Industry Brief
Throughout discussion sections in January and February, your group has practiced applying course content to a specific media industry. This assignment builds on that work. It tasks you with individually synthesizing what you have learned this semester and applying that knowledge to a specific media text of your choosing.
First, you will select a media text. Your text does not have to be from your group’s assigned media industry, though it would likely be easier given the work that you have already done in section. The media text must be contemporary (i.e., still ongoing if it is a continuous-media good; released in the 2020s if a single-media good). You may choose from:
- legacy media (e.g., Euphoria, Scream reboot, Vogue, The Other Black Girl)
- “new” media (e.g., podcast, YouTuber channel, MMO, a musician’s independent album)
You will then take on the role of a consultant for the company that creates your media text—or if your text is independently made, the creator or the creative team behind it. The company’s executives hired you specifically because of the knowledge that you gained in this course. They want you to share your expertise about their media text and relevant industry developments. This assignment thus tasks you with writing a brief for those execs, presenting the info that you believe the company needs to know about their media text.
Part I. Apply the industrialization of culture framework. (1.5-2 pages) The execs first want you to demonstrate that you fully understand the nature of their media text. To do this, Part I requires you to answer: “How does the framework explain why the text looks as it does?” You must address each level of influence, explaining why it’s important to the creation of your media text. Don’t give definitions or generally apply the framework—instead, make specific and detailed connections between your text and its industrial context.
Part II. Explain the text’s commercial fate (1.5-2 pages). The execs also want your input on the text’s commercial fate. For Part II you must identify the important factors—creative decisions, choices in distribution, uses of technology, and so forth—that you believe helped it succeed, fail, or land somewhere in between. There are likely many factors to identify, but you should more fully explore a few important ones rather than superficially address many. Your explanation should focus primarily on media industry activities and developments, but it can also touch on relevant trends in society and culture.
Part III. Make recommendations about moving forward (1.5-2 pages). The execs want advice on how to move forward with the text—or if it is a single-media good, how to move forward with a similar text—given the changes happening in media industries. Part III, then, asks you to take a stance and suggest a particular course of action—informed opinions and criticisms are welcome! What is the best path to future success given changes in the industry that they need to consider (e.g., new technologies, changing policies, emerging competitors, global markets)? What seems promising? What challenges and obstacles should worry them, and how can they adapt? Think critically and creatively.
Media Industries—W22
Requirements and Guidelines
Title is “YOUR NAME’S BRIEF ON TEXT” (e.g., “Jimmy Draper’s brief on Charli XCX’s Crash”)
Research
- Integrate 5 sources (news articles, documentaries) to support your claims as needed.
- No academic sources required. Don’t cite UMI unless briefly paraphrasing/quoting from it.
- Be consistent with APA or MLA for in-text citations and bibliography (not part of page req.).
Writing and formatting
- Address the brief to executives at the company (name the company, but not the execs.)
- Identify each part with a header. No need to put extra spaces between the sections.
- Don’t duplicate info. Consider what info belongs in in each part so that the brief is cohesive.
- Consider how to clearly communicate your ideas using terminology and concepts from class. (Don’t define key terms; use them to demonstrate your understanding of them.)
- Everything should be written from an industry perspective (i.e., as relevant to industry activities and operations).
Industry Case Study Rubric
| A range | B range | C range | |
| Part I: | • Main question answered | • Question answered | • Question not fully |
| Apply framework | with sophistication, | solidly, but integration of | answered and use of |
| expertly integrates concepts | concepts can be vague/off | concepts is muddled | |
| • All three levels applied | • All three levels applied | • < 3 levels applied | |
| • Discussion is specific to | • Discussion gets overly | • Discussion relies on | |
| the text | general at times | generalities | |
| Part II: | • Identifies relevant factors | • Mostly relevant factors used | • Irrelevant factors used |
| Explanation of | • Demonstrates thorough | • Solid understanding of | • Does not show |
| commercial fate | and sophisticated | important factors, but | understanding of |
| understanding of factors | aspects need elaboration | factors | |
| • Arguments are persuasive | • Generally persuasive | • Claims are unpersuasive | |
| and thoroughly grounded | claims and grounded in | or largely descriptive | |
| in research | research, but a bit descriptive | and lack support | |
| • Demonstrates course | • Demonstrates course | • Failure to use or to | |
| knowledge; employs terms, | knowledge, but misses | appropriately use | |
| concepts expertly | opportunities and depth | knowledge from course | |
| Part III: | • Identifies relevant changes, | • Identifies mostly relevant | • Identifies irrelevant |
| Recommendations | challenges | changes, challenges | changes, challenges |
| • Recs are persuasive and | • Recs mostly persuasive | • Recs are unpersuasive, | |
| well informed, suggesting | (needs more development | uninformed, and/or | |
| sophisticated | and support), showing | confusing, suggesting | |
| understanding of media | decent but unnuanced | unclear understanding | |
| industries | understanding of media inds. | of media industries | |
| Research | • 5 sources incorporated | • 5 sources incorporated | • <5 sources |
| and | • Articles are all relevant | • Mostly relevant articles | • Many irrelevant articles |
| source integration | • Clear, cohesive | • Solid integration but | • Referenced in an |
| integration to help | some could be used more | unhelpful manner | |
| substantively make your case | substantively | ||
| Overall | • Appropriate length | • Appropriate length | • <5 pages or extra |
| • Parts work together well | • Parts have redundancies | spacing used to reach 5 | |
| • Strong writing | • Solid writing | • Parts not cohesive | |
| • Proper citations in-text and | • Some citations errors, but | • Muddled writing | |
| in bibliography (APA or MLA) | overall done well | • No effort with citations |
