Talk:Media mix

Future disambig
used in wp pages:
 * missing page: Looks notable. Unfortunately only japanese sources. -M.Altenmann >t 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDIA MIX, a Japan Times column by a Philip Brasor -M.Altenmann >t 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A dispute about the footnote
About the phrase " It is the Japanese equivalent of media franchising". -M.Altenmann >t 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(from my talk page) A media mix is very much the Japanese equavilent of a media franchise. American franchises such as Star Wars are called "mediamikkusu" in Japan, there is no other word for it. You might also want to run these articles through translate real quick メディアミックス & シリーズ_(作品)

And as for the source not mentioning franchising other than in the title - --FollowTheSigns (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Thank you for the internets, but as I said, I see the book myself, in a "brick and mortar" way. May be I am splitting hairs, but "media franchise" is not the same as "media franchising", and the books seems to relate by also distinguish the concepts of "media mix" and "media franchise". It is in our sloppy wikipedian style everything sounds synonymous. After all, I am not an expert, and I may admit that there is a "convergence" of terminology. What I wanted to say is that the book cited (a) does not explicitly say that MM and MF are one and the same, and (b) the usage in the book indicates that the author sees them as different aspects, although within the same business trend. (c) If you insist on equivalence, then the statement should be inverted: The concept of "media franchising", "transmedia storytelling", "convergence", etc. which evolved later in Western entertainment business are basically the Japanese strategy of "media mix".  -M.Altenmann >t 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well "equavilent" doesn't necessarily mean it's the exact same thing, but a media mix is definitely the Japanese equavilent of a media franchise (or the other way around, but we don't really know which concept originated first and it doesn't matter honestly). But how is a media franchise not the same as media franchising? One is a noun, the other is a verb. It means the exact same thing. Both "media mix" and "media franchise" are, in a way, figurative buzzwords. So it's really just terminology we're discussing here. And as I said, all non-Japanese franchises are reffered to as "media mixes" in Japan, so that's pretty blatant. There is other literature on the topic to look into other than the Steinberg book, like the new source I added. Basing the whole article off of one source also doesn't seem like a good idea. I saw the proposition for a merge with the media franchise article, but that seems redundant, since "media mix" has its own name and identity. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes we do know which concept originated first. (unless we will start ascribing Aristotle its invention). I already told you, at this point I agree with your claim that they are the same (otherwise I would have try to delete the phrase). Did you read my (a), (b), or you skipped directly to (c), since it agrees with you? -M.Altenmann >t 06:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read a & b and I think I adressed them? In the first sentence I mentioned that equavilent doesn't have to mean "one and the same", unless I'm missing something? But regardless, I think the consensus was reached.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)