Talk:Media conglomerate/Archives/2012

Berlusconi Group
A "Berlusconi Group" doesn't exist.
 * There's no article for it yet, but I get 1.6 million google hits, so it clearly exists, and is probably notable enough that there will be an article eventually. So the redlink is fine.  Xtifr tälk 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest Media Conglomerate
There are a number of citations that purport that Disney is the largest media conglomerate. By what metric are we using? Based strictly on total company revenue General Electric would be the largest (obviously that's not based on its media business). Looking only at the business segments that involve media, Time Warner would be the biggest at $26,717 million in media-related revenues. The only way Disney would be the biggest is if you add in the Parks and Resorts, but while those might make it the largest entertainment conglomerate, parks and resorts aren't media. I would recommend choosing a metric and specifying it.Jlsimmons (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that, Jlsimmons, is that GE isn't a media conglomerate. It's a regular conglomerate that co-owns a media company (NBC Universal) with Vivendi. 98.193.17.69 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Sony
The Sony article states that Sony is the world's 5th largest media conglomerate (according to Sony itself) but this page states the Fortune 500's top entertainment industries (which are for the United States), and that the Sony Corporation of America is a "major player." What are the world's largest media conglomerates? I have posted a "contradicts Sony" template. Silv the Something (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's interesting. I'd say the Sony source is biased and unusable for the Sony page. But the media conglomerate page is completely unsourced in that sentence making it eligible for deletion, or reworked.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The "media conglomerate" page is unsourced, so it should then be reworked to not contradict the Sony article, which does have some references to back it up. It is not good for unsourced wikipedia pages to contradict other pages that have references. Levith (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the thing about the top 5 media companies comes directly from the Fortune 500 website, whereas the statement about Sony comes from the company itself. In this case, I'd be more inclined to believe Fortune magazine than Sony. And, the sentence on the media conglomerate page IS sourced, as the link at the end of the sentence goes to that section on the Fortune 500 website. If anything, I'd say the Sony source IS biased & unusable for the Sony page. Just because a company says there's one of the biggest doesn't mean anything, unless a third party can back it up with evidence/proof. So, the sentence & link on the Sony page should be removed. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Silv the Something (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seconding my recommendation/suggestion? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I agree that the Sony source should not be cited on its page and it should not be listed as the fifth largest media conglomerate. --Silv the Something (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said that Sony's American subsidiary shouldn't be listed as the fifth largest media company. It still belongs on the list of media conglomerates. I only said that the sentence & link on Sony's article should be removed, because it doesn't mean anything unless it comes from a third-party source. So, if we can get maybe one or two more people to support/back my suggestion, then we have the right to change whatever. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, do we need more than two people supporting something for it to be executed? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Sony is that it has business interests which span the usual classifications made by Fortune magazine. Joseph Turow says that Sony should be viewed as "a powerhouse mass media firm", even though it is never ranked along with media companies in lists such as the one put together by ZenithOptimedia. Fortune lists Sony at number 69 of the Global 500 corporations, but does not try to classify the company as electronics or media. Disney is #65 in the Fortune 500 but has revenues of about half of Sony. However, Disney is profitable while Sony was not profitable in 2010, which is why they did not make the Fortune 500. Sony lost the equivalent of 3.1 billion American dollars in its fiscal year March 2010 to March 2011. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)