Provider Competitiont:20
19 Content Computer Publishing Stories Table Speecht:21
20 Economics Video Activities Participation Sources Involvementt:22
406 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

Fig. 4 Dominant topics within the 37 contributed book chapters AU5
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 407

615 Document Cluster Analysis (Incl. Agglomeration Stages)
616 In the following picture the cluster analysis of all book chapters is presented. The
617 parameters were: method (ward), distance (Cosine), Standardized by words,
618 TF-IDF, min. term frequency of 150 (resulting into 127 selected words), and
619 13 optimal clusters (Figs. 5and 6)AU6.
Recommend , Tweet , Share A14_170
Guerrilla Media A15_136
Online Presences A06_160
INFLUENCE OF CONVERGENT A08_110
BETWEEN M-INTERNET A17_137
User perspectives B11_94
intelligent cross-media A07_98
Converging Multimedia Content A11_159
Interaction design B13_157
Multimodal Interface B14_108
Rethinking convergence A01_107
Digital Doppelgangers B10_119
21st century TV A12_112
A model for evaluating B18_166
The 2nd convergence A02_117
Personal Book A09_144
Business Model Convergence B05_142
Convergence Changing Labor A05_124
convergence 's implications B03_155
Transmedia Perspectives B16_153
Designing , Implementing , Prod B06_46
Converging univ media niches B08_122
Transmedia Storytelling B07_118
Micro-studios convergence culture B09_132
Standards , IPR TV A10_123
Why TV Bits and Radio A13_168
Converging technologies B04_171
Convergence PolicyRegulation A03_127
The Internet 's Journalistic A04_164
Making Money with B17_167
Media Business Drivers B20_151
information in achieving B02_104
Gearing up the knowledge B15_147
Info Traders A16_116
TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION B01_143
Quality of Experience B12_37
The Live Event Ecosystem B19_150
0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8
This figure will be printed in b/w
Fig. 5 Document cluster analysis
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Agglomeration Stages (last 50)
Coefficients (dissimilarity)
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
* Numerical values in the plot indicate
number of clusters at each stage
Fig. 6 Agglomeration stages of the document cluster analysis
408 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

620Term Frequencies (TF) (Fig. 7)
621
622
Word Clusters
623Word Clusters: Convergence
624Media convergence/41459.593
625Convergence of media/5276.675
626Technological convergence/4830.857
627Organizational convergence/3734.403
628Technology convergence/2502.125
629Digital convergence/2411.864
630Market convergence/2034.277
631Convergence process/1986.008
632Network convergence/1985.531
633Convergence era/1833.161
634Process of convergence/1390.205
635Device convergence/1250.46
636Convergence of content/1247.204
637Industry convergence/1115.899
638Convergence culture/1091.031
639Media convergence/960.024
640Digital media convergence/898.199
641Business model convergence/886.534
642Content convergence/831.469
Effects of convergence/263.659
Technical convergence/257.737
Digital broadcast media convergence/255.824
Future of convergence/255.563
Form of convergence/244.492
Media convergence results/244.399
Industrial convergence/243.142
Concept of convergence/242.388
Convergence trends/242.388
Economic convergence/240.419
Impact of media convergence/240.212
Specific convergence/238.91
Issue of convergence/235.675
Abstract media convergence/232.006
2nd convergence/231.612
Age of media convergence/229.792
Effects of media convergence/229.116
Convergence of media industries/226.303
Data convergence/224.521
(continued)
Fig. 7 Term frequencies of the most 40 used terms AU7
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 409

643 Tv convergence/817.11
644 Cultural convergence/807.233
645 Global convergence/796.413
646 Media convergence/753.811
647 Different levels of media convergence/
648 753.34
649 Convergence of media content/645.631
650 Convergence media convergence/591.892
651 Convergence policy/552.556
652 Model of convergence/507.953
653 Convergence of news media/489.921
654 First convergence/475.537
655 Model of media convergence/464.839
656 Convergence of business models/462.427
657 Power of convergence/440.672
658 Convergence research/417.651
659 Phenomenon of media convergence/410.04
660 Introduction media convergence/403.226
661 Process of media convergence/394.543
662 Effective media convergence/380.561
663 Era of convergence/366.632
664 Management of media convergence/
665 356.183
666 Use of media convergence/354.155
667 Case of convergence of media/352.602
668 Models of convergence/351.545
669 Divergent convergence/346.535
670 Technological convergence of media/
671 343.065
672 Media convergence analysis/331.954
673 Successful media convergence/307.611
674 Global convergence of media/301.6
675 Digital tv convergence/298.539
676 Aspects of media convergence/298.344
677 Term convergence/296.863
678 Digital convergence issues/294.413
679 Area of media convergence/289.837
680 High convergence media content/288.358
681 Concept of media convergence/283.853
682 Evolution of media convergence/283.766
683 Social convergence/280.315
684 Idea of convergence/280.267
685 First convergence media/280.236
686 Cultural media convergence/274.605
687 Age of convergence/264.828
Network convergence success/223.393
Interactive tv convergence/222.39
Convergence problem/214.309
Convergence experience/211.342
Experience of convergence/211.342
Media convergence issues/209.786
Regulatory convergence/209.321
Media convergence predictor/208.712
Effect of media convergence/205.61
Media convergence phenomenon/205.02
Service convergence/200.684
Result of media convergence/196.813
Digital convergence design/196.399
Impact of convergence/188.695
Convergence of users/185.315
Convergence phenomena/184.748
Driver of media convergence/183.952
Kind of media convergence/183.952
Phenomena of media convergence/180.75
Word convergence/180.665
Media convergence of today/177.237
Convergence age/176.552
Convergence effects/175.773
Debate of media convergence/174.685
Different types of convergence/173.845
Convergence of industries/172.546
Forces of media convergence/171.932
Convergence management/170.353
Other media convergence dynamics/170.02
Convergence of networks/169.961
Use convergence/168.9
Use of convergence/168.9
Case of convergence/167.79
Media research the concept of convergence/
164.647
Literature review media convergence/163.93
Modern media convergence/161.03
Technological convergence/161.029
Structural convergence/160.957
Problem discussion media convergence/158
Viewpoint of media convergence/157.9
Cross-industrial convergence/155.362
688 World Clusters: Divergence
689 Media divergence/1347.552
690 Social divergence/901.992
691 Divergence of media business models/890.854
692 Convergent divergence/331.053
Issue of divergence/28.087
Divergence issues/27.531
Effect divergence/26.713
Various divergence issues/26.137
(continued)
410 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

693Media convergent divergence/303.159
694User divergence/186.746
695Divergence of media forms/167.753
696Convergent divergence media/151.579
697Content divergence/148.638
698Divergence of content/148.638
699Divergence of media business drivers/148.027
700Divergence models/125.688
7016.5 convergent divergence/94.587
702Technological advantage of media divergence/
70392.315
704Market divergence/90.915
705Complementary process of media divergence/
70688.307
707Divergence trends/86.661
708Divergence processes/75.066
709Processes of divergence/75.066
710Technological impact of media convergence/
711divergence/60.609
712Case of divergence/59.99
713Ecosystem divergence/53.987
714Kullback–leibler divergence/50.848
715Divergence projects media disruption/49.475
716Post divergence/44.437
717Divergence phenomena/44.035
718Degree of divergence/42.978
719Cultural divergence/41.23
720One source of divergence/39.845
721Divergence paradigm/39.721
722Need of user divergence/39.236
723Various divergence processes/32.136
724Convergent divergence framework/31.626
725Additional divergence/29.328
726Divergence dynamics/28.612
Divergence of broadcast media/25.901
Further divergence processes/24.827
Possibilities of divergence/24.367
Jensen-shannon divergence/21.379
Specific convergence-divergence aspects
of qoe/20.385
Audience convergence/divergence/19.554
Divergence operating/19.242
Situation of divergence/18.6
Terminal divergence/17.387
Content-based divergence/12.712
Intended divergence/11.83
Divergence cross-technology issues/
11.487
Behavioural divergence/11.486
So-called Kullback–Leibler divergence/
9.491
Convergence/ divergence issue/9.196
Strong divergence ion/9.071
Outlined divergence/8.989
Convergence/ divergence effect/8.746
Phenomenon of convergence/ divergence/
8.708
Conditioned divergence/8.122
Divergence transpire/8.122
Supports divergence/8.122
Main convergence/ divergence trade-offs/
7.985
Convergence-divergence dilemma of
qoe/6.685
Convergence/ divergence trough/6.223
Jensen-shannon divergence of eq./5.447
Convergence-divergence mechanism/
3.798
Pro-divergence incentives/3.13
Space/ time divergences/1.414
727Full World Clusters
728Social media/69484.384
729Media convergence/41459.593
730Media content/35209.445
731News media/24409.342
732Media companies/18968.177
733Media industry/17979.539
734New media/16171.599
735Digital media/13949.863
736Different media/13385.665
737Business model/11168.862
738Traditional media/10582.376
739Business models/8281.9
740Social networks/7963.842
Value of information/1260.623
Several media/1255.266
Device convergence/1250.46
Convergence of content/1247.204
Digital broadcasting/1223.402
Journalistic quality/1220.407
New business model/1208.572
Online content/1159.214
4.2 social media/1158.073
Video games/1149.24
Social networking/1145.295
Media owners/1142.52
Media business development/1138.263
(continued)
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 411

741 Media business/7103.481
742 TV content/6516.154
743 Social tv/6276.593
744 Converged media content/5565.936
745 Convergence of media/5276.675
746 Digital tv/4860.404
747 Technological convergence/4830.857
748 Interactive tv/4340.214
749 Convergent media/4098.611
750 Mass media/3941.827
751 Media experience/3929.058
752 Social network/3921.883
753 Organizational convergence/3734.403
754 Online media/3363.022
755 TV series/3360.4
756 Same time/3314.651
757 Other media/3250.895
758 Other hand/3192.07
759 2.1 media/3114.236
760 New business models/3025.946
761 Mobile tv/2971.688
762 Media space/2833.878
763 User experience/2722.473
764 Transmedia storytelling/2631.679
765 Mobile phone/2629.286
766 Media types/2540.364
767 News content/2504.56
768 Technology convergence/2502.125
769 Media managers/2497.945
770 Digital convergence/2411.864
771 Experience design/2398.807
772 Media markets/2391.198
773 Media industries/2316.741
774 Content production/2278.271
775 Event ecosystem/2272.082
776 New media business models/2242.509
777 New information/2205.451
778 New technologies/2195.902
779 Media models/2178.52
780 Media product/2157.365
781 Mobile devices/2123.649
782 Media consumption/2044.274
783 Market convergence/2034.277
784 New technology/2005.228
785 Convergence process/1986.008
786 Network convergence/1985.531
787 TV experience/1892.884
788 Media sector/1892.244
789 Business system/1890.668
790 Media production/1835.985
791 Convergence era/1833.161
792 TV screen/1804.645
793 News media industry/1764.942
Social media features/1137.947
Social interaction/1126.77
Cross-media content/1122.023
Industry convergence/1115.899
New ways/1097.223
Media landscape/1093.938
Convergence culture/1091.031
Media studies/1090.474
Information stream/1087.57
Media producers/1070.026
Media market/1050.532
User interaction/1049.775
TV broadcasting/1036.183
Belief systems/1008.26
Content types/1000.741
Business model change/997.96
Digital information/985.2
Convergent media content/984.679
Information architecture/975.07
Current business model/973.303
Content management/970.359
Content consumption/966.376
Media convergence/960.024
Media forms/954.362
Cross-media publishing/951.904
Business ecosystem/948.63
Media content provider/944.804
User-generated content/943.604
New model/939.412
New content/922.635
TV set/920.299
Digital radio/919.156
New media corporations/917.241
Traditional tv/912.466
Multiple media/910.394
Publishing industries/905.305
Social divergence/901.992
Media design/900.632
Digital media convergence/898.199
Social media networks/894.864
Divergence of media business models/890.854
Business model convergence/886.534
Revenue model/874.517
Content distribution/873.892
Media tools/871.117
Information management/869.823
Publishing industry/862.818
Provision of information/861.371
Video content/860.841
Media platforms/859.422
TV market/854.06
Business concepts/852.939
Information technology/851.725
(continued)
412 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

794Mobile phones/1750.489
795Media technology/1722.848
796Media planning/1719.023
797Content of media/1717.534
798Media company/1712.974
799Public media/1708.607
800Information content/1698.196
801Digital content/1648.606
802Social media content/1624.557
803Media user/1618.407
8042.0 media/1557.118
805Media users/1531.194
806Media consumers/1511.248
807Interaction design/1502.207
808Social media platforms/1482.328
809Distribution of media content/1449.303
810Online market/1418.07
811Process of convergence/1390.205
812Media divergence/1347.552
813Content providers/1339.509
814New service/1336.13
815Media organizations/1329.929
816Mobile access/1322.896
817Interactive media/1281.277
818Quality of experience/1279.314
819Business model evolution/1275.07
New business/847.976
Different types of media/845.909
Internet media/839.119
Social media role/836.478
Content convergence/831.469
Other roles/818.495
Tv convergence/817.11
Selected media/809.551
Advertising market/808.469
Cultural convergence/807.233
New services/806.275
Open access/800.774
Global convergence/796.413
Social value/790.198
Intelligent network/783.903
Multimedia experience/783.543
Mobile media/783.28
New models/780.18
Employee involvement/774.3
Same content/767.689
(the rest of the list is suppressed)
820References
821Ala-Fossi, M. (2015). Why TV bits and radio bits did not fit together? digitalization and diver-
822gence of broadcast media. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—
823Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
824Arango-Forero, G., Roncallo-Dow, S., & Uribe-Jongbloed, E. (2015). Rethinking convergence: A
825new word to describe an old idea. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent diver-
826gence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
827Damasio, M., Henriques, S., Teixeira-Botelho, I., & Dias, P. (2015). Between m-internet users and
828stakeholders: Convergence or divergence? In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent
829divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
830Deliyannis, I. (2015). Converging multimedia content presentation requirements for interactive
831television. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary
832viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
833Denward, M. (2015). Designing, implementing and producing for participation: Media conver-
834gence practice. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
835ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
836Dey, S. (2015). Convergence policy and regulation—A free speech perspective. In A. Lugmayr &
837C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media conver-
838gence. Germany: Springer.
839Duh, A., Meznaric, S., & Koros
ˇak, D. (2015). Guerrilla media: Interactive social media. In
840A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on
841media convergence. Germany: Springer.
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 413

842 Ebner, M., Schon, S., & Alimucaj, A. (2015). Print your personal book. In A. Lugmayr & C. D.
843 Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence.
844 Germany: Springer.
845 Fleury, A. (2015). User perspectives on media convergence: Results from quantitative and
846 qualitative studies. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
847 ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
848 Foster, S., & Brostoff, J. (2015). Digital doppelgangers: Converging technologies and techniques
849 3D world modeling, video game design and urban design. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.),
850 Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany:
851 Springer.
852 Georgiades, S. (2015). The effects of information in achieving employee involvement and thus
853 organizational convergence in a media organization. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.),
854 Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany:
855 Springer.
856 Gershon, R. (2015). Redefining business space: Intelligent networking and the transnational
857 organization. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary
858 viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
859 Giesecke, R. (2015). The live event ecosystem? local media against global ticket sellers? In
860 A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on
861 media convergence. Germany: Springer.
862 Gru
¨blbauer, J., & Haric, P. (2015). Making money with & through information and knowledge?
863 competitive intelligence, trend analysis and revenue models of classic media. In A. Lugmayr &
864 C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media conver-
865 gence. Germany: Springer.
866 Hamacher, K. (2015). Online presences of traditional media vs. blogs—Redundancy and unique
867 news coverage. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
868 ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
869 Ibrus, I. (2015). Micro-studios meet convergence culture: Clustering, dialogues, innovation. In
870 A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on
871 media convergence. Germany: Springer.
872 Immonen, S., & Giesecke, R. (2015). Media business drivers 2020—The case of David and
873 Goliath revisited. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
874 ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
875 Innocenti, V., Pescatore, G., & Rosati, L. (2015). Converging universes and media niches in serial
876 narratives. An approach through information architecture. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.),
877 Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany:
878 Springer.
879 Jockers, M. (2014). Text analysis with R for students of literature. New York: Springer.
880 Karmasin, M., Diehl, S., & Koinig, I. (2015). Media convergence? implications for businesses: Is
881 there a demand for new business models, organizational structures and management/employee
882 competencies? In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
883 ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
884 Kueng, L. (2008). Strategic management in the media—From theory to practice. London: Sage.
885 Leminen, S., Huhtala, J.-P., Rajahonka, M., & Westerlund, M. (2015). Business model conver-
886 gence and divergence publishing industries. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent
887 divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
888 Lugmayr, A., Serral, E., Scherp, A., Pogorelc, B., & Mustaquim, M. (2013). Ambient media today
889 and tomorrow. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–31 Available: 10.1007/s11042-012-
890 1346-z
891 Lugmayr, A., & Zotto, C. D. (2013).Convergent divergence—Cross-disciplinary viewpoint on
892 media convergence. In European Media Management Education Association Conference
893 2013—Digital Transformations and Transactions in Media Industries. Bournemouth.
414 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto

894Lugmayr, A., Zou, Y., Stockleben, B., Lindfors, K., & Melakoski, C. (2013). Categorization of
895ambient media projects on their business models, innovativeness, and characteristics evalua-
896tion of Nokia Ubimedia MindTrek Award Projects of 2010. Multimedia Tools and
897Applications, 66, 33–57. doi:10.1007/s11042-012-1143-8.
898Matteucci, N. (2015). Standards, IPR strategies and digital TV convergence: The EU experience.
899Part I: Theories. Part: Empirical evidence. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent
900divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
901McKay, E. (2015). Gearing up the knowledge engineers: Effective experience design through
902effective human-computer interaction (HCI). In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent
903divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
904McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
905McLuhan, M., & Lapham, L. H. (1994). Understanding media—The extentions of man.
906Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
907Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Available: http://www.merriam-webster.
908com/dictionary/
909Montpetit, M.-J. (2015). The 2nd convergence: A technology viewpoint. In A. Lugmayr & C. D.
910Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence.
911Germany: Springer.
912Mustic, D., & Plenkovic, M. (2015). Influence of convergent media on the perception of informa-
913tion credibility. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
914ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer AU8.
915NS, S., Varghese, N., Pal, S.N., & NK, N. (2015). Multimodal interface for effective man machine
916interaction. In A. Lugmayr & C.D. Zotto, (Eds.), In Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary
917viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
918Reichl, P. (2015). Quality of experience convergent communication ecosystems. In A. Lugmayr &
919C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media conver-
920gence. Germany: Springer.
921Sabiha, G., Morrison, P. A., Annika, W.-E., & Obal, D. (2015). Transmedia user experience
922design. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary
923viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
924Sacco, V. (2015). How does social media shape media convergence? The case of journalists
925covering war and conflict. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—
926Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
927Sousa, M. N., de Lemos Martins, M., & Zagalo, N. (2015). Transmedia storytelling: The roles and
928stakes of the different participants in the process of a convergent story, in divergent media and
929artifacts. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary
930viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
931Spyridou, L.-P., & Veglis, A. (2015). Convergence and the changing labor of journalism: Towards
932the ‘super Journalist’ Utopia. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—
933Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
934Svahn, M., Wahlund, R., Denward, M., & Rademaker, C. (2015). A model for evaluating
935converged media for advertising purposes. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent
936divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
937Tavares, T., & Schofield, D. (2015). Interaction design for convergence medias and devices: A
938multisensory challenge. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—
939Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
940Tuomi, P. (2015). 21st century television—Gathering around second screens. In A. Lugmayr &
941C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media conver-
942gence. Germany: Springer.
943Veglis, A., Dimoulas, C., & Kalliris, G. (2015). Towards intelligent cross-media publishing:
944Media practices and technology convergence perspectives. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto
945(Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence.
946Germany: Springer.
Media Convergence is NOT King: The Triadic Phenomenon of Media... 415

947 Villi, M., Matikainen, J., & Khaldarova, I. (2015). Recommend, tweet, share: User-distributed
948 content (UDC) and the convergence of news media and social networks. In A. Lugmayr &
949 C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media conver-
950 gence. Germany: Springer.
951 Vukanovic, Z. (2015). Converging technologies and diverging market trends of internet/web and
952 Traditional media. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdis-
953 ciplinary viewpoint on media convergence. Germany: Springer.
954 Wellbrock, C. M. (2015). The internet’s impact on journalistic quality. In A. Lugmayr & C. D.
955 Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on media convergence.
956 Germany: Springer.
957 Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/
958 Zlatanov, B., & Koleva, M. (2015). Info traders, innovation and information spread. In
959 A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Convergent divergence—Crossdisciplinary viewpoint on
960 media convergence. Germany: Springer.
961 Zotto, C. D., Galichet, G., & Lugmayr, A. (2011). Managing media convergence: An economic
962 and editorial project, In European Media Management Conference 2011, Moscow: European
963 Media Management Association (EMMA).
416 A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto