Media Entrepreneurship: A Consensual Definition

Abstract

Media Entrepreneurship has been an ambiguous, unclear and controversial concept and despite of growing academic efforts in the last decade, it is still a poorly defined subject. This paper is an effort to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive definition of media entrepreneurship. Firstly, a literature review conducted and entrepreneurship, media, opportunity and innovation as building blocks of media entrepreneurship explained. Then by using of a mixed of bibliographic method and a Delphi method with multi-stage analysis process, a consensual definition of media entrepreneurship proposed. This definition integrates some key features of the emerging media environment such as distinction of content and platform, value delivery, opportunity development, non-monetary benefit, etc. It is expected that the findings of this research clear the ground for further researches in the field of media entrepreneurship.

Full text

91
AD-MINISTER
ABSTRACT
Media Entrepreneurship has been an ambiguous, unclear and controversial concept and despite of
growing academic efforts in the last decade, it is still a poorly defined subject. This paper is an effort
to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive definition of media entrepreneurship. Firstly, a literature
review conducted and entrepreneurship, media, opportunity and innovation as building blocks of media
entrepreneurship explained. Then by using of a mixed of bibliographic method and a Delphi method with
multi-stage analysis process, a consensual definition of media entrepreneurship proposed. This definition
integrates some key features of the emerging media environment such as distinction of content and
platform, value delivery, opportunity development, non-monetary benefit, etc. It is expected that the
findings of this research clear the ground for further researches in the field of media entrepreneurship.
KEYWORDS
Media Entrepreneurship; Media Management; Venture Creation; Media Firm; Delphi Method; Consensual
Definition; Consensus.
RESUMEN
El emprendimiento mediático ha sido un concepto ambiguo, confuso y controversial y a pesar de los
crecientes esfuerzos académicos de la última década, sigue siendo una materia de estudio no muy bien
definida. Este artículo es un esfuerzo por llenar esta brecha al proveer una definición amplia sobre el
emprendimiento mediático. En primer lugar, se lleva a cabo una revisión de la literatura y se ponen el em-
prendimiento, los medios de comunicación, las oportunidades y la innovación como elementos básicos
de la explicación del emprendimiento mediático. Luego, utilizando un método bibliográfico combinado
y un método Delphi con un proceso de análisis de múltiples etapas, se propone una definición consen-
suada del emprendimiento mediático. Esta definición integra algunas de las principales características
del naciente entorno mediático tales como la distinción entre “contenido” y “plataforma”, “valor entre-
gado”, “desarrollo de oportunidad”, “beneficio no monetario”, etc. Se espera que los hallazgos de esta
investigación allanen el camino para futuros investigadores en el campo del emprendimiento mediático
PALABRAS CLAVE
Emprendimiento mediático; gestión mediática; creación de empresas; empresa mediática; método Del-
phi; definición consensuada; consenso.
MEDIA ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A CONSENSUAL DEFINITION
EMPRENDIMIENTO MEDIÁTICO: UNA DEFINICIÓN CONSENSUADA
DATIS KHAJEHEIAN
JEL: O, L
Received: 19-10-2016
Modified: 15-11-2016
Accepted: 22-12-2016
DOI: 10.17230/ad-minister.30.5
www.eafit.edu.co/ad-minister
Creative Commons (CC BY-NC- SA)
1 Assistant Professor in University of Tehran, and a visiting lecturer in the Center for Communication,
Media and Information Technologies in Aalborg University of Denmark. He also periodically delivers
lectures in Stuttgart Media University of Germany. Datis earned his PhD in Media Management and
MA in Entrepreneurship with specialty in New Venture Creation. He is the head of the special interest
group of ‘Emerging Media Markets’ in European Media Management Association. Datis is author of
many academic articles in media management and entrepreneurship both in Persian and English, and
has edited more than 70 academic papers at the time of writing this paper. Institutional Email address:
datiskh@ut.ac.ir
AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
92
AD-MINISTER
INTRODUCTION
In 2008 Achtenhagen wrote: “As the area of media entrepreneurship is still a young
and undeveloped field, this phenomenon is poorly understood” (p. 124). In 2017, no
significant progress can be seen. The number of publications on the subject of media
entrepreneurship has increased, but the field is not clear enough yet, and there is no
consensus among the experts of the field.
In the short number of published research papers, some definitions of media
entrepreneurship can be found. Anne Hoag defined media entrepreneurship as “the
creation and ownership of a small enterprise or organization whose activity adds at
least one voice or innovation to the media marketplace” (2008, p.74). She argued that
her definition supports important characteristics: first, it covers a broad spectrum of
media sectors; second, it considers both new entrants and existing firms; third, this
definition include both for-profit and non-commercial forms of media enterprise.
Achtenhagen criticized Hoag’s definition by pointing out that any person starting
a blog would be a new voice in the media marketplace, while he is not principally
an entrepreneur (2008, p.126). She defines media entrepreneurship as “how new
ventures aimed at bringing into existence future media goods and services are
initially conceived of and subsequently developed, by whom, and with what
consequences” (Ibid, p.126). Khajeheian and Roshandel Arbatani (2011) defined media
entrepreneurship as “the creation and ownership of a small enterprise or organization
whose activity adds at least one voice or innovation to the media marketplace”.
In 2013 Khajeheian provided a specific definition for Media Entrepreneurship:
“Individuals or small firms of which use their own or others’ resources to create value
by extracting opportunities via oering a service or product that is consist of any type
of innovation in any of product/service characteristics, process, distribution channel
or place, or dierent innovative usage, to the media market, or any other market that
media is its main channel of interaction”. (2013, p.128). However, none of definitions
presented are comprehensive enough to shed light on aspects of entrepreneurial
activities in fast changing and evolving media industry.
Considering the importance of entrepreneurship in the national and global
economies; the increasing role of communication technologies in the provision of
possibilities for entrepreneurs; and also with respect to the poor literature in the field
of entrepreneurship in media industries, this paper aims to provide a consolidated
definition and a consensual conceptualization of media entrepreneurship. Such
achievement can create a ground for further researches and more progresses in
our knowledge of the field.
For this purpose, two major means have been implied. Firstly, literature of the
field reviewed and any possible connection that found, extracted. Then, a panel of
scholars and academic experts in the field have questioned this concept and what it
implies. "When a field is fragmented and its boundaries are blurred, it is legitimate to
ask scholars what they perceive to be the defining elements of their field" (Kuckertz
and Mandl, 2016, p.418). Following these steps, the next part presents the literature
review and past eorts in understanding media entrepreneurship.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
93
AD-MINISTER
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the word “Media Entrepreneurship”, Media is an adjective for the noun of
“Entrepreneurship”, implying that Entrepreneurship is the core of this process.
Therefore, to understand media entrepreneurship well, the first requirement is to
clearly depict what is entrepreneurship. As there are numerous researches published
on the subject of entrepreneurship and its dierent aspects, this paper is benefiting
from the existing knowledge and by extracting the main attributes of entrepreneurship,
explores how they contributes in our perception of media entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship
"As a scientific field of research, entrepreneurship has strong relevance to the media"
(Hang and van Weezel, 2007). The word entrepreneurship is widely used, but it is still
fragmented (Anderson and Starnawska, 2008) ambiguous (Hang and van Weezel,
2007) and context related (Zahra et al, 2014). "This is not because the definition is not
available, but because there are too many, and even these definitions rarely agree
with each other on some essential characteristics of the entrepreneurship" (Hang
and van Weezel,2005, p.2).
Various characteristics have been articulated with respect to entrepreneurship.
New Business Creation: Carland et al (1996) explicitly explained that the outcome
of entrepreneurship is the creation of new venture. Vivarelli (2010, p.1456) defines
entrepreneurship from an industrial organization perspective: "entrepreneurship is
the process by which new enterprises are founded and become viable". Opportunity:
"Entrepreneurship is the activity of opportunity development to introduce new good
or service, way of organizing, market, process and raw materials through organizing
eorts that previously had not existed" (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p.4). Economic
Growth: Stevenson and Jarillo (2007) explains that an entrepreneur’s actions have an
eect on economic environment and improve society economically via innovation.
Birch (1979,1987) stressed on job creation as an output of entrepreneurship. Drucker
(1985) associated entrepreneurship with economic growth and innovation. Eciency:
Eciency is a vital element of entrepreneurship. Leibenstein (1968) argued that the
basic function is to destruct pockets of ineciency in a system. Hirschman (1958,
p.5) also argued that entrepreneurship fundamental function is “to call forth and
enlisting of resources and abilities that are hidden, scattered, or badly utilized, rather
than finding the optimal combination for given resources and factors of production”.
Another important characteristic of entrepreneurship is Risk-taking: "Wu and Knott
(2006) argue that entrepreneurship is a risk seeking activity, when the risk is related to
the entrepreneurs’ own ability". Entrepreneurship is also associated with Innovation
(Beckman, 1983), and flexibility (Birch, 1987), and many other important factors that
play positive role in value creation and economic development of societies. However,
the most important aspect of entrepreneurship, in relationship with the current study,
is its association with small enterprises and possibility of involvement of individuals
with low amount of capital.

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
94
AD-MINISTER
Media
And what does the word “media” in media entrepreneurship imply? As mentioned,
it is an adjective and it implies the context in which entrepreneurial activities are
conducted. According to Hoag (2008), "this word refers to the traditional mass
communications systems and content genres as well as other technologies for
mediated human speech. This includes traditional publishing, traditional electronic
media, motion pictures, video gaming, recorded music, advertising, etc". Hang
and van Weezel (2007, p.54), define media as "the industries that produce and sell
information as well as entertainment products and services".
The Internet and then Web 2.0 by reduction of entry barriers, production cost,
distance working, possibility to direct contact with consumers, etc.- revolutionized the
way companies do their businesses and led in the creation of new firms. The Internet
also oered the artists an indispensable tool to work as independent entrepreneur
(Tuomola, 2004). Media entrepreneurs can compete in the markets without the need
for extensive resources (Derham et a, 2011) because the internet covers their lack of
skills, resources, and technical knowledge, as well as the cost of marketing and the
connection with partners and to market their products, services, and brands (Harris
and Rae, 2009).
Media industry, especially in the sections that SMEs are active, has significantly
aected by advances in communication technologies. With the dramatic reduction
in the cost of devices, software and knowledge required to produce the media
content and provision of channels to reach target customers, small companies and
individual entrepreneurs found a new context for the creation and delivery of value
by production of media content and distribution.
Media as a creative industry is characterized by uncertainty (Reca, 2006, Medina
et al,2016; Napoli, 2016), risk (Doyle,2016, Pickard, 2004), complexity (Napoli, 2016),
timeliness (Turow, 2011), autonomy (Lund, 2016), proactiveness (Hang and van
Weezel, 2007), changing demand (Pickard, 2004). Such characteristics are very much
aligned to the dimensions of the entrepreneurial process. These dimensions represent
the entrepreneurial orientation of the firm, that includes processes, practices, and
decision making activities that lead firms to decide to enter a new market or launch
a new product (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). As explained, media companies are urged
to be particularly risk taking, innovative and associated with novel ways of thinking.
Such entrepreneurial approach is undoubtedly extremely important for media firms
(Hang and van Weezel, 2007).
Media SMEs
SMEs play an important role in national economies, by collectively contributing
an average of 90% of national economic output (Wielicki & Arendt, 2010). There is
growing evidence that smaller businesses can gain business value from the use of
social media for internal and external purposes (Geho et al, 2010). Smaller businesses

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
95
AD-MINISTER
are often regarded as key in encouraging the development of a country’s enterprise
culture and in promoting business growth (Dyerson et al, 2010).
SMEs are not homogenous groups, but they dier from many dierent
perspectives (Chua et al. 2009; Parker and Castleman, 2007; Derham et al. 2011) and
that is applicable for media entrepreneurs too. "Changes in the media industries
have created various windows of opportunities. Opportunities appear in dierent
sectors of the media industries" (Hang, 2016, p.15).
“The rationale for new media business creation first comes from an intention to
adapt to the changing media environment. Market shifts and environment dyna-
mics call for innovative new business to meet dierent consumers’ needs, con-
tent needs and advertising requirements. It also includes the desires to gain new
revenue streams, to spread risks, to strengthen content creation and audience
advertising relationships, to achieve the first mover advantages and to increase
learning and innovation” (Hang, 2016, p.14).
Dubini, & Provera (2008) argue that media companies require content to sustain
their value proposition (p49). They articulate three major reasons for the increase of
media content titles. First, a series of innovations in content production; second, the
growth in the number of indies under reduction of production cost; and third, the
increase in the number of distribution channels under of digital technologies. Those
three reasons; innovation, low production cost and abundant distribution channels
are the incentives for creation and growth of SMEs in media industry.
Opportunity: The Foundation of Media Entrepreneurship
Opportunity is the central concept of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman
2000, p.220; Singh, 2001, p.11; Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005, p.457; Shane et al,
2010, p.291) and the understanding of opportunity evaluation process represents
a core intellectual question in entrepreneurship research (Foss and Klein, 2012;
Emami, 2017). Therefore, opportunity identification (recognition), evaluation and
exploitation is a core concept in the media entrepreneurship.
In one of the most cited definition of entrepreneurship by more than 9700
citations at the time of writing this article, Shane and Venkataraman associated
entrepreneurship with discovery, evaluation and exploitation of profitable
opportunities and the set of individuals who process them (2000, p.218). Shane
(2003, p.18) then describes entrepreneurial opportunity as a situation in which a
person can create a new “means-end” framework for recombining resources that
the entrepreneur believes will yield a profit. Fuduric (2008), using Shane definition,
defined entrepreneurial opportunity as two-sided: something changing in the
environment (external) and a creation or recombination of resources happen by an
entrepreneur (internal).
A fundamental understanding of opportunity with respect to media
entrepreneurship comes from the distinction between opportunity creation
(Shumpeterian approach) and opportunity discovery (Kirznerian approach). In

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
96
AD-MINISTER
Schumpeter view, entrepreneurs create opportunities by creative destruction; a
radical innovation or invention that disequilibria market by creation of new demands
for introducing innovation. In contrast, Kirznerian view argues that opportunities
are already existing in the market, because of consistent shift in demand and
entrepreneurs discover those opportunities earlier than the others. These approaches
come into use towards understanding if media entrepreneurs create opportunities
for value delivery, and they discover existed needs and demand for a type of media
product or service (Fuduric, 2008). "In the Schumpeterian view, the entrepreneur
moves the economy by disequilibrating it, while in the Kirznerian view the movement
is equilibration" (Keyhani, 2016, p.123).
The discovery perspective assumes that opportunities pre-exist and are
awaiting discovery (opportunity is independent of the entrepreneur); Whereas
the creation perspective assumes that opportunities do not exist without the
entrepreneur (Will et al,2016, p.195). With respect to this dierence, in discovery
approach entrepreneurs search, both actively and passively; while Schumpeterian
entrepreneurs observe, learn, act and create opportunities (Ibid). Dimov believes
that opportunity creation encompasses a social learning process whereby new
knowledge continuously emerges to resolve the uncertainty inherent to each stage
of opportunity development (2007, p. 714).
In understanding of opportunity in media entrepreneurship, based on an
inspiration from Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p.218), three questions must be
answered: why, when and how opportunities for the delivery of a media good or
service comes into existence?; why, when and how media entrepreneurs discover and
exploit opportunities?; and why, when and how media entrepreneurs use dierent
modes of action to exploit opportunities.
Khajeheian (2013) argues that an opportunity in the media industry is to identify
the unmet needs in a niche market that is willing to pay to receive the value that
satisfies their need. Based on this definition, media entrepreneurs base their activities
on recognition of a need in a segment of media markets and they satisfy the need by
delivery of value. This definition is based in many other researches that tie opportunity
with value, such as Lumpkin and Lichtenstein’s definition of opportunity: the ability
to identify a good idea and transform it into a business concept that adds value and
generates revenues (2005, p.457).
The question is that what approach is more appropriate for media entrepreneurs.
To what extent they are creators or discoverers of opportunities? The answer to this
question is dicult, because media entrepreneurs dier along the value chain. If we
classify media entrepreneurs as cultural entrepreneurs, based on Dana (1995), they are
opportunity seekers and Kirznerian identifiers of opportunity that actively taking risk
of economic uncertainty. If we consider some technological entrepreneurs that create
opportunities by their radical innovations. Such opportunity creator entrepreneurs are
few and considerably lower in number, and it should be noted that the nature of most of
innovations of media entrepreneurs is incremental innovation, or imitative innovation.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
97
AD-MINISTER
The question of how entrepreneurs discover business opportunities is the critical
concern in entrepreneurial studies (Bernhard and Karlsson, 2014). The process of
opportunity-discovery includes both the active and passive search. Passive search is
based on Kirzner’s “entrepreneurial alertness”, while active search integrates with a
systematic search approach (Will et al, 2016, p. 194-195). Vaghely and Julien (2010)
believe that in identifying opportunities, entrepreneurs process information by using
of both approaches; thus entrepreneurial opportunities are both discovered and
created in dependence to combinations of information. Such conclusion is supported
by Venkataraman (1997) that opportunity identification depends on the information
and the way it is processed by individuals. Using Ardichvili et al (2003, p.106), major
factors that influence the core process of opportunity recognition and development
for media entrepreneurs include: entrepreneurial alertness; information asymmetry
and prior knowledge; social networks; personality traits such as optimism, self-
ecacy and creativity; and type of opportunity itself.
One of the main sources of opportunity identification for media entrepreneurs
comes from social sources of information, such as industry and personal networks.
Ozgon and Baron (2007) argue that informal networks have a direct eect on
entrepreneurial alertness toward new opportunities. They articulate the four factors
of mentor, family and close friend, informal industry network, and professional
forums. Gibcus et al (2008) showed that many business owners acquire information
from their contacts and Filion (2004, p.45) stresses on the role of information in
opportunity identification too, by depicting that opportunity recognition requires
intuition, intuition requires understanding and understanding needs a certain level
of knowledge. Rae (2002) emphasizes on the role of social sources of information by
arguing that the entrepreneurs in creative industries are immersed in the environment
and culture of the society of which they work, and this immersion enables them to
recognize opportunities that might not be apparent for “The Outsiders”.
Innovation
"The concept of innovation and newness, as act of introducing something new and
relevant, is an integral part of entrepreneurship." (Hisrich and Ramadani, 2017, p.4)
and inevitably of media entrepreneurship. Khajeheian (2014) articulates innovation
in characteristics, process, distribution channel, usage, etc. Ireland et al. (2003, p. 981)
introduce disruptive and sustaining innovations. Taken from definition of Tushman and
O’Reilly (cited in Ireland et al. 2003), disruptive innovation "produces a revolutionary
change in markets while sustaining innovation leads to incremental change. Sustaining
innovation, also has said as incremental innovation, is the exploitation of existing
capabilities that contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm".
Based on Khajeheian (2013, p.128), radical or disruptive innovation is derived from
identifying and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities through new combination
of resources to create new capabilities that lead to competitive advantages. According
to him, this type of innovation requires a high R&D budget and a mentality of

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
98
AD-MINISTER
failure acceptance. Such attributes rarely existed in developing countries and mostly
existed in knowledge societies and leading organizations; so in contrast to the radical
innovation, imitative innovation is the more common and successful type of innovation
in developing societies or organizations with low R&D budgets, such as SMEs, family
businesses, public organizations and most types of organizations and enterprises that
cannot invest on research and development. Imitative innovation is one of the key
success factors for media entrepreneurs, because they launch a previously successfully
tested the product/service in a new market without taking major risks of investment
on a radical or even incremental innovation. Present article suggests that imitative
innovation is one of the most important drivers of media entrepreneurship, by showing
an opportunity of value delivery in a market with low risk and investment.
Khajeheian and Tadayoni (2016) explained another aspect of media entrepreneurs:
their advantage in the contract. Their study on public service broadcast showed that
large media companies do not outsource the production to the users or small media
firms, mainly for the reason of distrust on delivery of professional quality. Rather, they
prefer to commission parts of their product provision to medium-size enterprises
that entitle reputation, history and brand. Such media enterprises commission the
contract to the smaller enterprises. The advantage of large companies is in their
resource and operations; the advantage of small enterprises is innovation (Eliasson
and Eliasson, 2005); and the advantage of medium size enterprises is their ability to
produce contracts (Khajeheian and Tadayoni, 2016). As Baumol (2002) expressed,
most revolutionary new ideas have been provided preponderantly by independent
innovators and it is very likely to be continued in the future. So investing on user
innovation provides media companies with sources of creativity and may lead the
enterprises to have access to successful innovations, and then to use their resources
towards the marketing and commercialization of those innovations, as Hoag explicitly
argues that “there is no denying that big media corporations can be innovative, but
they are better capitalized to commercialize innovation” (2008, 75) and Fuerst (2010)
supports her arguing that expansion of media companies to larger sizes provides
new business opportunities for small media firms. The connection of users with large
media companies, is a complex process that mostly happens by intermediators and
media entrepreneurs, who reduce the risk and facilitate cooperation between large
media companies and small enterprises; and by such activities, increase eciency
and eectiveness of media markets.
RESEARCH METHOD
As the aim of this research is to obtain a specific and detailed definition for media
Entrepreneurship, a Delphi method was selected as a research method. The reason
for this selection is the success of this research method in similar cases e.g. Omer
Attali and Yemini (2016), Capra et al (2014), Lohuis et al (2013). The Delphi technique
is a widely used and accepted method for gathering data from respondents within
their domain of expertise (Hsu and Sandford, 2007).

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
99
AD-MINISTER
To achieve the research purpose and based on the knowledge acquired from
literature, a multiple-stage analytical process was designed and conducted. In
the first phase, a selected group of scholars and researchers were being asked
for the provision of a definition of media entrepreneurship. After collecting the
primary definitions, the building elements were extracted. In the second phase, the
extracted elements were oered to the sample and then asked for proposals towards
a revised definition. In the third phase, they were being asked to read an abstract
of 27 papers on the subject of entrepreneurial activities in media industries; and to
revise their definition again. Finally, the results collected and used for a consensual
definition of media entrepreneurship.
The study sample were scholars, alumni and researchers in the fields of media
management, entrepreneurship and occasionally some related fields. The sample
were selected from scholars with personal and academic relationship with the
researcher - so they accepted the invitation to participate in the panel, either in the
physical presence or via video conferencing.
FINDINGS
First phase: The most frequent words in definitions of research sample is presented
in the Table 1.
Table 1. The building elements in definition of media entrepreneurship in the first phase.
Word (and variations) Word (and variations)
Individual (Person, man or woman,
entrepreneur) Internet/Communication Technology/IT/Web 2.0
(Social media, web stores,)
New (New product/service, novel,
never-experienced) Technical expertise/knowledge/skill
Change (Change in technology,
preferences, demography, lifestyle,
economy, society.) Segment/niche market
Value (Creation and delivery) Need/demand
Innovation (Creativity, Creative idea) Content (Media content, clip, advertising, attractive
content)
Opportunity (Recognition, identification,
evaluation, exploitation, development) Creativity/Creative/Talent
Resources Culture/Cultural
Control (including ownership, access,
permit, authority to use) Profit/Income
Venture/Small Business/Firm
(Organizational form) Restriction/Barrier
Market Efficiency

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
100
AD-MINISTER
Table 1. The building elements in definition of media entrepreneurship in the first phase.
Continued
Word (and variations) Word (and variations)
Management Monopoly/Competition
Ownership Advantage
Cooperation/Collaboration Technology
Corporate/Organization Risk
Business model Team/ Teamwork
Recombine/mix/configure Internal/external
User/consumer/customer Turbulence /Complicated market
Idea Two sided market
Advertising Public/Private
Society/Social responsibility Job creation/economic growth
Second phase: In the second phase and based on the understanding of the building
elements of other definitions, the proposed definitions were converged. Table 2
presents the elements of the second round of definitions.
Table 2. The building elements in definition of media entrepreneurship in the second phase.
Word (and variations) Word (and variations)
Individual (Person, man or woman,
entrepreneur) Media Platform
Innovative / New Resource
Environment (Change, Complexity,
Turbulent) Market Segment
Value (Creation and delivery) Need/demand
Creative Idea Venture Creation
Corporate Entrepreneurship Management
Ownership Control
Profit/income/money Opportunity
Media content Transformation/Recombination/ Configuration
User data Advertising
User behavior
Benefit

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
101
AD-MINISTER
Third phase: After proposing revised definitions in the second round, 27 abstracts of
papers with some relevance to the subjects presented in the sample. Then, the author
of this paper composed consensual elements in dierent definitions. The definition
was revised frequently based on the sample. Finally, some keywords were selected to
be included in the definition. Two definitions were proposed, one was a comprehensive
definition, another was shorter and more brief one. The idea was that the comprehensive
definition helps the researchers to deeply understand the dierent aspects of media
entrepreneurship, and the shorter definition to enhance a quicker understanding of
media entrepreneurship. At the end, the sample was sifted to selected a comprehensive
definition as well as a consensual definition of media entrepreneurship.
Table 3. The building elements in definition of media entrepreneurship in the third phase.
Word (and variations) Word (and variations)
Individual Media Platform
Innovative (Radical/incremental/
imitative) Resource
Environment (Change, Complexity,
Turbulent) Market Segment
Value (Creation and delivery) Need/demand
Creative Idea Venture Creation
Media content Management
Ownership Control
Profit/income/money Opportunity
Benefit Transformation/Recombination/ Configuration
User data Advertising
User behavior
THE CONSENSUAL DEFINITION
As it’s explained in the beginning of the paper, the main aim of this research is to
provide a consensual definition of media entrepreneurship. For provision of such
definition, it is necessary to extract the important elements of this concept.
The most important factors of media entrepreneurship understood as:
• Media entrepreneurship is associated with value proposition (creation and
delivery);
• Media entrepreneurship may include the new venture creation, or
entrepreneurial management of an existing firm, or may occur solely as an
individual eort;

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
102
AD-MINISTER
• Media entrepreneurship is based on consistent opportunity identification and
evaluation;
• Media entrepreneurship delivers a value on one or more of following types:
content, platform, emotion, audience reach;
• Media entrepreneurship can be an innovation or innovative use of business
model elements;
• Media entrepreneurship is based on permanent screening of environment
change;
• Media entrepreneurship integrates and recombine resources;
• Media entrepreneurship closely works with innovation in user side;
• Media entrepreneurship is not merely for profit, but sometime happens to
obtain a benefit such as social responsibility, attention attraction, a favorite
behavior or attitude, etc.
Based on above mentioned findings and revised definitions of the sample group,
the author suggests a comprehensive definition for media entrepreneurship. By
presenting this definition to the sample, no one rejected this definition.
A comprehensive definition of media entrepreneurship is as follow:
“Media entrepreneurship is taking the risk to exploit opportunities (crea-
tion/ discovery) by innovative use of (radical/incremental/imitative) re-
sources (ownership/control) in transform of an idea into activities to oer
value (creation/delivery) in a media form (content/platform/user data) that
meets the need of a specific portion of market (businesses or consumers),
either in an individual eort or by creation of new venture or entrepreneurial
managing of an existing organizational entity and to earn benefit (money/
attention/favorite behavior) from one of the sources that is willing to pay for
(direct consumers, advertisers, data demanders or any customer of genera-
ted information of consumers).”
This definition has been depicted in the figure 1.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
103
AD-MINISTER
Figure 1. Elements of Media Entrepreneurship Definition.
Organizational form:
• Individual
• New Venture Creation
• Corporate
• Entrepreneurship
Opportunity:
• Creation
• Discovery
Media Offer:
• Media Content
• Media Platform
• User Data
Customer Type:
• Consumers
• Advertisers
• Data demanders
• Other customers
Innovation:
• Individual
• New Venture Creation
• Corporate
• Entrepreneurship
Process:
• Idea
• Transformation
• Commercialization
Organizational
form
Market Media
Offer
Innovation
Resource
Process
Opportunity
Value
Customer
Benefit
Benefit:
• Money
• Attention
• Energy/favorite
behavior
Market Needs:
• Niche market
• Mass market
• Risk
Resource:
• Ownership
• Control
Value Proposition:
• Value Creation
• Value Delivery
Media
Entrepreneurship
There are some special points in this definition that are discussed in detail among
the members of the research sample:
1. Media entrepreneurship is a risk-taking activity, with chance of market success
or fail.
2. Media entrepreneurship is based on opportunity, either created by
entrepreneur (Schumpeterian perspective), or discovered as an existed unmet
demand in the market (Kirznerian).
3. Media entrepreneurship is based on an idea that is based on recognized
opportunity.
4. To execute the creative idea, media entrepreneur requires to find, hire, collect,
or contract with production resources, such as team, talents, suppliers,
distributers, promoters, raw materials, knowledge and technic, infrastructure
and other essential resources.

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
104
AD-MINISTER
5. Innovation is an integral part of media entrepreneurship, but in many cases an
imitative innovation and implementation of a successfully tested innovation
uses for a new market or application. Media entrepreneurship doesn’t
necessarily base on ownership of resources, but control of what is owned by
others by means of loan, borrowing, hiring, renting, etc. is a solution.
6. Media entrepreneurship is strongly associated with value proposition to the
target market. This value can be created by the media entrepreneur’s activity
(such as produced media content) or by created by others and delivered to the
target market by media entrepreneur (such as user generated content, third-
party production, etc.). Before the pervasiveness of social media, platforms
were notimportance in the study of media. For instance, Hoag emphasized
on the media content and believes that the critical decision rule in media
industry is who creates and controls the media content (2008, p.75). But today
platforms play a critical role in access to users and importance of the number
of users of a platform is much more than the number of attendances of a
media content. Thus, media entrepreneurship in an internet-based context
implies the content production, platform provision, business model invention
and data analysis, while in traditional media, media entrepreneurship mostly
implies on content creation.
7. The proposed value of media entrepreneurs, that dier them from other
entrepreneurs, is in the form of media content, media platform for third party
or user generated contents, user data for customers of those data.
8. Media entrepreneurship is based on the meet of needs in a segment of market,
either businesses or consumers that is willing to pay the requested benefit in
return of perceived value.
9. Media entrepreneurship can be happened by new venture creation, or inside
an existing organization (corporate entrepreneurship) or occur out of a
business organization form, as an individual eort.
10. Media entrepreneurship is mostly for the generation of income, but not
always. Sometime a media entrepreneur aims to attract public attention to
a societal issue, such as environment or a discrimination; or to encourage a
behavior, such as voting to a special person/party or bill.
11. Media entrepreneurs may follow various business models to earn the
intended benefit from dierent parties: directly from consumers (such as
subscription, sell of copy, pay per view or click, etc.), from advertisers, from
demanders of user data, or any possible customer.
12. The commodity that a media entrepreneur sells could be a product, service,
data, users (followers or members) or even the media entity itself (such as a
channel, brand, etc.)
13. Media entrepreneurship is an intentional action, but opportunity
identification that could be either intentional or unintentional. This discussion
supports by Emami and Dimov (2016) that implied on entrepreneurial
intention of media entrepreneurs.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
105
AD-MINISTER
Table 4, illustrates the developments in definition of media entrepreneurship.
Table 4. Definitions of media entrepreneurship.
Researcher Definition of media entrepreneurship
Hoag (2008) The creation and ownership of a small enterprise or organization whose
activity adds at least one voice or innovation to the media marketplace
Achtenhagen (2008) How new ventures aimed at bringing into existence future media goods
and services are initially conceived of and subsequently developed, by
whom, and with what consequences
Khajeheian and
Roshandel Arbatani
(2 011)
The creation and ownership of a small enterprise or organization whose
activity adds at least one voice or innovation to the media marketplace
Khajeheian (2013)
Individuals or small firms of which use their own or others’ resources
to create value by extracting opportunities via offering a service or
product that is consist of any type of innovation in any of product/
service characteristics, process, distribution channel or place, or
different innovative usage, to the media market, or any other market
that media is its main channel of interaction
Khajeheian (2017)
Media entrepreneurship is taking the risk to exploit opportunities
(creation/discovery) by innovative use of (radical/incremental/imitative)
resources (ownership/control) in transform of an idea into activities to
offer value (creation/delivery) in a media form (content/platform/user
data) that meets the need of a specific portion of market (businesses or
consumers), either in an individual effort or by creation of new venture
or entrepreneurial managing of an existing organizational entity and
to earn benefit (money/attention/favorite behavior) from one of the
sources that is willing to pay for (direct consumers, advertisers, data
demanders or any customer of generated information of consumers).
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCHES
and Singer (2016) in a study of entrepreneurship in journalism showed that the
concept of entrepreneurship in media is defined broadly and loosely, but in a
generally positive way. The current research contributed with the provision of a more
specific definition of media entrepreneurship. In order to deepen the knowledge in
this field, more research into the various dimensions of this concept is required.
The study of media entrepreneurship in dierent levels of analysis enriches
the literature and deepen our knowledge of this subject from dierent aspects.
Borrowing from Audretsch, et al (2017) and De Bruin et al (2007), determinants
of entrepreneurship lie in a complex interplay of micro (firm or individual level),
meso (industry level) and macro (policy) level factors and it is applicable for media
entrepreneurship. It is almost impossible to study the entrepreneurial activities of an
individual without considering the eect of the environment; to study the firm level

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
106
AD-MINISTER
entrepreneurship without the eect of government policies and also people who run
the firm; or to study media entrepreneurship policy without the eect of firms and
individuals’ actions. The relationship of dierent levels of analysis is interdependent
and it is important to study media entrepreneurship with an attention to the influence
of other levels. Therefore, and with respect to its importance, it is strongly suggested
that researchers of this field study the media entrepreneurship in levels of micro,
meso and macro and to explore the interrelationship of levels.
Macro level: Majority of entrepreneurship studies of media were mostly micro or
industry level (Hoag, 2008, p.74). However, a number of studies with focus on the macro
level of media entrepreneurship have been published. Loucks (1988) implied that
entrepreneurship is culture-based and the policy for promotion of entrepreneurship
is a cultural policy. Rae (2002, p.59) explained that distinction of media firms and
other production/service firms lies in cultural entrepreneurship. Dana and Dana
(2005) points out that governments around the world should foster entrepreneurship
by considering social and economic values and for this reason apply a universal
framework across varied cultures is not applicable. Khajeheian (2014) studied media
entrepreneurship policy and how the government may foster entrepreneurship in
their societies by relevant policies. In 2016 he also stated that U.S communication act
is a major determinant in promotion of media entrepreneurship.
Meso level: Most of research on the subject of media entrepreneurship are in the
firm level. Dennis et al (2006) in a study of strategies of media companies showed
that digital technologies eect on operational levels of media firms such as hiring
patterns and acquisition of creativity, analytical abilities, and technical knowledge.
Khajeheian (2013) studied the commercialization of media entrepreneurs’ digital
innovations at the level of firms. He proposed a framework of five parts, including
four controllable parts (Product, Resources, Enterprise, Strategy) and one out
of control part of the infrastructure. Again Khajeheian (2016) studied audience
commodification as a business model for entrepreneurial media firms to motivate
favourite behaviour in users by the rewarding system to engage more users.
Micro level: Researches into the micro level study media entrepreneurs as
individuals and aim to answer questions such as what is characteristics of media
entrepreneurs, what derive people to act entrepreneurially in the media industry,
and similar questions that are in relation with individuals’ intentions, actions and
behaviours? Opportunity development that was discussed in the literature review
section of this paper studies a part of the process of media entrepreneurship in the
micro level. Hoag and Compaine (2006) interviewed fourteen media entrepreneurs
to discover attributes of the “individual-opportunity nexus” that may be unique to
media industries and media entrepreneurship. In another study, Achtenhagen and
Welter (2003) studied female entrepreneurs in Germany and their reflection in the
German media. Such researches investigate the subject in individual level.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
107
AD-MINISTER
Figure 2. Some suggested subjects for study of media entrepreneurship in different
levels of analysis.
Meso level: Strategic positioning, niche market, competency, emerging markets,
business models, resource management, contracts, competitiveness, so on.
Macro level: Policy, Regulations, Ecosystems, Governmental and International
strategies, plans and actions that effect on entrepreneurship, economic trends, political
issues, social changes, so on.
Micro level: Characteristics and behavior of media entrepreneurs, creativity, talent,
management, psychological drivers of entrepreneurship, alertness, design thinking,
opportunity recognition, personal abilities, social ties, so on.
Emerging trends that aect media entrepreneurship are important areas in the study
of media entrepreneurship. In 2016, media market was still characterized as a two-
sided market, this implies on serving consumers via content and serving advertisers
by audiences’ attention and time (Lowe, 2016; Doyle, 2016; Medina et al, 2016; von
Rimscha; 2016). But this two-sided is evolving to a multi-sided market with regards to
parties being served by media firms. For example, big data is a new and few-discussed
source of income for media entrepreneurs. Collection of users’ information and
selling of them is one growing business model.
Also, there are new business models based on free delivery of value to consumers,
aimed at growing the number of users and then selling of the media firm or product
to a larger company. For example, by popularity of Telegram mobile messenger in
Iran, an emerging business model is the sale of the administration of a channel with
a large number of users. In this case the admins of a channel create or collect media
content and deliver it to interested users to keep them as subscribers and then sell
this channel at a price based on the number of followers.
User commodification became a popular model for media entrepreneurs in recent
years, following the success of Google advertising model. Audience commodification
is the process where customers oer themselves as a commodity to receive value
from businesses that sell higher-value advertising opportunities (Khajeheian, 2016,
p.44). The current use of Google services is a type of audience commodification

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
108
AD-MINISTER
that consumers oer their personal information and interests to benefit from the
free services. Facebook users do the same to receive the value of this service by
providing their personal information, their favorites, their moods, the places they
have visited or plan to visit, etc.
Another area with a poor research background is the measure of media
entrepreneurship. Excluding Anne Hoag’s research in 2008, no other research
in the subject of measures has been found. For such a broad and wide-defining
concept of media entrepreneurship, understanding and identifying the
measures play a determining role. Hoag suggests static and dynamic measures
for media entrepreneurship, such as organizations-per-capita, turbulence, and
nascent entrepreneurship. Rae implies that the vital factor in success of media
entrepreneurship is the narration that led entrepreneur to the creation of a new
venture: “The enterprises themselves are constructed by their founders through
their discourse. They tell a good story” (2002, p.59). Also the life cycle of the media
sector is an important factor in measuring, e.g. entrepreneurship in the publishing
industry is in decline, while in telecommunication, broadcasting and cable,
entrepreneurship is growing (Hoag, 2008).
Conducting researches in the above mentioned subjects may open the door
for better understanding of media entrepreneurship and may shed light on the
unexplored aspects of this important and less-studied discipline.
REFERENCES
Achtenhagen, L. (2008). Understanding entrepreneurship in traditional media. Journal of Media Business
Studies, 5(1), 123-142.
Achtenhagen, L., & Welter, F. (2003). Female entrepreneurship in Germany: Context, development and its
reflection in German media. New perspectives on women entrepreneurs, 71-100.
Anderson, A. R., & Starnawska, M. (2008). Research practices in entrepreneurship Problems of definition,
description and meaning. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9(4), 221-230.
Backman, J. (1983). Entrepreneurship and the outlook for America, Free Press, New York.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bernhard, I. & Karlsson, C. (2014). Editorial, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
21(3), 269-274.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
109
AD-MINISTER
Birch, D. L. (1987). Job Creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to work. Free
Press, New York.
Carland, J.A., Carland, J.W., & Stewart, W.H. (1996). Seeing what’s not there: The enigma of
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy 7(1), 1-20.
Capra, R., Battaglia, M. A., Gaudioso, A., Lopes, L., Paolicelli, D., Paoloni, M., ... & Trojano, M. (2014). The
MoSt Project––More Steps in multiple sclerosis: A Delphi method consensus initiative for the evaluation
of mobility management of MS patients in Italy. Journal of neurology, 261(3), 526-532.
Chua, A., Deans, K., & Parker, C. (2009). Exploring the types of SMEs which could use blogs as a marketing
tool: a proposed future research agenda. Australiasian journal of information systems, 16(1), 117-136.
Dana, L. P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic community. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
20, 57-72.
Dana, L. P., & Dana, T. E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 79-88.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2007). Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), 323-339.
Dennis, E. E., Warley, S., & Sheridan, J. (2006). Doing digital: An assessment of the top 25 US media
companies and their digital strategies. Journal of Media Business Studies, 3(1), 33-51.
Derham, R., Cragg, P., & Morrish, S. (2011). Creating Value: An SME and Social Media. In PACIS (paper 53).
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship practice and principles. Harper and Row. New York.
Dubini, P. & Provera, B. (2008) Chart Success and Innovation in the Music Industry: Does Organizational Form
Matter?, Journal of Media Business Studies, 5(1), 41-65.
Dyerson, R., Harindranath, G. and Barnes, D. (2009) National Survey of SMEs’ Use of IT in Four Sectors. The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation.12 (1) 39-50.
Emami, A. (2017), Gender risk preference in entrepreneurial opportunity: evidence from Iran. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 30(2): 147–169.
Emami, A., & Dimov, D. (2016). Degree of innovation and the entrepreneurs’ intention to create value: a
comparative study of experienced and novice entrepreneurs. Eurasian Business Review, 1-22.

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
110
AD-MINISTER
Filion, L. J. (2004). Operators and visionaries: differences in the entrepreneurial and managerial systems of
two types of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(1-2), 35-55.
Foss, N.J. and Klein, P.G. (2012) Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm, 1st ed.,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Fuduric, N. (2008). The Sources of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Perspectives on Individuals and Institutions.
Aalborg University Publication series, 7.
Fuerst, S. (2010). Global value chains and local cluster development: a perspective on domestic small
enterprises in the 3D-animation industry in Colombia. AD-minister, (16), 83-98.
Geho, P., Smith, S., & Lewis, S. D. (2010). Is Twitter a viable commercial use platform for small businesses? An
empirical study targeting two audiences in the small business community. The Entrepreneurial Executive,
15, 73-85.
Hang, M., & Van Weezel, A. (2005). Media and entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature relating both
concepts. In 18th Scandinavian Academy of Management Meeting, Aarhus School of Business.
Hang, M. & van Weezel, A. (2007) Media and Entrepreneurship: What Do We Know and Where Should We
Go?, Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(1), 51-70.
Hang, M. (2016). Media Corporate Entrepreneurship. Springer Publications.
Harris, L., & Rae, A. (2009). Social networks: the future of marketing for small business. Journal of business
strategy, 30(5), 24-31.
Hoag, A. (2008). Measuring Media Entrepreneurship 1. The International Journal on Media Management,
10(2), 74-80.
Hoag, A., and Compaine.B. (2006). Media Entrepreneurship in the Era of Big Media: Prospects for New
Entrants. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The Strategy of Economic Development, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Hisrich, R. D., & Ramadani, V. (2017). Effective Entrepreneurial Management. Springer International Publishing.
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical assessment,
research & evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
111
AD-MINISTER
Keyhani, M. (2016). Computer Simulation Studies of the Entrepreneurial Market Process. In Complexity in
Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research (pp. 117-137). Springer International Publishing.
Khajeheian, D., & Roshandel Arbatani, T. (2011). Remediation of Media Markets toward Media
Entrepreneurship, how recession reconstructed media industry. In European Media Management
Association Conference 2011.
Khajeheian, D. (2013). New Venture Creation in Social Media Platform; Towards a Framework for Media
Entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Social Media Management (pp. 125-142). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Khajeheian, D. (2014), A Perspective on Media Entrepreneurship Policy: Globalization of Knowledge and
Opportunities for Developing Economies. Journal of Globalization Studies, 5(2), 174-187.
Khajeheian, D. & Tadayoni, R. (2016). User innovation in public service broadcasts: creating public value by media
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commencialisation, 14(2), 117-131.
Khajeheian, D. (2016). Audience Commodification: A Source of Innovation in Business Models. Technology
Innovation Management Review, 6(8), 40-47.
Kuckertz, A., & Mandl, C. (2016). Capturing the Complexity and Ambiguity of Academic Fields: Determining
Consensual Definitions for Small Business Research, Entrepreneurship and Their Shared Interface. In
Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research (pp. 417-438). Springer International
Publishing.
Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and development. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 72-83.
Lohuis, A. M., van Vuuren, M., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Context-specific definitions of organizational concepts:
Defining ‘team effectiveness’ with use of the Delphi Technique. Journal of Management & Organization,
19(6), 706-720.
Loucks, K. (1988) in Peterson, R., Peterson, M.A. and Tieken, N.B., Encouraging Entrepreneurship
Internationally, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, 13, 14.
Lowe, G. F. (2016). Introduction: What’s So Special About Media Management?. In Managing Media Firms and
Industries (pp. 1-20). Springer International Publishing.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity recognition
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451-472.
Lund, A. B. (2016). A Stakeholder Approach to Media Governance. In Managing Media Firms and Industries
(pp. 103-120). Springer International Publishing.

Datis Khajeheian
Media entrepreneurship: a consensual definition
112
AD-MINISTER
Medina, M., Sánchez-Tabernero, A., & Arrese, Á. (2016). Contents as Products in Media Markets. In Managing
Media Firms and Industries (pp. 243-259). Springer International Publishing.
Napoli, P. M. (2016). The Audience as Product, Consumer, and Producer in the Contemporary Media
Marketplace. In Managing Media Firms and Industries (pp. 261-275). Springer International Publishing.
Omer Attali, M., & Yemini, M. (2016). Initiating consensus: stakeholders define entrepreneurship in education.
Educational Review, 1-18.
Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors,
industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of business venturing, 22(2), 174-192.
Parker, C., & Castleman, T. (2007). New directions for research on SME-eBusiness: insights from an analysis of
journal articles from 2003-2006. Journal of information systems and small business, 1(1), 21-40.
Picard, R. G. (2004) A Typology of Risk in Family Media Enterprises, Journal of Media Business Studies, 1(1),
71-83.
Rae, D. (2002). Entrepreneurial emergence: A narrative study of entrepreneurial learning in independently
owned media businesses. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(1), 53-59.
Reca, A. A. (2006). Issues in Media Product. Handbook of media management and economics, 181-201.
Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. (2010). Do openness to experience and recognizing
opportunities have the same genetic source? Human Resource Management, 49(2), 291-303.
Singh, R. P. (2001). A comment on developing the field of entrepreneurship through the study of opportunity
recognition and exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 10-12.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entreprenership as a Field of Research. Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 217-226
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (2007). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. In
Entrepreneurship (pp. 155-170). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Tuomola, A. (2004) Disintermediation and Reintermediation of the Sound Recording Value Chain: Two Case
Studies, Journal of Media Business Studies, 1(1), 27-46.
Turow, J. (2011). Media today: An introduction to mass communication. Routledge. 4th Edition.
Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P. A. (2010). Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective
on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 73-86.

AD-minister Nº. 30 january-june 2017 pp. 91 - 113 · ISSN 1692-0279 · eISSN 2256-4322
113
AD-MINISTER
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in entrepreneurship,
firm emergence and growth, 3(1), 119-138.
Vivarelli, M. (2013). Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and
developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change 22(6): 1453–1495
von Rimscha, M. B. (2016). Business Models of Media Industries: Describing and Promoting Commodification.
In Managing Media Firms and Industries (pp. 207-222). Springer International Publishing.
Vos, T. P. & Singer, J. B. (2016) Media Discourse About Entrepreneurial Journalism, Journalism Practice, 10(2),
143-159.
Wielicki, T & Arendt, L. (2010). A knowledge-driven shift in perception of ICT implementation barriers:
Comparative study of US and European SMEs. Journal of Information Science, 36, 162-174.
Will, A., Brüntje, D., & Gossel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial Venturing and Media Management. In Managing
Media Firms and Industries (pp. 189-206). Springer International Publishing.
Wu, B., & Knott, A. M. (2006). Entrepreneurial risk and market entry. Management science, 52(9), 1315-1330.
Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of
entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 32(5), 479-500.