The pan-platform distribution of children’s television has exacerbated the traditional ‘obligation or asset?’ dichotomy that has characterized the child audience in America, Australia and the UK. Current industrial constellations mean that a media conglomerate like the Disney Corporation can take advantage of a propitious ‘alignment of the planets’ of production, distribution and regulation to monetize programs through multiple windows. Disney can thus ensure cultural visibility and program profitability in a television landscape where fragmented audiences of all ages must be encouraged and enabled to consume the same product indefinitely. The made-for-TV movie High School Musical epitomizes Disney’s capacity to exploit the programs it both produces and distributes. Thus High School Musical’s global success can tell us a great deal about new settlements in children’s television.
BrymanA (2004) The Disneyization of Society. London: Sage.
5.
BuckinghamDDaviesHJonesKKelleyP (1999) Public service goes to market: British children’s television in transition. Media International Australia93: 65–76.
6.
CaldwellJ (2004) Convergence television: aggregating form and repurposing content in the culture of conglomeration. In: SpigelLOlssonJ (eds) Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 41–74.
7.
ChalabyK (2006) American cultural primacy in a new media order: a European perspective. International Communication Gazette68(1): 33–51.
HoskinsCMcFadyenS (1991) The U.S. competitive advantage in the global television market: is it sustainable in the new broadcasting environment?Canadian Journal of Communication16(2): 207–24.
20.
KompareD (2006) Publishing flow: DVD box sets and the reconception of television. Television & New Media7(4): 335–360.
21.
LuryK (2002) A time and place for everything – children’s channels. In: BuckinghamD (ed.) Small Screens: Television for Children. London: Leicester University Press, 15–37.
22.
McMurriaJ (2004) Global channels. In: SinclairJTurnerG (eds) Contemporary World Television. London: British Film Institute, 38–42.
23.
McPhailT (2006) Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.
24.
Ofcom (2007) The International Perspective: The Future of Children’s Programming Research Report. London: Ofcom.
SpigelL (2004) Introduction. In: SpigelLOlssonJ (eds) Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
SteemersJ (2004) Europe as a television market. In: SinclairJTurnerG (eds) Contemporary World Television. London: British Film Institute, 35–38.
30.
ThussuDK (2004) Television and local/imagined communities. In: SinclairJTurnerG (eds) Contemporary World Television. London: British Film Institute, 28–31.
31.
ThussuDK (2006) International Communication: Continuity and Change, 2nd edn.London: Hodder Education.
32.
WaskoJ (2001a) Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
WaskoJ (2001b) Is it a small world, after all? In: WaskoJPhillipsMMeehanE (eds) Dazzled by Disney: The Global Disney Audiences Project. London: Leicester University Press, 3–30.
34.
WardSPotterA (2009) H2O: just add branding: producing high quality children’s TV drama for multi-channel environments. Media International Australia133: 31–42.
