Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261134147

The Cultural Product: Integration and


Relational Approach,

Chapter January 2014


DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5007-7.ch001

CITATIONS READS

0 596

2 authors:

Claudia Cacia Lucia Aiello


Universit degli Studi di Salerno Universit Telematica "Universitas Mercator
23 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucia Aiello on 18 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
THE CULTURAL PRODUCT:
INTEGRATION AND RELATIONAL
APPROACHi
Lucia Aiello
Universitas Mercatorum, Rome, Italy
Claudia Cacia
University of Salerno, Italy

ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the authors approaches the theme of the definition and classification of cultural products
according to the major Italian and international authors dealing with the issue, knowing that culture,
before being the core product of an enterprise, belongs to people. They argue for more theoretical
discussion into the organizational and managerial dynamics of cultural product, drawing from the
consideration that to date management research is neglecting cultural product as a serious object of
investigation despite its economic, social, and political significance. Starting from the analysis of the
main literature on "culture", the authors show a new concept of cultural property: the integrated cultural
product. Moreover, the analysis of cultural product, the distinctive characteristics and dynamics of
cultural industries are made adopting a relational approaches . As a result, the aim of this work is to
define the unique dynamics of the integrated cultural product in a relational perspective.

INTRODUCTION
Cultureii is considered a common good, a key element of communitys wellbeing, for the entire humanity
(refer to the definition and classification of Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO), and as such
everyone is responsible for preserving, maintaining and developing it. "Culture" defies easy definition
(Knight, 1999). It is not just the arts, but the larger meaning of our pastimes, habits, images, institutions,
perspectives on the world, collective memory and our bilingualism and multiculturalism" (Canada Vital
Link, 1987). Such a broad definition makes it difficult to grasp fully the precise scope of the subject being
considered. However, in the context of the culture debate, the concern is both with culture per se both
with the means by which it is delivered, that is to say, cultural industries.
The term cultural industries encompasses a wide variety of commodified activities, including the mass
media (print and broadcast media and advertising), film, new media, art, design, music, and architecture.
Conversely, although it is an important area of research and of economic activity, there has been a
significant gap in systematic studies of these industries (DiMaggio and Hirsch 1976; Pratt 1997a; Sadler
1997; Scott 2000b; Powder, 2002).
Due to the importance of such industries in the dissemination of culture, different governments have
sought to provide support for their maintenance and growth. The more complicated questions are for the
debate around culture in considering if whether cultural products are goods or services and also, whether
cultural products from different countries constitute "like" or "directly competitive or substitutable"
products. Despite the importance of these issue, the previous consideration reflects the confusion created
by the dual nature of culture.
Braun and Leigh Parker have noted that culture does not fit easily into the definition of either a service or
a good. Clearly, cultural products have both significant service and good components. In this context
services seem to be more labour-intensive and less tangible than goods, so cultural performances more
closely resemble services. As well, things such as legal and financial services involve the dissemination
of information, or skill and knowledge; this dissemination appears analogous to the role played by books,

6
periodicals and even audio-visual products-all of which are clearly physical products. Many cultural
products must exist in physical form in order to be distributed to potential audiences (for example a legal
opinion may be contained within a written memo, but this would not transform it from a service into a
good). Technological advances have blurred the distinction further, as satellites and the Internet now
allow cultural products to reach wide audiences without being packaged and shipped across borders. For
these reasons, it is impossible to fit culture neatly into either category of good or service. Although, the
WTO put a little clearly on the question of how cultural products are to be treated but disputes will likely
continue as to whether culture is a good or service (Bernier, 2005; Lhr. 2010).
Culture is also an exchange value so it is a product (good, service, idea), but one that calls for good,
consistent and shared economic, social and cultural models (AA.VV, 2005), these models however, must
not disregard the UNESCOs definition of World Cultural Heritage considering culture a good belonging
to all mankind: "Everyone must be enabled to enjoy culture" - "Culture is a world heritage site"
(UNESCO, 2005).
The key to addressing this debate is to acknowledge, as Voon does, that cultural products have cultural as
well as commercial value, and to understand that cultural value is highly prized, just as is the multi-
billion-dollar industry that produces cultural products (Voon, 2007). Accordingly, many authors such as
Bassett (1993), Bianchini (1993), Bryan et al. (2000), Dziembowska-Kowalska and Funck (1999), Fuchs
(2002), Heilbrun and Gray (1993), Hudson (1995), Landry (2000), Lorente (2002), Myerscough (1988),
OConnor (1998), Throsby (2001), Weinstein and Clower (2000), and Whitt (1987), among others, have
all commented on the potentialities of the cultural economy for job creation and urban regeneration in
stagnating areas, and value creation (Scott, 2004).
In this perspective, this research approaches the theme of the definition and classification of cultural
products according to the major Italian and international authors dealing with the issue, knowing that
culture, before being the core product of an enterprise, belongs to people.
From this perspective, cultural products should be under attention, well known, must be disclosed and
attractive and spread through a common and accessible "language". The analysis of the main literature on
"culture" leads to a new concept of cultural property: the integrated cultural product(Ferri & Aiello,
2009).

1. THE CULTURAL PRODUCT


The role of culture in the economy has been an increasing interest role in recent years. Despite the
relevance of this theme, it is quite problematic to understand exactly its role, because of perhaps the most
difficult step in attempting to approach cultural topics is to define what exactly is. The numerous
definitions frequently become unclear, so it is better to understand what is not, a part of culture.
Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of
the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance (Hoebel, 1966). Products in
which is embedded artistic or literary creations deriving from a culture may be considered to be cultural
products (African Union, 2006). This kind of product consist of characteristic elements of the traditional
artistic heritage developed and maintained by a community or by individuals in different way.
Cultural products should be defined as a societys creative expression and artistic forms, as well as its
traditional knowledge and practices, which reflect a living culture and express the distinctive material,
intellectual, spiritual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group.
Hirsch (1972) defines cultural product as nonmaterial goods directed at a public of consumers, for
whom they generally serve an aesthetic or expressive, rather than a clear utilitarian function.
Accordingly, Lampel, Lant, and Shamsie (2000) defined cultural products as nonmaterial goods that serve
less their utilitarian function than their aesthetic or expressive functions. Although the stress on the
nonmaterial nature of cultural products has been largely debatable in the past, in light of the existence of a
reciprocal relationship between culture and economy in that as culture becomes more commodified,
commodities themselves become more aestheticized and culture laden (see also Bourdieu 1992; Harvey
1992; Mitchell 1995; Zukin 1991). It is quite difficult to differentiate between culture products and those
that are not: there is often, for instance, a fine line between buying a car as a utilitarian good and buying it
as a personal ornament, mode of social display, or aestheticized object (Powder, 2002).
Therefore, cultural products encompass both goods and service: often leads to the production of
numerous goods such as sculptures, painting as well as services such as cultural performance, opinion,
7
music. Both are often incorporated in a physical support (i.e. books, periodicals and even audio-visual
products-all of which are clearly physical products as well as a legal opinion may be contained within a
written memo, but this would not transform it from a service into a good). So, it is clear that culture does
not fit easily into the definition of either a service or a good.
According to more spread definition, cultural products are goods and services that include the arts
(performing arts, visual arts, architecture), heritage conservation (museums, galleries, libraries), the
cultural industries (written media, broadcasting, film, recording), and festivals. UNESCO has declared
that these products are not like other forms of merchandise.
Some of the cultural products express symbolic meanings, which endows them with a cultural value or
significance distinct from whatever commercial value they may possess. As cultural products are heavy
on signification (Hesmondhalgh 2002) and essentially communicates or transmits meaning (Gibson and
Kong 2005; Asheim et al. 2007), therefore also the receiving side of this communication or transmission,
the consumption side, has been closely scrutinized and important.
A part of its nature, it is possible to affirm that these products are mainly classified in four basic
components: these are mainly artistic product itself; spin off products, related services and consumers
experience of the product (Hanks, 2012). The first component is the product itself which is the result of
the work of an individual creator or by a team of work creators, generally artists, that should be a service,
a product or a combination of both elements.
So, to be classified in this categories, the "Cultural product" should also have a relational components,
which not only encompass the 4P of marketing, but also should involve third parties, such as the
consumers (Kotler, 2012). Since cultural products are highly related to individuals and groups
expression of identity and position (Bourdieu 1984; Lash and Urry 1994; Zukin 1995), social, cultural
and political aspects of a places class system, gender relations, race and ethnic relations, and religious
beliefs will have profound effects on the practices and trajectories by which firms products find shape
and meaning (Power, 2010: 14).
Therefore in a market economy, the consumers come in contact with creative artists labour. In this
respect, there are mainly three aspects which are involved around the central component. These aspects
are mainly spinning off products, related services and consumers experience including attached to the
product.
Furthermore, the culture and its context play a crucial role in fostering the creation of cultural products in
cities as well as the role of technology. Changing technology is reshaping the role of cities in the creation
of cultural products. The benefits of cultural production are likely much larger than they might appear at
first glance, given that they contribute to valued social goods like national identity and social cohesion as
well as for business. In the following paragraph we deep on these arguments.

2. THE CULTURAL INDUSTRY AND CULTURAL ECONOMY


Solima (2006) provides a theoretical framework of cultural enterprises, by defining them as those
performing an activity of prevalent artistic and cultural content, in order to achieve an objective of social
order, "the communitys cultural growth." The cultural enterprise, just like any other enterprise, needs
adequate tangible and intangible assets, that is an appropriate working capital to achieve its institutional
mission.
The author brings out two main needs in the definition and grouping of cultural activities in order to
configure the cultural enterprise:
Management, though it can be united generally for many cultural activities, has elements of great
divergence, as the configuration of activities and cultural heritage is wide and diverse (Solima,
2004).
The definition of the production process of the service/product offered cannot be generalized.
The author in light of the analysis of the cultural enterprise considers that the process of cultural
production of the service offered cannot be generalized into a single model for all cultural enterprises, but
depends on the type of cultural enterprise. The considerations set out above highlight some critical
elements of cultural product, in particular the specificity and peculiarity of each product configuration.
Several authors such as Solima (2011; 2004), Colbert (2003; 2004), Bollo (2008) argued on parts of the
overall cultural market, precisely for these reasons Solima, in dealing with cultural enterprise, chooses
only some of the possible configurations, pointing out that they are only part of the complex landscape of
cultural goods and activities. The configurations of cultural enterprise considered by the author are
8
theatres and opera foundations, libraries, archives, museums and archaeological sites, festivals called
actors of the system (Solima, 2004: 55-83). In light of those considerations we can identify the following
questions: the first one is to provide a general and unique model related to cultural product; the second
one is to reflecting on the specificity of the objective of the study.
Cultural features then are considered to be a unique character to embed into a product both for the
enhancement of product identity in the global market and for the fulfillment of the individual consumers
experiences. The cultural product, in fact, is a consistent mix of single elements; giving to it size and
value the individual draws from consumption experiences (Trimarchi, 2005).
According to Colbert (2003) art and culture are any product or business at the base of which there is an
"act of artistic creation" (Colbert et al., 2004).
Even this author, in developing a marketing to culture defines and characterizes the players engaged in
delivering it as the cultural enterprises. Specifically, what is interesting in the authors classification is the
grouping of enterprises both in the strict sense and in the broad sense as in the table 1.

Table n. 1. The cultural enterprise in Colberts model.

INSERT HERE TABLE N. 1

Source: our elaboration on Colbert F., (2004), Marketing delle arti e della cultura, ETAS, p. 3.

According to Colbert the firm in the strict sense consists of the performing arts, especially of those in
which the core business is a "direct contact" between the artist, his art and the consumer. The firm in the
broad sense is represented by the cultural industry and the media (for example, film industry, newspaper)
whose core business is an art product (good or service) coming from a production and/or distributive
process where the "contact between the artist, his art and the consumer is indirect".
It should be said, however, that from Colberts publication to the present, technological innovation has
provided more advanced tools that have been reducing the difference between the strict sense group and
the broad sense group, until they will merge. Infact, the difference between business and industry is
centered on the direct contact between the public and the arts:
in the strict sense: direct contact.
in the broad sense: indirect contact.
This distinction has been taken up, enhanced and partly analyzed into Italian context by Ferri in a recent
study (2009) whose objective was define, in their general aspects, all cultural activities aside from a legal
point of view", just reducing Cultural Property to movable and immovable property, excluding consumer
goods and services" (Ferri, 2007).
The author, define the cultural good accordingly with the Italian Legislative Decree no. 42/2004 whose
Art. 2, defines cultural goods as immovable and movable things which, in accordance with Articles 10
and 11, are artistic, historical, archaeological, ethno-anthropological, archival and bibliographic and other
things identified by law or under the law as evidence with value of civilization. From the definition of the
Legislative Decree she takes a broader view and analyzes all activities having cultural purposes but not
falling within the definition of the Italian Legislative Decree mentioned.
So one step further Colberts is a general definition of cultural good "as a movable and immovable good
(in the strict sense), activities, services and any other consumer good (in the broad sense) having a direct
and/or indirect contact with the culture of one or more civilizations.
For the author cultural products share a social objective, namely the common cultural growth with a view
to enhancing the economic value of both a recording or film product and a museum. This does not mean
to exclude the economic purpose; the author rather emphasizes the need "to pursue both the development
of the good and the protection and preservation of the culture" (Colbert, 2000). The cultural value,
therefore, does not prevail over the economic value, but combines with it in the mix of development of
the good, protection and preservation of the culture, it follows that the artistic creation is a starting point
in the planning of development policies (Ferri, 2007).
So, cultural value is identified as an influential factor on brand image and is widely accepted as one of the
crucial concepts in understanding consumer consumption value, which determines choices of consuming
everyday products and services (Park & Rabolt, 2009). Culture provides a sort of shared understanding
among people in a society that allows them to predict and coordinate social activities (Sternquist, 1998),
9
and cultural values refer to the core of the entire cultures mindset shared by a society (McGregor, 2000).
These issues bring to another distinction utilized internationally, related to the concepts of cultural
property and heritage. The concept of cultural property (Protection) dominates in the Italian scenario
whereas Heritage (heritage, economic enhancement) prevails at international level, so with a view to
sharing past and contemporary cultures at a global level, we cannot disregard an internationally shared
definition of culture as the one provided by Ferri (2009). Cultural enterprises are therefore united by
artistic creations that can be audio, visual, written, regardless of the historical period they were produced.
Each company has to activate, manage and maintain a production and distribution chain of artistic
creations, live or reproduced, belonging to past or contemporary cultures.
Cultural-products industries can thus be identified in concrete terms as an ensemble of sectors offering (1)
service outputs that focus on entertainment, edification, and information (e.g., motion pictures, recorded
music, print media, or museums) and (2) manufactured products through which consumers construct
distinctive forms of individuality, self-affirmation, and social display (e.g., fashion clothing or jewelry)
(Scott, 2004). The cultural economy, then, constitutes a rather incoherent collection of industries (Scott,
2000). Cultural-products industries are therefore significantly on the rise of late, and they constitute an
important and growing element of modern economic systems. So, cultural industries, and the cultural
economy as a whole, are becoming increasingly prominent in post-industrial societies (Lash and Urry
1994; Zukin 1995, 1998; Scott 2000a; Throsby 2001; Kloosterman 2004; Currid 2007).
The cultural products emerging from these cultural industries are often strictly embedded with cultural
elements specific to the localities or regions where they are produced. In fact, local or regional histories
and cultures that inform the design and manufacturing of such products, or inform the technical, creative
and social processes underlying their production should thus be seen as unique selling points that insulate
producers in these industries from extra-local or extra-regional competition (Pratt 2008). The
uniqueness in cultural products makes their demand non-substitutable (Deinema, 2008). However, the
vast range of alternative cultural products available to consumers separates the cultural industries from
many other industries. The fact that there are some many substitutes available in cultural product
categories reflects the fact that consumers are highly interested in the choices they make and the in the
possibility of continually changing and swapping the cultural artefacts that surround them (Power, 2008).
So, this condition shift to description of cultural system towards the involvement of customer in a
relational perspective. In this view it is important to clarify in detail the subjects and actors involved in
the system - cultural chain, the main elements and the link with the context in which this are expresses; so
in the following sections we describe all the components which contribute to delineate the concept of
integrated cultural products.

2.1 The cultural chain


Once we have identified the macro-groups of cultural enterprises we need to identify the micro-groups.
On the basis of the functions identified by Colbert - design, production, reproduction, protection and
distribution - there are cultural enterprises dealing with all these functions and enterprises managing just a
part of the cultural chain.
In figure 1, we show the cultural chain, and introduce the classification of the players involved on the
basis of the above mentioned functions. The players involved in the cultural chain are just suggestions for
researchers to analyze the cultural product.

Figure n. 1 - The cultural chain.


INSERT HERE FIGURE N. 1
Source: authors elaboration and development on Colberts model, 2004, pp. 4

The figure shows the production/distribution chain of the cultural enterprise.


Several players operate in the cultural chain both independently and as part of the industry human
resources (or collaborators of the artist).
The main player is the artist who directly or indirectly manage the production/distribution of the artistic
creation, next to which integrative activities are vertically held. Without these activities the production
and distribution of culture cannot be achieved. These activities are the design, assigned to a designer and

10
the reproduction/displaying represented by the cultural activity. Support activities that are in the
horizontal part of the chain are the protection, which is usually carried out by a person/public institution
and distribution, which can also be performed by an external cultural distribution agency.
Each element in the cultural chain can be self-managed or managed in accordance with the market logic.
The cultural enterprise should consists of one or more undertakings which independently or linked carry
out all or part of the above considered activities. The objective of the cultural chain representation is two-
fold:
1. to connect into a system "along" the chain the actors and activities involved, identifying their
roles and tasks;
2. to provide a first distinction and classification of the cultural enterprise.
The representation also identify the main actors of the cultural system (Barile, 2009), on the basis of the
functions they perform. A designer is responsible for the design and planning of artistic creation; a
cultural distribution agency is responsible for distribution and promotion activities. Both the artist and the
industry can carry out the production/distribution activities, the cultural operator is responsible for
reproduction/displaying activities, the task of protection is the responsibility of a specific person /
institution, which may be the manager or the appropriate authority/local authority. According to the
functional/organizational meaning we propose in this work, the cultural enterprise is the one self-
performing or giving others all activities along the cultural chain. The choice to represent the chain as a
system results from the desire to explain the sense of unity and connection of all elements of the cultural
enterprise, regardless of the subject's legal and economic unity. Some examples may better explain the
contents of the figure 1. Theatre companies, for example, can be both cultural enterprises and simply
artists on tour, which rely on agencies for distribution.
The display areas just exhibit works of art, protecting them for a limited period of time; on the other hand
a museum constantly exposes and saves them. So, this explanation allow us to introduce a further
distinction between cultural enterprise and "limited" cultural enterprise, the latter potentially embodying
undertakings self-managing or assigning to third parties the activities along the culture chain, such as the
Editorials, where retail distribution is entrusted to news-stands, while all other functions depend on the
publisher.
A company, a business, a subject, a cultural agency, or an artist may occupy part or all of the cultural
chain, in relation to what they will have different size, structure, sector and function, so we must consider
several criteria in order to classify them (Colbert, 2004). The first concerns the company mission, which
may be product-oriented (e.g. museum) or market-oriented (i.e. record label). The second refers to the
mode of production, which can be unique (unique and original, e.g. framework) or reproducible (e.g.
music CDs), these criteria enable researchers to distinguish cultural enterprises from artistic enterprises
(Colbert, 2004).
Therefore, the product as a creative act is the result of activities carried out by cultural enterprises and it
must have a "cultural" content (Colbert, 2004:21).

2.2. The cultural consumers


Cultural enterprises generally put on the market a range of products, such as theatre and film products, or
a line of products, such as dramatic plays, comedies and ballets, bookcrossings (which gives new life to
books avoiding the slow death buried in dust, passing them to new reader), community reading (the
simultaneous enjoying by the resident community of a certain area ), etc.; by the way, cultural products as
well as the new forms of cultural supply are gradually increasing their success due to growing demand.
Likewise, cultural production so far reserved to experts is being increasingly appreciated by a much
wide audience. Most people have the resources and time to choose a portfolio of cultural products that
includes both domestic and imported products, and perhaps also a mixture of different types of cultural
products.
So, the involvement of customer are growing intensely. The cultural product consumption, in fact, should
be seen as something active, and that the understanding and appreciation of cultural products demands
knowledge on the part of the customer, although to varying degrees depending on the specific product.
For that reason it is important for enterprises and culture industries creating a structured relationship with
customers, but contextually, create and differentiate the cultural product to gain advantage on national
and international competitors.
11
Difference in cultural product categories is a complex mix of factors and it may be defined by product
specific and firm managed characteristics: such as price, product design, packaging, functionality,
performance or technological sophistication (Power, 2010: 6). Equally difference is based on highly
subjective and value-based judgments about immaterial product characteristics - such as products beauty,
desirability, usability, or sophistication - that are superimposed upon products by consumers, users, fans,
critics and others (Power, 2010). The differentiation becomes a central motive in cultural product markets
for both firms trying to sell cultural products and for consumers trying to match products with their tastes;
only in this case it is possible to gain a unique position able to make customers less sensitive of
competing substitutes (Sharp & Dawes, 2001).
Focusing on differentiation means that firms will, for example, focus attention on marketing as well as
consumer relations. Differentiation also entails a far greater role for consumers and other interested
parties (Power, 2010:8). Consumers have a central role in construction of meaning, in fact consumption
always involves actors specialized and negotiation of meaning and value. Moreover, as we define below,
part of the value customers derive from consuming cultural products is that the experience is shared with
others. The focal role of cultural experience is confirmed by the wide spread of cognitive features in
determining the value of products. In such aspect a positive experience justifies the extra price paid by the
consumer, strengthens loyalty and above all it encourages word-of-mouth, a fundamental form of
marketing. According to Trimarchi (2007), in the past, cultural experiences were only driven by emotions
(the so called Stendhal effect); today consumers are replacing this ancient approach with a cognitive and
perceptive process that implies the more individuals consume cultural products the more they accumulate
knowledge, as suggested by the cultural addiction theory (Stigler and Becker, 1977).
Differently from other industries, the cultural product industry bases the competitive advantage and the
commercial development not only on the premium price or technology innovation. Therefore, successful
products may be based on cutting edge technologies (for instance movies) or equally on age-old craft
traditions (such as jewellery) (Power, 2010). So, what is important is that product offerings differentiate
themselves from available substitute and that culture enterprises building a strong relations with
customers, able to be durable over the time.
It is also true that the panorama of cultural consumption is changing rapidly due to the creation of
unconventional markets (Ghirelli, 2011). Cultural product is moving towards a more experiential forms of
consumption, no longer focused only on the past but also the present and the future, with interests ranging
from highbrow culture to popular mass culture, fashion, design and architecture. This situation requires a
new understanding of the phenomenon, so that effective managing strategies can be designed.

3. THE ELEMENTS OF CULTURAL PRODUCT


To define a cultural product it is necessary to analyze the characteristics of basic elements such as
consumption, related services and the value that consumer gives to it. The starting point for defining the
elements of the cultural product is the analysis of the three dimensions proposed by Colbert: referential,
technical and circumstantial (Colbert, 2004). The first dimension provides a framework in order to
identify the type of product. Those allow to compare it with others products on the basis of the reference
subject of the artistic product, gender, history of competing products and substitutes. The technical
dimension includes all technical components, specifications characterizing the work of art and can be:
the main element of cultural product, such as a special effect on the theatrical stage;
the vehicle through which it spreads, for example an e-TV;
the product itself, such as an MP3.
The last dimension, the circumstantial, depends on two elements: the context in which the product is
located and consumers perceptions affected by the state of mind during the act of consumption. These
two elements are unique even in case of repeated use (e.g. music CD).
Accordingly, the cultural product, considered from the marketing perspective, must be defined from the
point of view of the consumer, and includes a set of tangible and/or intangible elements having value for
the consumer as he benefits from it (Colbert, 2004). The essential element of consumption should be
closely linked to an artistic product. The related services, however, may consist of support services or
additional services to the range of products offered, for example, a shuttle service and catering as such
with respect to the core business that may not have a direct and immediate link with culture. With
reference to Italian legislation, in line with the Decree URBANI (Dlds, 2004) cultural enterprises, after
obtaining the necessary local licenses, may exercise commercial activities related to the artistic ones;
12
however, sometimes subjects who not consuming the work of art cannot access to related services, such
as a coffee bar in a museum. Moreover the related services can be both free and fee. The value, that is the
last element of cultural product is, in general, the sacrifice that people are disposed to pay for acquiring
the availability of any object. This sacrifice in its turn is a function of the benefits people believe they can
draw from that object (Woman, 1999: 65).
Consequently, it is possible to distinguish two dimensions of value: expectations and subjectivity.
Expectations are anticipations of future evaluations, individual subjectivity is the ability to assign a
quantitative or qualitative value to the object. From the size of the value derives the partial or total
inability to provide an objective measure of any element of the evaluation. Although several authors have
proposed models for assessing the value and its way of creation, with reference to cultural enterprises the
field is still unexplored.
The definition of cultural product adopted from the authors offers several elements that contribute to
evaluation, such as enterprise-customer relationship and the territory-product relationship.
Regarding the first one, a significant component depends on specific characteristics of culture: both for
consumer of the cultural product and for cultural enterprises, the dimensions of value are multiple and
closely linked to the subjective sphere. The subjective sphere affects the purchasing decisions and the
evolution of the same cultural product, both for the consumer and for the enterprise. For example, it is
clear that a record collector should be willing to support a greater sacrifice than a usual buyer because it
gives the artist a higher subjective value. Similarly, a gallery manager, being an art lover, does not stop at
financial-economic value derived from the management of its business, on the contrary, he acquires in the
assessment of value creation, a number of elements unrelated to the economic-financial aspects, such as
cultural (painting techniques ) and social (support to arts and to the artist) elements.
About the territory-product relationship, instead, it should be considered that the territory/product
relationship has an impact on companys value creation and that one can evaluate the relationship itself.
The main constraint is that subjective and uncertain aspects overcome objective ones. Although, to date,
there is no model able to measure the value of this relationship, trough the definition of the elements of
cultural product it is possible to determine its main features, such as complexity, integration and
territoriality.

4. THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURAL PRODUCT: COMPLEXITY,


TERRITORIALITY, INTEGRATION
The analysis of cultural product has highlighted three main characteristics: complexity, integration and
territoriality. The complexity that has been the subject of several studies in literature (Colbert, 2004),
depends on two spheres: product (offer) and consumer (market).
Product is complex for the reason that it consists of several components such as services, goods and
values. The complexity of the market depends on the incidence of various conditions determining the
cultural need.
The Demand and the Supply determine, therefore, the degree of complexity of the cultural product, which
has been elaborated in the matrix of figure 2.
In reference to marketing, the Supply and the Demand are two sides of the same coin, in fact even cultural
product is a mix between the needs of both and the degree of complexity depends on the characteristics of
both the product and the consumer.
In the figure both elements have been divided into two main variables, respectively:
1. Offer Product: number of elements (including technology components).
2. Consumer/Market: level of needs met and experiences. This element can also be represented by
the level of consumer perceptions.
The model assumes that the variables of the Supply and of the Demand have the same or different values,
for example high degree of consumer knowledge and low level of needs/experiences to satisfy. The
degree of complexity of cultural product is the sum of the values of each element of the variables in terms
of complexity.

Figure 2. - Matrix of the degree of complexity of cultural product


INSERT HERE FIGURE N. 2
13
Source: authors elaboration.

In short, the market and demand variables do not necessarily have the same characteristic neither between
the two elements considered (Offer / Product and Market/ Consumer) nor within these elements
themselves (components level/technical level and degree of knowledge/ degree of needs/experiences to be
met). By intersecting the degrees / levels for each variable we can identified nine conditions represented
by the nine quadrants, in which the measurement of values moves between low and high complexity.
Specifically we can identify:

First quadrant: Maximum complexity of Offer/Product and Minimum complexity of Market /


Consumer.
Second quadrant: High complexity of Offer/Product and medium complexity of Market /
Consumer.
Third quadrant: Maximum complexity of both variables Offer/Product and Market/ consumption.
Fourth quadrant: medium complexity of Offer/Product complexity and Lower complexity of
Market / Consumption
Fifth quadrant: medium complexity of both Offer/Product and Market/Consumer.
Sixth quadrant: medium complexity of Offer/Product and Maximum complexity of
Market/Consumer.
Seventh quadrant: Minimum complexity of both variables Offer / Product and Market/Consumer.
Eighth quadrant: minimum complexity of Offer / Product and medium complexity of Market /
Consumer.
Ninth quadrant: minimum complexity of Offer / Product and maximum complexity of Market /
Consumer.

Each quadrant represents the total value resulting from the interaction of the level / degree of complexity
of both the supply / product and the market / consumer. Territoriality is another feature of cultural
product.
Before entering into detail of this subject, it is appropriate to summarize Porters thoughts on competition
between nations: "Countries compete with each other in the same way that companies do". Globalization
has enhanced competition in the cultural field. Cultural products were once closely linked to the territory
and to the local context. Now they are "exported" all over the world, as the works or comedies
represented in various theatres around the world. There are many cases in which a museum "hosts"
cultural products over a period as well as other museums in different countries, such as the Treasure of
Boscoreale, a town near Naples, was exhibited at the Louvre in France a few years ago later it was
exhibited at the Antiquarium of Boscoreale. The concept of export often includes the ability of cultural
products to "attract" their consumers, to "attract" people from different territories at the places where the
cultural product will be enjoyed/ consumed. This is a feature found in some products (i.e. the tourist
products) such as the cultural products having a strong link with the territory. Territory, in such cases,
becomes an integral part of the product to such a degree that it turns into one of good / services strengths.
The "San Carlo" theatre in Naples, for example, is certainly a significant cultural product in the world
scenario, but much of its fame is due to its geographical location. Another meaning of territoriality is: the
essence of cultural products, the characterization of the same, as the Neapolitan film productions1.
Territory therefore has a role whose value is closely linked to its image (Siano, 2011; Rio Morales et al.,
2012), which determines its ability to attract the reference cultural target. In the case that territory has an
image that is consistent with its identity and personality it is able to retain and maintain a positive
positioning on the reference market. The cultural product actually needs to identify with the territory it
belongs to because there is a reciprocal impact on the perception of products characteristics, moving
from a sectorial competition to a territorial competition.
For certain types of products (museums, churches, theatres, cinemas, others), the typical macro-
environmental variables of the territory are an integral part of the cultural product itself, or at least the

1
Film with actors such as Toto, Troisi, D'Angelo have as key element not only the setting in the territories of Naples
but especially the strong connection between the main socio-cultural element of the product - the actor - and the
territory.
14
cultural product "absorbs" the macro-environmental variables, which are not only elements influencing
the use, distribution and product development from the outside, but also elements influencing the
configuration itself of the cultural offer. The table below summarizes the above stated theory.

Table n. 2 The macro-environmental variables and the configuration of the cultural offer.

INSERT HERE TABLE N. 2

Source: authors elaboration

The reference environment plays a crucial role in the configuration of the product, in the table above, you
can identify the key macro-environmental variables concurring to cultural product configuration. The
variables of the cultural, political, legal and technological environment are those having a direct impact
on the type of product.
Demographic environment impacts on the connection between the need to meet consumers choices and
the offer, then economic and financial environment defines the role of "niche" product.
Integration (Ferri & Aiello, 2009), which is an essential feature of the cultural product, results from the
expanded product concept. Producers, in fact, tend to organize an offer centring it on different levels
(Kotler et al., 2003) of the product in order to earn higher profits. In this regard Benghozzi & Bayart
(1991) believe that the opportunity to derive more revenue from additional products push manufacturers
to readjust their strategies.They argued that cultural objects (like movies, shows, books, concerts, etc..)
are seen as part of a mix of coordinated product, whose markets have to be mutually reinforced. The
integration therefore concerns the cultural offer and its composition, in general, includes both elements:
territory and cultural enterprise. Territorial integration requires the planning and coordination of all
elements of territory in order to make them accessible (transport, hospitals), usable (commercial
activities). Cultural integration instead refers to the ability of company to offer a range of products able to
meet different cultural needs (cinema and theatre multiplex). This last feature determines the
configuration of the Integrated Cultural Product.

5. SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


From the considerations presented so far on the cultural product as well as the analysis of the concept of
integrated cultural product and product-related territory there have been two main results: (1) the cultural
product is articulated both from the supply side to the variety and variability of the elements that compose
it, and from the demand side for the combination of needs expressed and not expressed, and several
variables; (2) there is a relationship between the area and the cultural product that can take on a more or
less high.
From the first result, emerges that the concept of good, service, cultural activity is exceeded by that of an
integrated cultural product. So, this element helps to overcome the many problems of classification
discussed above. With the support of the "degree of complexity" matrix it can be confirmed the
participation in the determination of the cultural product of a multitude of variables, for which the
integrated supply can be positioned between a minimum and a maximum level of complexity. The second
result comes from the contextualization of cultural product in the network of territorial relations. Any
type of cultural product has a link, albeit subtle, with the territory this for the simple fact that culture is
the result of a given local context, or that the area is the "container "culture. Clearly, whatever the type of
product, the territory always has an impact on it (even in quality of marketing environment). However,
the evidence presented here suggests that the territory is not just an accident, but is present as a pure
component of the cultural product. The discussion of cultural products presented in previous section
highlights the need to hire an approach oriented to the report (relationship marketing). The definition of
cultural product proposed is that of "integrated product" as the result of three components: culture,
territory and individuals. So, "integration" is the key word, representing fertile ground for reporting: if
two parts are integrated with each other enter into a relationship. With increasing integration also
increases the need to create, manage and maintain or terminate a relationship.
The connection between the two concepts is of reciprocity since the type and the result of the relationship
influence the level of integration. From this consideration has emerged as an additional result: the need to

15
link the territory with the cultural product. The report can be spontaneous or planned, and follows the
same logic of any other product. In light of those consideration the relational perspective facilitates the
reading of the level of integration (Gummesson, 2008) for a complex product like the cultural one. the
relationships can become a legacy for the territory of reference. Therefore, exists a reciprocity
relationship for all parties involved that sometimes puts the relationship as a real asset to the territory.
Consequently, there are some relationships which cannot be ignored. Our suggestions are clearly a first
step in a long way to discover the opportunity linked to the cultural products. the Integrated cultural
product in a relational perspective, therefore represents a point for future researches. It could be
interesting develop a model able to measure the relation cultural-product-territory, in reason of the
difficulty of developing assessment systems objective and enforceable. Finally, there are many
dimensions of cultural product and this article does not go through them all. Rather it has concentrated on
sketching a model for outlining the relations between cultural products, its components, consumers and
territory, and the conditions that might support firms strategies: strategies that once developed in a local
setting can be taken to entire industry or economy. Around the world policymakers have become
increasingly excited about attracting cultural industries (Power and Scott 2004; Scott 2008). So it is
required further theoretical development in this field of research and also some empirical research is
therefore needed on the measures that need to be taken that can support long-term economic
development.

CONCLUSIONS AIELLO CACIA


The advent of a new cultural economy has been increasing. It now accounts for substantial shares of
income and employment in a wide range of countries and offers important opportunities to local
economic development. This is the first reason why cultural products have to be taken into account by
the policy-makers for this ability to create both development for countries and value for enterprise as well
as allow different subjects to participate in various ways in the new cultural economy. The cultural
products seem to be moving steadily into a world that is becoming more and more cosmopolitan and
eclectic in its modes of cultural consumption (Scott, 2004:30). In this work, we have concentrated almost
entirely on the clarification of the main concepts related to cultural products, but these observations have
also raise an equally important set of issues concerning cultural products: not only in regard to relations,
but also and more significantly, in regard to matters of territory link and innovation which impacts on
growth and development generally.
A comprehensive understanding of the opportunities opened due to the evolution of cultural consumption
could be the starting point for a substantial reorganization of cultural supply in order to face the
expectations of the emerging cultural demand. The main issue is how occasional consumers may be
transformed in habitual audience. Only in such way cultural supply can credibly pursues sustainability.
Another important element to boost the cultural product, emerging from this work is the role of the
cultural industries to facing the new challenges of globalised markets. Especially for Italian context the
cultural product should positioning Italy at the top of the international rankings by country as well as
making a significant driving impact on the national economic system.
This process clearly require the creation of effective development strategies with the aim of cultural
heritage enhancement. Through the valorization of the defined "Integrated Cultural Product" - which
encompasses both culture preservation (protection, restoration and management) to policies designed to
produce new ideas, all integrated in a specific context - the cultural institutions and private organizations
involved must transform those into new cultural products and so, they should obtain the sustainability.
Although, this is possible only without losing touch with the emerging culture consumption behavior and
customer expectations. This Integrated model based on the relationships, could finally mark the transition
from policies designed merely to to be marketed worldwide into a plan able to positively affects the
whole chain, fuelling economic innovation, changes in taste, improving research and techniques for
maintaining, safeguarding and restoring cultural products.

REFERENCES
A.A.V.V. (2005), Severino F. (a cura di), Un marketing per la cultura, Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.
Addis, M., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customization and
experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of consumer behaviour, 1 (1), 50-66.
16
African Union, (2006), The promotion and protection of Africas cultural products, Advocacy Statement,
The Department of trade and industry, Retrieved July, 29, 2013, from
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Shared_ASP_Files/UploadedFiles/0DD2D9DE-E737-4839-B5F1
11F4B3B53102_Cultural_products_protection_advocacy_statement_2.pdf
Anis, M., Fiorillo, M. (2008), Lordinamento della cultura. Manuale di legislazione dei beni culturali,
Milano, Italy: Giuffr Editore.
Asheim, Bjrn T., Coenen, L., & Vang J. (2007). Face-to-Face, Buzz and Knowledge Bases: Socio-
Spatial Implications for Learning, Innovation and Innovation Policy, Environment & Planning C, 25(5),
655-670.
Barile, S. (2009), Management sistemico vitale, Torino, Italy: Giappichelli Editore.
Bassett, K., R. Griffiths, Smith I. (2002). Cultural industries, cultural clusters and the city: The example
of natural history film-making in Bristol. Geoforum 33,165-77
Bengozzi, P. J., Bayart, D. (1991). La diversification des productions culturalles, lexemple des muses,
Actes de la Confrence internationale sur la gestion des arts, Montreal: Chaire de gestion des arts, cole
des Hautes tudes commerciales, Aot, 275-300.
Bernier, I. (2005). Trade and Culture, in Patrick Macrory et al (eds), The World Trade Organization:
Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, II (747), 789, 791.
Bianchini, F. (1993). Remaking European cities: The role of cultural policies. InRemaking European
cities: The role of cultural policies, edited by F. Bianchini and M. Parkinson. 1-20. Manchester, UK:
Manchester Univ. Press.
Bollo, A., (2008). I pubblici dei musei. Conoscenza e politiche, Milano, Italy: FrancoAngelo.
Bourdieu, P. (1992). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Bryan, J., S. Hill, M. Munday, Roberts A.(2000). Assessing the role of the arts and cultural industries in a
local economy. Environment and Planning , 32, 1391-408.
Bryant T., Throsby, D. (2006). Creativity and the behaviour of artists, in Handbook of the Economics of
Art and Culture, Amsterdam and Canada, Vital Links: General Editors Arrow and Intriligator, Elsevier
Science, Canada's Cultural Industries (Ottawa: Department of Communications, (1987).
Colbert, F (2004), Marketing delle arti e della cultura, Milano, Italy: ETAS.
Colbert, F., Nantel, J., Bilodeau, S., Rich, J.D., Bacchella, U. (2004). Marketing delle arti e della cultura,
Milano, Italy: ETAS.
Colbert, F. (2003). The Sydney Opera House: An Australian Icon, International Journal of Arts
Management, 5(2).
Colbert, F. (2000). Marketing delle arti e della cultura, Milano, Italy: Etas
Currid, E. (2006). New York as a global creative hub: a competitive analysis of four theories on world
cities. Economic Development Quarterly, 20 (4), 330-350.
Deinema, M. (2008). Consumer preferences, cultural product types, and the export potential of cultural
industries in small countries. Lessons from the Dutch, publishing industry Paper presented on October 9th
2008 at the European Urban Research Associations conference Learning cities in a knowledge-based
society in Milan, 9th-11th October 2008.
DiMaggio, P., Hirsch, P. (1976). Production organizations in the arts. In The production of culture, ed. R.
Peterson, 7391. London: Sage.
Dziembowska-Kowalska, J., Funck, R. H.(1999). Cultural activities: Source of competetiveness and
prosperity in urban regions. Urban Studies, 36,1381-98.
Ferri, M.A., Aiello, L. (2009, June). The evolution of the placement. The application to the cultural
product. In Proceedings of the Business & Economics Conference (OBEC), 24-27 June, Oxford, 151190.
Ferri, M. A. (2007). The enhancement of cultural resources in the sustainable development of local
economy, Workshop for the hundred years of the Faculty of Economics on the various aspects of the triad
"Welfare-cohesion-sustainability in the process of European Integration, organized by the Research
Centre La Sapienza in European and International Studies "EuroSapienza", Rome 2/3 February, Faculty
of Economics.
Fuchs, G. (2002). The multimedia industry: Networks and regional development in a globalized
economy. Economic and Industrial Democracy , 23, 305-33.
Ghirelli, S. (2011). The evolution of cultural consumption and successful strategies for sustainable
cultural management , Tafter Journal, 41, November, Retrieved July, 25, 2013, from

17
http://www.tafterjournal.it/2011/11/02/the-evolution-of-cultural-consumption-and-successful-strategies-
for-sustainable-cultural-management/
Gibson, C., Kong, L. (2005). Cultural economy: a critical review. Progress in Human Geography, 29 (5),
541-561.
Gummesson, E. (2008). Total Relationship Marketing, Burlington, MA, USA: BH Elsevier
Hanks J., (2012). Importance of cultural products in our culture, Published on SelfGrowth.com Retrieved
July, 25, 2013, from (http://www.selfgrowth.com). Source URL:
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/importance-of-cultural-products-in-our-culture-0
Harvey, D. (1992). Postmodern morality plays. Antipode, 24,30026.
Heilbrun, J., & Gray C. M. (1993). The economics of art and culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Hesmondhalgh, D., (2002). The cultural industries. London, England: Sage.
Hirsch, Paul M. (1972). Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry
System, American Journal of Sociology, 77, 639-659.
Hoebel, E.A., (1966), Anthropology: Study of Man, Milano, Italy: McGraw-Hill.
Hudson, R. (1995). Making music work? Alternative regeneration strategiesin a deindustrialized locality:
The case of Derwentside. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20,460-73.
Kloosterman, R. C. (2004). Recent Employment Trends in the Cultural Industries in Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. A first exploration. Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische
Geografie, 95 (2), 243-252.
Knight, T. (1999). The Dual Nature of Cultural Products: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization's
Decisions Regarding Canadian Periodicals, University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review , 57 (2).
Kotler P., Bowen J. & Makens J. (2003), Marketing del turismo, Milano, Italy: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Lampel, J, Lant, T. & Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural.
Organization Science, 11, 26369.
Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. London, England: Earthscan.
Lash, Scott & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. London, England: Sage.
Legislative Decree of January 22, 2004, no. 42 containing the Code of Cultural heritage and landscape
under article 10 of the Law no. 137 of July 6, 2002. Retrieved February, 25 2013
www.gazzettaufficiale.it//24 febbraio 2004, n. 45.
Lhr, I. (2010) Review of Voon, Tania, Cultural Products and the World Trade Organization. H-Soz-u-
Kult: H-Net Reviews.
Lorente, J. P. (2002). Urban cultural policy and urban regeneration: The special case of declining port
cities in Liverpool, Marseilles, Bilbao. In Global culture: Media, arts, policy, and globalization, edited by
D. Crane, N. Kawashima, and K. Kawasaki, 93-104. New York, USA: Routledge.
McGregor, S. (2000), Using social and consumer values to predict market-place behaviour: Questions of
congruency. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24,94103.
Mitchell, D. (1995). Theres no such thing as culture: Towards a reconceptualization of the idea of
culture in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20,10216.
Myerscough, J. (1988). The economic importance of the arts in Britain. London, England: Policy Studies
Institute.
OConnor, J. (1998). Popular culture, cultural intermediaries and urban regeneration. In The
entrepreneurial city: Geographies of politics, regime and representation, edited by T. Hall and P.
Hubbard, 225-39. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Park, H.J., & Rabolt, N.J. (2009). Cultural value, consumption value, and global brand image: a cross
national study, Psychology & Marketing, 26(8), 714735.
Porter, M. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations: With a new introduction. Boston: Harvard
Business School Publishing.
Powder, D. (2002). Cultural Industries, in Sweden: An Assessment of their Place in the Swedish
Economy, Economic Geograohy, 78 (2).
Power D.,(2008), The Difference Principal? Shaping competitive advantage in the cultural product
industries, in The Rules, Norms and Standards on Knowledge Exchange, Working Paper, 78 (June 2008).
Retrieved July, 22, 2013 on http://www.dime-eu.org/working-papers/wp14

18
Power, D. (2003). The Nordic cultural industries: a cross-national assessment of the place of the cultural
industries in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human
Geography, 85 (3), 167-180.
Power, D. (2010). The difference principle? Shaping competitive advantage in the cultural product
industries, Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 92 (2), 145158.
Power, D., Scott , A. J. (eds) (2004). Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture. London,
England: Routledge.
Pratt, A.(1997). Cultural industries: Guest editorial. Environment and Planning A 29, 191117.
Pratt, A., C. (2008). Creative cities: the cultural industries and the creative class. Geografiska Annaler:
Series B, Human Geography, 90 (2), 107-117.
Press Release, UNESCO, General Conference Adopts Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions (Oct. 20, 2005), Retrieved July, 22, 2013 on http://
portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30297&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
Ruth Rios-Morales, Aiello L., Cacia C.,(2012). Enhancing quality brand of tourism products using new
application tools, Cambridge Business & Economics Conference, June 27-28, Cambridge.
Sadler, D. (1997). The global music business as an information industry: Reinterpreting economies of
culture. Environment and Planning A, 29(19), 1936.
Scott, A. J. (2004). Cultural-Products Industries and Urban Economic Development: Prospects for
Growth and Market Contestation in Global Context, Urban Affairs Review, 39, 461- 79.
Scott, A. (1996). The craft, fashion, and cultural products industries of Los Angeles: Competitive
dynamics and policy dilemmas in a multisectoral image-producing complex. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 86,30623.
Scott, A. J. (2000b). The cultural economy of cities: Essays on the geography of image-producing
industries, London, England: Sage.
Scott, A. J. (2000a). The Cultural Economy of Cities; Essays on the Geography of Image-Producing
Industries. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Sharp, B., Dawes, J. (2001). What is Differentiation and How Does it Work?, Journal of Marketing
Management, 17(7/8), 739-759.
Siano A., (2001). Competenze e comunicazione del sistema dimpresa. Il vantaggio competitivo tra
ambiguit e trasparenza, Giuffr.
Solima, L. (2011). Culture e territori. I consumi culturali in provincia di Lecce, Roma, Italy: Gangemi
Editore.
Solima L. (2006), Limpresa culturale. Processi e strumenti di gestione, Roma, Italy: Carrocci Editore.
Solima, L. (2006). The cultural enterprise. Processes and management tools, Roma, Italy: Carrocci
Editore.
Sternquist, B. (1998). International retailing. New York, USA: Fairchild Publications.
Stigler, G.J., Becker G.S. (1977). De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, The American Economic Review,
67(2), 76-90.
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics of culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Trimarchi, M. (2007). Il patrimonio culturale: uneredit da valorizzare, di prossima pubblicazione in a
cura di P. Ricotti e E. Plata, Libro della Planomia, Milano, Italy: Fondazione PLEF.
Trimarchi, M. (2005), Levoluzione del prodotto culturale, Un marketing per la cultura, Severino F. (a
cura di), Franco Angeli.
Voon, T. (2007). Cultural Products and the World Trade Organization, Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Weinstein, B. L., Clower T. L. (2000). Filmed entertainment and local economic development: Texas as a
case study, Economic Development Quarterly,14, 384-94.
Whitt, J. A. (1987). Mozart in the metropolis: The arts coalition and the urban growth machine. Urban
Affairs Quarterly, 23,15-36.
Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World, Berkeley, USA: University of
California Press.
Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, Mass. And Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardization in spaces of consumption. Urban Studies,
35 (5-6), 825-839.

19
KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS (SUBHEAD 1 STYLE)
Cultural products: are goods and services that include the arts (performing arts, visual arts, architecture),
heritage conservation (museums, galleries, libraries), the cultural industries (written media, broadcasting,
film, recording), and festivals. UNESCO has declared that these products are not like other forms of
merchandise.

Cultural products as service: have both significant service and good components. In this context services
seem to be more labour-intensive and less tangible than goods, so cultural performances more closely
resemble services. As well, things such as legal and financial services involve the dissemination of
information, or skill and knowledge; this dissemination appears analogous to the role played by books,
periodicals and even audio-visual products-all of which are clearly physical products. Many cultural
products must exist in physical form in order to be distributed to potential audiences (for example a legal
opinion may be contained within a written memo, but this would not transform it from a service into a
good).

Cultural enterprises: those performing an activity of prevalent artistic and cultural content, in order to
achieve an objective of social order, "the communitys cultural growth". The cultural enterprise, just like
any other enterprise, needs adequate tangible and intangible assets, that is an appropriate working capital
to achieve its institutional mission.

Cultural firm in the strict sense: consists of the performing arts, especially of those in which the core
business is a "direct contact" between the artist, his art and the consumer.

Cultural firm in the broad sense: is represented by the cultural industry and the media (for example, film
industry, newspaper) whose core business is an art product (good or service) coming from a production
and/or distributive process where the "contact between the artist, his art and the consumer is indirect".

Cultural Chain: several players operate in the cultural chain both independently and as part of the industry
human resources (or collaborators of the artist).The main player is the artist who directly or indirectly
manage the production/distribution of the artistic creation, next to which integrative activities are
vertically held. Without these activities the production and distribution of culture cannot be achieved.
These activities are the design, assigned to a designer and the reproduction/displaying represented by the
cultural activity. Support activities that are in the horizontal part of the chain are the protection, which is
usually carried out by a person/public institution and distribution, which can also be performed by an
external cultural distribution agency. Each element in the cultural chain can be self-managed or managed
in accordance with the market logic. The cultural enterprise should consists of one or more undertakings
which independently or linked carry out all or part of the above considered activities. The objective of the
cultural chain representation is two-fold: 1. to connect into a system "along" the chain the actors and
activities involved, identifying their roles and tasks; 2. to provide a first distinction and classification of
the cultural enterprise.

Matrix of the degree of complexity of cultural product: is represents the cultural product means two
main variables, respectively: 1. Offer Product: number of elements (including technology components). 2.
Consumer/Market: level of needs met and experiences. This element can also be represented by the level
of consumer perceptions. The model assumes that the variables of the Supply and of the Demand have the
same or different values, for example high degree of consumer knowledge and low level of
needs/experiences to satisfy. The degree of complexity of cultural product is the sum of the values of each
element of the variables in terms of complexity.

20
i
Although the views expressed in the paper belong to all of the authors, the paragraphs 3 and 2.2. are
attributed to Lucia Aiello, paragraphs 1 and 2.1. to Claudia Cacia, the Introduction, Conclusion and
paragraphs 2, 4, 5 are attributed to all the authors.
ii
Article 9 of the Italian Constitution guarantees the protection of nation historical and artistic heritage
and the art. 117 states that the jurisdiction of cultural heritage is exclusively public, after the reform of
'art. V it became exclusively public with regard to protection and competitive with regions in the field of
development. This distribution is very important because it tends to consider cultural heritage not only as
an expression of national history, but also of local history. These two articles of the Law were
accompanied from 1939 to 2004 by the law Bottai, that despite having been adopted in a period prior to
the birth of Constitution, did not encounter conflicts with the fundamental rules considering the
homogeneity in the field of cultural heritage . Next, the Code of cultural heritage and landscape (so-called
Municipal Code - Legislative Decree 22 January 2004, n. 42) has organized the whole subject by drawing
on all contents of the law Bottai (Ainis and Fiorillo, 2008). See Article. V that provides for the creation of
ordinary Regions. According to the art. 2 of the Municipal Code, cultural good is evidence having value
of civilization. Cultural goods have been also classified in international laws. In particular, the
Convention on the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict adopted at The Hague on May 14,
1954 defined the tangible cultural heritage, and the Convention for the Protection of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage adopted in Paris on October 17, 2003 defined the intangibles.
ii Film with actors such as Tot, Massimo Troisi have as key element not only the setting in the territories
of Naples but especially the strong connection between the main socio-cultural element of the product -
the actor - and the territory.

21

View publication stats

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen