Beyond Traditional and Independent Publishing: Defining the Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise and the Convergent Digital Media Model through Dyerbolical Ltd

Abstract

The digital transformation of cultural and media industries has complicated established distinctions between publishing, journalism, audiovisual production, cultural entrepreneurship and participatory media. Although scholarship on media convergence, multi-platform production, transmedia storytelling and business model innovation has examined these developments extensively, the organisational classification of enterprises combining these activities remains an important analytical question. Conventional descriptions such as “publisher,” “independent publisher” and “transmedia producer” identify particular ownership arrangements, production practices or commercial functions but may not adequately represent the operational scope of enterprises engaged simultaneously in cultural journalism, original intellectual property development, digital publishing, audiovisual production, interactive media and participatory cultural performance.

 

This article proposes two complementary concepts: the Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME), an organisational classification describing the coordinated production, distribution and commercialisation of multiple forms of cultural media within a single enterprise; and the Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM), an operating framework explaining how those activities interact through shared intellectual property, digital infrastructure, audience relationships, organisational resources and commercial mechanisms. Drawing on scholarship concerning media convergence, digital transformation, business model innovation and cultural enterprise management, the article distinguishes these concepts from established publishing classifications, transmedia storytelling and general accounts of digital media diversification.

 

Dyerbolical Ltd, an Irish cultural media enterprise, provides the illustrative case through which the proposed framework is developed. Its combination of cultural journalism, original fiction, digital publishing, character-led social media performance, audiovisual and interactive production, and creative enterprise activity demonstrates the analytical limitations of defining a multifaceted cultural organisation solely through its publishing function. The article argues that ICME and CDMM offer a conceptual vocabulary for examining integrated cultural media organisations without claiming to replace official industrial classifications or to establish a universally applicable business model.

 

Keywords: cultural media enterprise; media convergence; digital publishing; cultural journalism; business model innovation; creative industries; transmedia; participatory media; organisational classification; Dyerbolical Ltd.

 

Part I. The problem of classification

 

1. Introduction: beyond the publishing label

The organisation of cultural production has undergone substantial transformation as digital technologies have altered the relationships between media creation, publication, distribution, audience participation and commercial activity. Activities historically associated with distinct industrial sectors increasingly coexist within organisations whose operations extend across multiple media formats, platforms and cultural markets. A single enterprise may produce original literary works, publish factual journalism, develop audiovisual content, maintain interactive digital environments, manage fictional intellectual property and participate in creative industry networks. These activities may share organisational resources and commercial infrastructure without necessarily belonging to the same narrative property or serving the same immediate audience.

 

This development presents a problem of organisational classification. Established categories such as publishing house, journalism organisation, audiovisual producer and digital media company remain useful, but their descriptive precision varies according to the scope and structure of the enterprise under examination. A company that publishes novels is engaged in publishing. The presence of publishing activity does not, however, necessarily establish publishing as an adequate description of the company’s complete organisational identity. Equally, a business that distributes content across several digital platforms may be engaged in multi-platform media production without necessarily operating as a transmedia storytelling enterprise.

 

The distinction between identifying an activity and classifying an organisation is central to the argument developed here. Media convergence scholarship provides an important starting point. Deuze (2004) examined multimedia journalism as a development involving changes in journalistic practices, production arrangements and media presentation. García Avilés and Carvajal (2008) subsequently investigated integrated and cross-media newsroom convergence, demonstrating the organisational implications of bringing previously distinct production processes into closer operational relationships. Carvajal and García Avilés (2008) examined the movement from newspapers towards multimedia groups, illustrating how publishing-centred businesses could develop broader organisational structures.

 

These studies establish that convergence cannot be reduced to the technological capacity to reproduce content in different formats. It also concerns the organisation of work, relationships between production functions and the strategic coordination of media activities. The organisational developments considered in newsroom convergence research do not, however, encompass the full range of activities associated with contemporary cultural media enterprises. Journalism organisations may integrate print, online and audiovisual news production while remaining principally concerned with journalism. By contrast, some digital cultural businesses combine journalism with original fiction, participatory storytelling, character performance, interactive entertainment and intellectual property development. These activities may operate independently at the level of individual cultural products while remaining integrated at the organisational level.

 

Li (2020) provides a broader perspective by examining the digital transformation of business models in the creative industries. Digital transformation involves more than the adoption of new technologies: it can alter the organisation of production, the relationships between enterprises and consumers, and the mechanisms through which cultural and commercial value is created. Similarly, Kawashima (2020) examines changing business models in the media industries, locating digital adaptation within wider industrial and organisational transformations. Together, these perspectives suggest that the classification of a contemporary cultural enterprise should take account of both its productive activities and the organisational arrangements connecting them.

 

The present article addresses this problem through the development of two related concepts. The first is the Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME), proposed as an organisational classification for enterprises that coordinate multiple substantive forms of cultural media production, publication, distribution and commercial activity. These forms may include journalism, literary publishing, audiovisual media, original intellectual property, interactive content and participatory cultural production. The second is the Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM), proposed as an operating framework describing how these activities are coordinated through digital infrastructure, shared resources, audience relationships, brand architecture, intellectual property management and commercial mechanisms.

 

The distinction between the two concepts is deliberate. ICME concerns the organisational identity and scope of the enterprise. CDMM concerns the relationships through which that enterprise operates. Neither concept is presented as an established industry classification. Both are developed as analytical propositions grounded in existing scholarship concerning convergence, cultural production and business model innovation.

 

Dyerbolical Ltd provides the illustrative organisational case. The Irish company combines cultural journalism and criticism, original literary intellectual property, digital publishing, character-led online performance, audiovisual and interactive production, and creative enterprise activities. Its publishing operations include the DarkBadb Publishing imprint and original fictional properties such as Immortalis and Kane. Its wider activities also encompass factual cultural publishing, genre-oriented digital communities, participatory performance and relationships with creative producers. The company therefore presents an opportunity to examine whether a publishing-centred classification adequately captures an organisation whose activities extend across several cultural production functions.

 

The argument does not depend on establishing that Dyerbolical’s individual activities are unprecedented. Media organisations have diversified for decades, and publishers have long participated in audiovisual production, licensing, brand development and other commercial activities. Freeman (2015), for example, demonstrates that cross-media characters and storyworlds have histories predating contemporary digital platforms. Nor does the argument depend on proving that every activity generates independent revenue. Rather, the central proposition is that the combination of distinct cultural production functions within a coordinated organisational system warrants a classification capable of representing the enterprise as a whole.

 

The article therefore addresses three related questions. First, to what extent do established publishing and media classifications adequately describe enterprises combining multiple forms of cultural production? Second, what theoretical principles from media convergence, business model innovation and cultural enterprise scholarship can explain their organisational integration? Third, can the proposed ICME classification and CDMM operating framework provide analytical distinctions not adequately expressed by existing descriptions? The following sections begin by examining the limitations of publishing-centred terminology before establishing the theoretical foundations of organisational convergence and cultural business model innovation.

 

2. Traditional publishing as an incomplete organisational classification

Publishing remains a fundamental activity within contemporary cultural production. It encompasses processes through which written and other editorial materials are selected, prepared, reproduced, distributed and made available to audiences. Publishers may coordinate editorial development, production, design, marketing, distribution, rights management and commercial relationships. These activities remain significant regardless of whether publication occurs through print, electronic books, websites or other digital formats.

 

The transformation of publishing has nevertheless complicated the relationship between the publisher as an organisational actor and publishing as one activity within a broader enterprise. Hviid, Izquierdo-Sanchez and Jacques (2019) examine the movement from conventional publishing arrangements towards self-publishing, drawing attention to changes in the distribution of functions and relationships within publishing markets. The significance of such developments extends beyond the availability of alternative publication channels. They demonstrate that the roles historically associated with publishing organisations can be redistributed among authors, intermediaries, service providers and digital platforms.

 

Spjeldnæs (2022) similarly examines platformisation in publishing, addressing the increasing significance of digital platforms within the industry’s organisation and commercial environment. Platformisation complicates conventional assumptions about how publishing businesses control distribution, reach audiences and capture value. These developments do not make publishing obsolete. They demonstrate that the activities constituting publishing are subject to continuing organisational reconfiguration.

 

A publishing enterprise may remain primarily concerned with books while adopting digital production technologies, electronic distribution and online marketing. Another may incorporate audiovisual adaptation, licensing and associated commercial products into its publishing operations. A third may develop substantial editorial, audiovisual, interactive and participatory media functions that operate alongside its literary publishing activities. The difficulty arises when the same organisational label is applied to these businesses without distinguishing their operational scope.

 

The term “traditional publisher” is itself context-dependent. It may refer to established contractual relationships between authors and publishers, the publisher’s assumption of production and distribution responsibilities, or conventional organisational practices associated with book production. It does not necessarily mean that the publisher is technologically conservative or restricted to print. Many established publishing businesses operate across digital and audiovisual markets. A rigorous argument for ICME cannot depend on constructing an artificial opposition between traditional publishing and digital innovation.

 

The more defensible distinction concerns the relative position of publishing within the enterprise. Where literary publication remains the organising centre of the business, publishing may continue to provide an adequate principal classification even when associated activities diversify. Where the enterprise produces several substantive forms of cultural media, including activities that are not subordinate to the publication of books, a publishing-centred classification may obscure its organisational character.

 

Han (2024) provides a useful contribution to this distinction through an empirical examination of transmedia storytelling within book publishing organisations. The study identifies content production, technological integration, organisational innovation and marketing integration as important dimensions of transmedia publishing business models. Using survey data from 365 managers of Chinese book publishing organisations, Han examines the relationship between these dimensions, business performance and the innovation environment. The study demonstrates that book publishing organisations can develop complex systems of integrated production and management. It therefore challenges any simplistic assumption that publishers necessarily operate through narrow or static business structures.

 

At the same time, Han’s analysis remains explicitly situated within the book publishing industry. Its central concern is the transformation and performance of publishing organisations through transmedia storytelling. This distinction matters because the present article addresses a different organisational question: how should an enterprise be classified when book publishing constitutes one component among several forms of cultural media production?

 

The distinction can be illustrated through cultural journalism. An organisation may publish original fiction while also producing substantial factual articles on film history, horror cinema, science fiction, popular culture and related subjects. Such journalism may possess its own editorial purpose, readership and cultural value independently of the organisation’s fictional properties. Although both activities involve publication, they are not necessarily identical in their production logic. Literary fiction is organised around the creation and development of imaginative works, whereas cultural journalism involves factual reporting, interpretation, criticism, contextualisation and engagement with existing cultural phenomena.

 

The same organisation may also produce short films, interactive quizzes and sustained fictional character performances through social media. These activities introduce further differences in production practice, audience participation and media form. The existence of common ownership or shared digital infrastructure does not erase these distinctions. It raises the question of how they are coordinated. This is the point at which publishing ceases to be a sufficiently comprehensive analytical description.

 

The proposed ICME classification does not replace publishing as an activity or deny the legitimacy of established publishing organisations. It recognises that publishing may operate as one production function within a broader cultural media enterprise. This approach is consistent with Li’s (2020) analysis of digital business model transformation, which directs attention towards organisational arrangements rather than the mere presence of digital technologies. It is also consistent with the broader implications of Han’s (2024) research: the strategic organisation of content production, technology, marketing and innovation can be as significant as the medium through which a cultural product is initially published.

 

The critical distinction is therefore not between old and new media, nor between print and digital formats. It is between publishing as a principal organisational identity and publishing as one component of an integrated cultural production system.

 

3. Independent publishing: ownership, production and corporate identity

The classification problem becomes more complex when the term “independent publisher” is introduced. Independence is an important characteristic of publishing organisations, but it does not necessarily describe the range of activities undertaken by those organisations. Depending on context, independence may concern ownership, editorial autonomy, financial control, relationships with major publishing groups or the scale of the enterprise. These characteristics are relevant to understanding publishing markets. They are analytically distinct from the question of whether an organisation’s activities extend beyond publishing.

 

An independently owned business may produce books exclusively. Another may combine books with literary events, podcasts, audiovisual adaptations and related cultural activities. A third may operate as a diversified cultural media enterprise encompassing original fiction, journalism, interactive media and digital performance. All three may be independent in ownership terms, yet their organisational structures differ substantially. The term “independent publisher” therefore does not necessarily distinguish between them.

 

Hviid, Izquierdo-Sanchez and Jacques (2019) provide a useful foundation for examining changing relationships between authors, publishers and alternative routes to market. Their work demonstrates that the organisation of publishing activity cannot be understood solely through the conventional distinction between established publishing houses and self-publishing. The emergence of alternative publishing arrangements complicates established boundaries between the creator, producer, publisher and distributor. These developments primarily concern the organisation of publishing itself. They do not automatically provide a classification for businesses operating simultaneously across several cultural sectors.

 

Spjeldnæs (2022) adds a further dimension through the analysis of publishing platformisation. The growing significance of digital platforms changes how publishing businesses interact with technological intermediaries, audiences and distribution systems. A publisher’s independence in ownership terms does not necessarily imply independence from digital infrastructures or platform governance. This distinction is important because several meanings of independence may coexist.

 

An enterprise may be independently owned while relying on third-party platforms for distribution. It may retain editorial control while participating in collaborative creative networks. It may publish original intellectual property while producing commentary on works owned by other organisations. These relationships should not be collapsed into a single understanding of independence. For the purposes of the present article, three analytical dimensions must therefore remain separate. First, ownership and governance concern who controls the enterprise and how organisational decisions are made. Second, publishing arrangements concern the production, financing, editorial preparation and distribution of published materials. Third, organisational scope concerns the range of productive, commercial and cultural functions undertaken by the enterprise.

 

The proposed ICME classification is concerned principally with the third dimension, although the first two may influence how the enterprise operates. This distinction avoids the misleading implication that a business must cease to be independent before it can be understood as an integrated cultural media enterprise. It also prevents ICME from being positioned as an alternative to independence when the two terms describe different organisational characteristics.

 

Dyerbolical Ltd illustrates the relevance of this separation. Its ownership and publishing arrangements may be described in terms of independence, while its wider operations include cultural journalism, original intellectual property, online character performance, audiovisual production, interactive content and creative industry participation. A classification centred exclusively on independent publishing would identify an important aspect of the company without necessarily explaining its complete production structure. The analytical problem is therefore one of descriptive adequacy rather than categorical incompatibility. An enterprise can be independently owned, operate a publishing imprint and simultaneously qualify under a broader organisational classification.

 

This point also clarifies the relationship between ICME and existing categories within the creative industries. ICME is not intended to describe a particular ownership structure, level of turnover or company size. Nor does it assume that integration requires a large workforce or a vertically integrated corporate group. Digital technologies may enable relatively small enterprises to coordinate activities historically associated with multiple organisations. The ability to operate across several media functions should not itself be confused with evidence of their substantive integration. The defining issue is whether those functions contribute to a coherent organisational system. Independence and integration should be treated as potentially complementary characteristics rather than competing classifications.

 

4. Official industry classification and the limits of statistical categories

Any proposal for a new organisational classification must account for existing systems used to categorise economic and cultural activity. The European Union’s NACE classification provides a standardised framework for identifying economic activities. Its purpose is statistical and administrative: to support the consistent classification of businesses and economic activity across European statistical systems. The revised NACE Rev. 2.1 classification recognises developments in contemporary economic activity, including changes affecting publishing, broadcasting, content production and distribution. The revision demonstrates that official statistical frameworks are not necessarily fixed around obsolete distinctions between print, broadcast and digital media (Eurostat, 2025).

 

This matters because an argument for ICME would be weakened if it incorrectly assumed that existing statistical classifications had failed to recognise digital transformation. NACE already accommodates a wide range of media and information activities. Its categories serve important purposes in economic measurement, business statistics and administrative reporting. Statistical classification and organisational theory do not necessarily answer the same question. A statistical system must assign economic activities to categories according to established rules. Where an enterprise undertakes multiple activities, classification procedures determine how its principal activity is identified for statistical purposes.

 

An organisational analysis, by contrast, may seek to explain the relationships between those activities, their shared infrastructure and their collective contribution to the enterprise’s identity. The distinction is between categorising economic activity and interpreting organisational integration. An enterprise engaged in publishing, audiovisual production and digital media may be classified statistically according to its principal economic activity. This classification remains valid within the system for which it was designed. It does not necessarily provide a complete conceptual account of how the enterprise coordinates its cultural production functions.

 

The UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics offers a complementary perspective. UNESCO (2009) establishes a framework for identifying and measuring cultural activities across domains, recognising that cultural production encompasses a range of practices and industries. The framework is particularly relevant because it avoids equating cultural production exclusively with the publication of books or the production of conventional mass media. It is principally a framework for cultural measurement rather than a detailed theory of the internal operating structures of individual enterprises.

 

The proposed ICME classification therefore occupies a different analytical level. It does not attempt to introduce a new NACE code, modify UNESCO’s cultural domains or supersede established industrial statistics. It addresses the organisational configuration of enterprises whose activities may fall across several recognised cultural and media domains. Medaglia (2026) provides an additional point of reference for considering relationships between classification and convergence. The broader conceptual issue is whether categories constructed to identify distinct activities can also adequately represent organisations that integrate those activities.

 

The existence of multiple classifications is not inherently problematic. Different classification systems serve different purposes, and a single enterprise may be described accurately through several complementary frameworks. An organisation may be classified statistically according to its principal economic activity, described legally according to its incorporation and ownership arrangements, and analysed theoretically according to its organisational model. These descriptions are not necessarily contradictory. ICME is proposed as a framework for the third purpose. Its usefulness depends on whether it can identify organisational relationships that are insufficiently explained by existing terminology. The corresponding CDMM framework addresses the mechanisms through which those relationships are organised. The two concepts must therefore be judged according to their analytical precision rather than their ability to replace official classifications.

 

This distinction also establishes a necessary limitation. The existence of several cultural production activities within a company does not automatically establish that they form an integrated system. A business may operate unrelated divisions, hold passive investments in different media properties or engage in occasional promotional collaborations without developing a coordinated cultural production model. A credible ICME classification must therefore require more than diversity of activity. It must identify substantive relationships between production functions, organisational resources, digital infrastructure, cultural properties, audience development and commercial operations. The theoretical foundations for understanding those relationships are examined in the following part.

 

Part II. The theoretical foundations of convergence

 

5. Media convergence as a historical and organisational process

Media convergence is a foundational concept for understanding the development of integrated cultural media enterprises. Its significance lies not simply in the technological convergence of formerly separate media formats, but also in the transformation of production structures, professional practices, organisational relationships and audience interactions. The distinction between technological convergence and organisational convergence is particularly important. Digital technologies enable text, audio, video, images and interactive materials to circulate through common technical infrastructures. The capacity to distribute different media formats through the same infrastructure does not automatically produce organisational integration.

 

An organisation may maintain separate departments, editorial priorities, production schedules and commercial arrangements while using the same digital platforms. An organisation may coordinate several production functions through shared planning, resources and audience strategies while preserving the distinctive practices associated with each medium. Convergence must therefore be examined as an organisational process rather than assumed from the presence of digital technologies.

 

Deuze (2004) provides an early and influential examination of multimedia journalism, addressing how changing media environments affect journalistic production and professional practice. His work demonstrates that multimedia journalism involves choices concerning how stories are constructed and presented across media, alongside the changing relationships between journalists and their audiences. This distinction establishes a useful theoretical foundation. Multimedia production is not adequately defined by the simultaneous availability of text, images and video. Its significance depends on how those formats are selected, combined and incorporated into the production process.

 

García Avilés and Carvajal (2008) extend the discussion by examining integrated and cross-media newsroom convergence. Their research addresses organisational arrangements through which journalism businesses coordinate activities previously undertaken within separate production environments. Carvajal and García Avilés (2008) similarly examine the transformation of newspaper businesses into multimedia groups, demonstrating that convergence can involve changes in the corporate organisation of media production rather than merely the development of additional publication channels. These studies are especially relevant because they locate convergence within the structure of the enterprise.

 

The organisation becomes an analytical object in its own right. Attention shifts from the content distributed through individual media towards the processes, relationships and managerial arrangements through which different forms of content are produced. García Avilés et al. (2009) provide a comparative investigation of newsroom integration in Austria, Spain and Germany. Their research examines media organisations undertaking different degrees of convergence, identifying variations in the integration of production processes across print, online and other media. The significance of this comparative approach is that convergence does not necessarily follow a single organisational trajectory. Different enterprises can develop different relationships between their production functions, even when operating within similar technological environments.

 

This finding is important for the development of ICME/CDMM. A proposed framework for integrated cultural media enterprises should not assume that all organisations require identical departmental structures, production methods or levels of centralisation. Integration must be assessed through the relationships between activities and the organisational purposes those relationships serve. García Avilés, Kaltenbrunner and Meier (2014) revisit newsroom convergence through comparative research in Spain, Germany and Austria. Their analysis demonstrates that integration is neither a completed technological transition nor an organisational process producing uniform outcomes. Different media organisations continue to negotiate the relationship between platform-specific production, editorial coordination and organisational efficiency.

 

The study also identifies tensions within convergence. Greater coordination may improve production processes and facilitate the development of content across multiple outlets, but integration can introduce pressures affecting journalistic quality, professional autonomy and the diversity of editorial approaches. These qualifications are particularly relevant to the present argument. Integration should not be treated as an inherently beneficial organisational characteristic. Its consequences depend on how production functions are managed and whether their distinctive cultural purposes are preserved.

 

An enterprise combining journalism and fictional storytelling, for example, may benefit from shared technical infrastructure and audience development systems. Factual journalism and imaginative fiction require different standards of production, interpretation and editorial accountability. The organisational integration of these activities does not justify collapsing their professional or cultural distinctions. The proposed CDMM must therefore accommodate both shared infrastructure and functional differentiation. This is a departure from any understanding of convergence as the elimination of boundaries between media. The existence of meaningful boundaries may be essential to the integrity of particular forms of cultural production.

 

A cultural journalism operation requires editorial practices appropriate to factual reporting and criticism. Original fictional intellectual property requires creative development and narrative consistency. Audiovisual production introduces technical and aesthetic demands distinct from written publication. Participatory character performance involves real-time interaction and forms of cultural engagement not necessarily present in conventional editorial production. The enterprise may coordinate these activities without making them interchangeable. The theoretical significance of newsroom convergence research lies in demonstrating that integration can be organised through different relationships between autonomy and coordination.

 

An important limitation remains. Much of the foundational convergence literature examines organisations whose principal activities fall within journalism or established media industries. Although its insights are applicable to wider cultural production, the empirical cases do not necessarily encompass the combination of journalism, literary intellectual property, fictional performance, interactive entertainment and creative enterprise activity. The proposed ICME classification extends the organisational question into this broader cultural environment. It does not claim that these forms of convergence have previously been absent from media scholarship. It draws on established convergence theory to develop a more comprehensive description of enterprises whose activities cross several cultural production domains.

 

Four dimensions of convergence are particularly useful. Technological convergence concerns the digital infrastructures enabling different forms of media to be produced, stored, adapted and distributed. Production convergence concerns the coordination of creative, editorial and technical processes across different media forms. Distribution convergence concerns the circulation of content and cultural properties through multiple platforms and audience environments. Organisational convergence concerns the strategic relationships connecting production functions, resources, brands, commercial activities and institutional arrangements. These dimensions are related but not identical.

 

An organisation may achieve technological and distribution convergence without substantially integrating its production or business operations. Organisational convergence may involve coordination between activities that retain distinct technical and professional requirements. For ICME/CDMM, organisational convergence is the defining concern. The presence of multiple media formats establishes diversity of production. The relationships between those formats, their producers, their audiences and the enterprise’s commercial structures establish the degree of integration. This distinction provides the basis for moving from convergence as a general media phenomenon towards convergence as an identifiable operating model.

 

6. From multimedia production to multi-platform business models

The expansion of media production across digital platforms has important economic consequences. Organisations no longer necessarily rely on a single publication format, distribution channel or audience relationship. Cultural products may circulate through owned websites, third-party platforms, social media accounts, digital marketplaces and audiovisual services, each involving different forms of visibility, participation and commercial opportunity. Multi-platform distribution should not be confused with the existence of an integrated business model.

 

An organisation may reproduce the same material across several platforms without changing its underlying production processes or commercial structure. It may develop platform-specific content, establish distinct audience relationships and coordinate different forms of cultural production through a shared organisational strategy. The distinction concerns how the enterprise creates, delivers and captures value. Doyle (2015) provides an important foundation through an examination of multi-platform media economics. Her analysis addresses the economic implications of producing and distributing media content across multiple platforms, including the opportunities and constraints associated with extending the use of content beyond its initial distribution environment.

 

Digital media can enable content to circulate through additional channels without requiring the complete recreation of the original cultural product. Additional distribution opportunities are not costless. They may require investment in adaptation, production, audience development, platform management and organisational coordination. The economic value of multi-platform production cannot be established merely by counting the number of platforms used. This observation is central to CDMM. A convergent digital media operating model must explain why activities are distributed across particular environments, how they relate to one another and what forms of value they contribute to the enterprise.

 

The same cultural property may generate value through several mechanisms. An original fictional work may be published in book form, serialised digitally, represented through character-led social media activity and developed into audiovisual content. Each activity may serve a different cultural purpose while contributing to the visibility, development or commercial potential of the underlying intellectual property. An integrated cultural media enterprise may also produce activities that are not extensions of a single intellectual property. A cultural journalism article about horror cinema, for example, may possess independent editorial value. Its contribution to the enterprise may arise through readership, cultural authority, audience development or commercial publishing activity rather than through the expansion of an original fictional narrative.

 

This distinction separates the proposed CDMM from a narrowly transmedia business model. Transmedia storytelling concerns the development of narrative experiences across different media. A convergent digital media operating model, as proposed here, concerns the organisation of multiple cultural production functions, whether or not those functions belong to the same narrative universe. Kawashima (2020) provides a wider perspective on changing business models within media industries. Digital transformation introduces new relationships between media organisations, audiences and commercial intermediaries. These developments complicate established models based on the production and distribution of relatively discrete cultural commodities.

 

Li (2020) similarly examines digital transformation within the creative industries, identifying business model change as an organisational phenomenon rather than a purely technological one. These perspectives help distinguish a digital distribution strategy from a digital business model. A distribution strategy identifies the channels through which content reaches audiences. A business model addresses the wider relationships through which an organisation creates value, delivers products or services, organises resources and obtains commercial returns. The two may overlap, but they are not equivalent.

 

A company operating a website, several social media accounts and a video channel may possess an extensive distribution network. Whether these activities form an integrated business model depends on the relationships between production decisions, audience development, intellectual property management and commercial operations. Unnava and Aravindakshan (2021) provide a further relevant perspective through their examination of consumer engagement across multiple social media platforms. Their research demonstrates the importance of understanding engagement as a dynamic relationship that can extend beyond individual posts or isolated platform interactions. This supports the argument that platform activities should not necessarily be analysed as independent units.

 

Engagement must be interpreted carefully. Social media interactions are not equivalent to revenue, and the existence of engagement across several platforms does not automatically establish a profitable or sustainable business model. The proposed CDMM therefore distinguishes between audience participation, cultural value and commercial value capture. Audience participation may contribute to the development of cultural properties, the circulation of content and the formation of communities. Cultural value may arise through entertainment, knowledge, criticism, artistic expression or participation. Commercial value may be captured through advertising, sales, licensing, publishing, services or other revenue mechanisms. These forms of value may reinforce one another, but they should not be treated as interchangeable. The relationship between them must be examined rather than assumed.

 

This distinction is especially important for enterprises operating across several cultural domains. A factual editorial publication may contribute primarily through readership and cultural authority, while a fictional property may contribute through intellectual property development and commercial publishing. An interactive quiz may support engagement and cultural participation, while an audiovisual production may possess its own creative and distribution objectives. An integrated operating model can coordinate these activities without requiring them to produce identical forms of value. The economic significance of convergence therefore lies in the organisation of complementary activities, not simply in the multiplication of distribution channels. The proposed CDMM builds on this understanding by treating multi-platform distribution as one component of a broader system encompassing cultural production, intellectual property, audience participation, commercial operations and organisational innovation.

 

7. Business model innovation and the creative industries

The concept of business model innovation provides a theoretical foundation for explaining how multiple cultural production functions may be integrated within a single enterprise. Business model innovation differs from the introduction of an individual product or the adoption of a particular technology. It concerns changes to the configuration of activities, resources and relationships through which an organisation creates, delivers and captures value. Foss and Saebi (2017) examine the development of business model innovation scholarship and the conceptual difficulties surrounding its definition. Their review is important because it demonstrates that business model innovation cannot be treated as a self-evident consequence of technological change or organisational diversification.

 

A company may adopt new software without substantially changing its business model. It may introduce an additional product while retaining its existing production and commercial arrangements. It may innovate through the reorganisation of established activities into a different system of value creation. The distinction is essential for the present article. The proposed CDMM does not require every component of the enterprise to be technologically novel. Cultural journalism, fiction publishing, audiovisual production, interactive entertainment and audience participation all have established histories. The potential organisational innovation lies in the way these functions are coordinated within a common enterprise.

 

This approach is consistent with the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat, 2018), which distinguishes different forms of innovation and recognises that innovation need not represent an invention entirely new to the world. An innovation may involve a product or business process that is new or significantly improved in relation to the organisation’s previous activities, provided that the relevant innovation has been implemented. This qualification prevents the argument from confusing a proposed conceptual framework with evidence of innovation. The identification of CDMM as an operating model does not, by itself, establish that Dyerbolical has implemented a novel business process. Such a claim would require comparison with the company’s previous operations and evidence of the relevant organisational change. The more defensible argument is that CDMM provides a framework through which the integration of existing cultural activities can be analysed, including where such integration may constitute business model innovation.

 

Schiuma and Lerro (2017) are particularly important because they address business models within arts and cultural organisations rather than treating them as interchangeable with businesses in other sectors. Their Business Model Prism provides a multidimensional framework for analysing and developing cultural organisations’ business models. The framework recognises that cultural organisations differ in their missions, resources, stakeholder relationships and approaches to value creation. This is a significant consideration for the proposed ICME classification. Cultural enterprises do not necessarily organise all activities around a single measurable commercial output. Their operations may involve artistic production, cultural interpretation, public engagement, knowledge creation and commercial exchange. These activities can possess different immediate objectives while contributing to the wider enterprise.

 

A model designed exclusively around the production and sale of a discrete commodity may therefore provide an incomplete account of a cultural organisation’s operations. Schiuma and Lerro’s approach demonstrates the value of examining cultural business models through multiple organisational dimensions. Their framework is not identical to the proposed CDMM. The Business Model Prism is a general framework for understanding and innovating business models in arts and cultural organisations. CDMM is intended to explain a more specific configuration: the integration of multiple cultural media production functions through digital infrastructure, intellectual property, audiences and commercial operations. The distinction is one of analytical focus rather than theoretical opposition.

 

Li (2020) contributes a complementary perspective by examining digital business model transformation in creative industries. Digital technologies may alter production and distribution arrangements while creating opportunities for new relationships between cultural organisations, consumers and intermediaries. Digital transformation should not be understood as a uniform process. Different creative sectors possess different production structures, revenue mechanisms, institutional relationships and forms of intellectual property. The implications of digital technologies depend on the organisational and industrial circumstances in which they are adopted. This qualification is important because ICME/CDMM should not be presented as the inevitable destination of cultural enterprise development.

 

Not every publishing business requires audiovisual production. Not every cultural journalism organisation benefits from developing original fiction. Not every creative enterprise requires sustained fictional character accounts or participatory storytelling. The proposed framework is intended to describe and analyse enterprises in which such functions are substantively integrated, not prescribe a universal strategy for all cultural businesses. Han (2024) provides empirical support for examining integration within publishing business models. The study identifies content production, technological integration, organisational innovation and marketing integration as related dimensions of transmedia publishing, and reports positive relationships between the examined model and business performance within its sample. These findings demonstrate that integration can be examined as an organisational and managerial phenomenon rather than solely as a narrative technique.

 

The study’s empirical scope is limited to surveyed Chinese publishing organisations. Its findings cannot be transferred directly to an Irish cultural media enterprise without accounting for differences in market conditions, organisational scale and production activities. It also concerns transmedia publishing specifically, whereas the proposed CDMM encompasses cultural activities that may be unrelated to a particular narrative property. The relevance of Han’s study therefore lies in its demonstration that the coordination of content, technology, organisation and marketing can form part of business model analysis. The proposed CDMM extends this concern to the integration of several cultural production domains.

 

Panneels et al. provide a further perspective through their examination of ecosystems and partnerships supporting innovation in the creative industries. Their analysis emphasises the significance of collaborative networks, shared expertise and relationships between creative organisations and wider innovation environments. Such relationships are particularly important for smaller cultural enterprises, which may not possess the internal resources required to undertake every production function independently. The coordination of external collaborators, specialist expertise and creative networks may therefore form part of an enterprise’s operating model. Collaboration should not automatically be interpreted as organisational integration. An occasional creative partnership does not necessarily constitute a sustained business function. The relevant distinction concerns whether external relationships contribute systematically to the enterprise’s production capabilities, innovation processes or commercial activities.

 

This is particularly significant when examining cultural businesses that operate through combinations of internal production, freelance collaboration, platform services and industry networks. Business model innovation scholarship therefore contributes three essential principles to the development of CDMM. First, the organisation of activities can be as important as the novelty of individual products or technologies. Second, business models must be analysed through relationships between value creation, value delivery and value capture. Third, the existence of multiple activities does not itself establish an integrated or innovative model. These principles provide the basis for distinguishing CDMM from simple diversification. A diversified enterprise may undertake several activities that remain organisationally independent. An integrated enterprise coordinates different activities through identifiable relationships that contribute to its overall production and commercial structure. The proposed CDMM is concerned with those relationships.

 

8. The distinctive economic conditions of cultural production

The development of an integrated cultural media framework must account for the distinctive conditions under which cultural products are created, distributed and consumed. Cultural production differs from many other economic activities because its value cannot be understood exclusively through physical utility or immediate commercial exchange. Cultural products may generate aesthetic, intellectual, symbolic, educational, social and emotional value alongside financial returns. These dimensions are particularly relevant to enterprises operating across journalism, fiction, audiovisual media and participatory cultural production.

 

Schiuma and Lerro (2017) recognise that arts and cultural organisations possess distinctive characteristics that complicate the direct application of conventional business model frameworks. Their work emphasises the importance of understanding organisational purpose, stakeholder relationships and the different forms of value associated with cultural activity. This provides a foundation for considering why an integrated cultural media enterprise may require a model that accounts for more than product sales or distribution efficiency. An original novel, for example, may generate commercial value through sales and licensing. It may also generate cultural value through literary expression, audience interpretation and participation in genre traditions. A cultural journalism article may contribute to public knowledge, criticism and cultural debate while also attracting readership and supporting the enterprise’s digital publishing operations. An interactive quiz may provide entertainment and cultural engagement without necessarily generating direct revenue from each participant. A fictional character performance may extend an original narrative property, support participatory storytelling or create a distinctive cultural experience through interaction with audiences.

 

These activities possess different relationships between production, consumption and commercial return. Their integration therefore requires a model capable of recognising different forms of value without reducing all cultural activity to a single commercial function. Kawashima (2020) provides an important perspective on the changing business models of media industries. The digital environment complicates established relationships between cultural production, distribution and revenue, particularly where media organisations depend on platforms and intermediaries. Digital technologies may reduce some barriers to publication and distribution, but they do not eliminate the resources required to create cultural products, develop audiences or maintain sustainable operations. The distinction between production costs and reproduction costs is particularly important.

 

Once created, a digital cultural product may be reproduced or distributed at relatively low marginal cost compared with many physical goods. Its initial creation may require substantial investment in time, specialist skills, equipment, research, editing, design and organisational resources. Digital distribution therefore creates opportunities for wider circulation without removing the economic challenges of cultural production. Doyle (2015) addresses the implications of multi-platform media distribution for the exploitation of content and the organisation of media businesses. Her analysis is relevant because the economic value of distributing cultural content across several platforms depends on the relationships between production costs, adaptation requirements and potential returns. An enterprise may benefit from developing several uses for an original cultural property, but those uses may require additional creative work rather than simple reproduction.

 

This is particularly evident in audiovisual adaptation and participatory media. A fictional character represented through a novel does not automatically become a fully developed online performance simply because the character is given a social media account. Sustained character performance requires additional dialogue, narrative decisions, interaction and creative labour. An audiovisual adaptation requires production choices that differ from those involved in written fiction. The integration of such activities may therefore generate opportunities for cultural and commercial development while also increasing organisational complexity. Li (2020) provides a broader context for these developments by examining the transformation of creative industry business models through digital technologies. The significance of digital transformation lies partly in the ability of cultural enterprises to reorganise relationships between production, distribution and consumption. The resulting business models remain shaped by sector-specific conditions and the distinctive nature of cultural products.

 

This observation is relevant to enterprises that combine several cultural production domains. The integration of journalism, fiction, audiovisual media and interactive production does not eliminate the economic characteristics of each activity. It creates an organisational environment in which different forms of cultural production coexist and may support one another. Panneels et al. further emphasise the importance of creative ecosystems and collaborative relationships in enabling innovation. Their analysis identifies the role of networks, shared expertise and collaborative processes in supporting creative organisations. Such arrangements can be significant because cultural enterprises frequently depend on specialist capabilities that are not necessarily maintained within a single permanent workforce.

 

An enterprise may coordinate editorial production internally while collaborating with external artists, filmmakers, designers or technical specialists. It may also participate in wider creative networks that provide access to knowledge, professional relationships and opportunities for cultural development. These relationships may form part of the organisation’s productive capacity even when they do not constitute formal corporate divisions. Their existence must be documented and interpreted according to their actual nature. Participation in an enterprise development programme, for example, does not automatically establish a commercial partnership or imply institutional endorsement of the company’s business model. The same principle applies to creative industry collaborations. Support, sponsorship, production participation, promotional activity and formal partnership are distinct relationships that should not be represented interchangeably.

 

The economic characteristics of cultural production also introduce an important distinction between audience attention and commercial performance. Digital platforms can make cultural activity visible through followers, views, interactions and other forms of engagement. These measures may indicate the circulation of cultural content or the presence of audience relationships, but they do not necessarily establish profitability. Unnava and Aravindakshan (2021) demonstrate the importance of analysing consumer engagement across multiple social media environments. Their research provides a foundation for considering how platform activity may interact across different channels. Engagement metrics must be distinguished from revenue and other measures of business performance.

 

An integrated cultural media enterprise may create substantial cultural activity without capturing equivalent commercial value. A relatively small audience may support particular commercial activities through purchasing, subscriptions, licensing or other forms of exchange. The proposed CDMM must therefore account for the relationship between cultural participation and commercial value without assuming that the two are identical. This is particularly important for a company such as Dyerbolical Ltd, whose activities encompass both original fictional properties and wider cultural media production. The company’s organisational identity cannot be established solely through the commercial performance of a particular book, website or social media account. Its classification must instead consider the range of cultural activities undertaken, their organisational relationships and the ways in which they contribute to the enterprise’s overall structure.

 

This does not mean that commercial performance is irrelevant. A business model necessarily involves questions of economic sustainability and value capture. The distinction concerns the purpose of the present analysis. The article seeks to establish an organisational classification and operating framework, not to conduct a financial audit or demonstrate the profitability of individual activities. A further implication concerns the relationship between cultural production and intellectual property. Original intellectual property can provide a foundation for multiple forms of cultural activity, including publishing, character performance, audiovisual adaptation and interactive engagement. Not every activity within an integrated cultural media enterprise must derive from original intellectual property.

 

Cultural journalism, criticism and genre curation may address works created by other producers. Interactive media may engage with broader cultural knowledge rather than a proprietary narrative. Creative industry collaboration may involve projects external to the enterprise’s own fictional properties. This is an essential distinction between ICME/CDMM and an exclusively intellectual-property-centred business model. The enterprise’s integration may arise through shared production resources, cultural expertise, audiences, infrastructure and commercial organisation even when its individual outputs are not narratively connected. The proposed framework must recognise two different forms of relationship. The first is integration around a cultural property, where several media activities develop or support the same intellectual property. The second is integration at the organisational level, where distinct cultural properties and production functions are coordinated within the same enterprise. These relationships may coexist, but they are not identical.

 

Transmedia storytelling is particularly relevant to the first. The proposed CDMM is concerned with both. This distinction establishes the transition from the theoretical foundations developed in this part to the analysis of specific cultural production functions in the next. The first eight sections have demonstrated that established publishing terminology, while valid within its proper scope, does not necessarily provide a comprehensive description of enterprises combining multiple forms of cultural production. Media convergence scholarship establishes the organisational significance of coordinating different production functions. Multi-platform media economics explains the opportunities and constraints associated with distributing cultural products across several environments. Business model innovation scholarship demonstrates the importance of activity configuration, resource relationships and value creation. Cultural enterprise research establishes the need to account for the distinctive characteristics of artistic, editorial and participatory production. Together, these perspectives provide the theoretical basis for the proposed ICME classification and CDMM operating framework. The remaining task is to demonstrate how those principles apply to the specific cultural production activities and organisational relationships constituting Dyerbolical Ltd.

 

Part III. Cultural production beyond the book

 

9. Cultural journalism as an independent production function

Any organisational framework intended to describe an integrated cultural media enterprise must distinguish cultural journalism from the production and promotion of original fictional intellectual property. Although both activities may involve writing, editing, publication and digital distribution, they differ in their editorial purposes, professional conventions, relationships to cultural objects and forms of audience engagement. Their coexistence within a single enterprise cannot adequately be explained by treating journalism as an auxiliary marketing activity for literary publishing.

 

Cultural journalism constitutes a substantive field of media production concerned with the reporting, criticism, interpretation and contextualisation of cultural activities, artefacts, industries and practices. It encompasses forms ranging from news reporting and interviews to criticism, historical interpretation, commentary and specialist editorial writing. Its subjects may include cinema, literature, music, television, popular culture, cultural heritage and the relationships between cultural production and wider social life.

 

Widholm, Riegert and Roosvall (2021) examine transformations in the media ecology of Swedish cultural journalism over four decades. Their work establishes cultural journalism as a field whose institutional arrangements, forms of publication and relationships with wider media environments have undergone substantial change. This historical perspective demonstrates that cultural journalism is not simply a digital development or an incidental feature of contemporary online publishing. It possesses an established relationship with the cultural industries while remaining subject to changes in the organisation and distribution of media.

 

Riegert (2021) similarly examines the negotiation of boundaries within a changing cultural journalism environment. The significance of boundary negotiation lies in the relationship between journalistic authority, cultural expertise, criticism and the increasingly diverse environments through which cultural commentary circulates. Cultural journalism operates at the intersection of media institutions, cultural production and audience interpretation, but this position does not eliminate its identity as journalism.

 

These perspectives establish two important principles for the proposed Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME). Cultural journalism constitutes an identifiable production function with its own intellectual and editorial purposes, and its organisational location may change without requiring its assimilation into another cultural activity.

 

The distinction is especially relevant to Dyerbolical Ltd. The company’s cultural publishing extends beyond original fiction to include editorial material addressing horror cinema, science fiction, true crime, paranormal subjects, comics, retro culture and related areas of media and popular culture. Such content engages with cultural subjects that exist independently of the company’s original fictional properties. Its purpose may include informing readers, documenting genre history, providing cultural interpretation and participating in wider discussions of popular culture.

 

The organisational significance of this work cannot be established solely through its potential contribution to audience traffic or brand visibility. Those may be commercially relevant outcomes, but they do not exhaust the activity’s cultural function. An article examining a horror film, for example, remains an act of cultural journalism even when published by a company that also produces horror fiction. Its subject, editorial methods and relationship to the reader differ from those of an original fictional narrative. Similarly, commentary on a filmmaker or the history of a genre may contribute to cultural knowledge independently of whether the reader subsequently purchases a novel or engages with a fictional character account.

 

This distinction requires an analytical separation between cultural production and corporate integration. At the level of individual outputs, journalism and fiction remain different forms of media. At the organisational level, they may share production resources, editorial expertise, digital infrastructure, audience development mechanisms and commercial arrangements. Their integration therefore does not depend on making their content or purposes identical.

 

The convergence literature provides a foundation for understanding this relationship. Deuze (2004) identifies multimedia journalism as a field involving changes in production and presentation, while García Avilés and Carvajal (2008) examine the organisational coordination of journalistic work across media. Their findings demonstrate that different media functions can become operationally connected without necessarily losing their distinctive professional requirements. The present case extends beyond the newsroom convergence considered in those studies. The question is not merely how journalism is distributed across print, online and audiovisual environments. It is how journalism operates alongside literary fiction, original intellectual property, character-led performance and interactive cultural production within a common enterprise.

 

This requires attention to the relationship between editorial independence and organisational coordination. A cultural media enterprise may possess a recognisable corporate identity and shared audience infrastructure while maintaining different editorial conventions for factual and fictional work. The credibility of cultural journalism depends partly on the distinction between factual claims, interpretation, criticism and imaginative invention. Integration with a fictional publishing operation should not obscure these differences. The proposed Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM) must recognise that common ownership and infrastructure do not justify the removal of professional boundaries. Organisational integration can coexist with editorial differentiation.

 

The economic implications of this relationship are also significant. Cultural journalism may contribute to an enterprise through several mechanisms, including readership, advertising, audience retention, cultural authority, specialist expertise and relationships with cultural communities. These potential contributions should not be treated as automatic or interchangeable. A substantial readership does not necessarily establish commercial sustainability, and cultural authority cannot be inferred solely from the volume of publication.

 

Kawashima (2020) and Li (2020) provide broader theoretical support for analysing how digital media business models reorganise relationships between content production, distribution and value creation. Their work is relevant because cultural journalism increasingly operates within digital environments where editorial activity, audience engagement and commercial structures intersect. The presence of a commercial structure does not make journalism reducible to marketing. Its distinctive cultural function remains central to understanding the enterprise.

 

The significance of cultural journalism for ICME therefore operates at two levels. It expands the organisation’s substantive production activities beyond literary publishing, and it demonstrates that organisational integration can connect cultural functions that are not narratively dependent upon one another. A transmedia storytelling framework may explain how a fictional universe expands through novels, audiovisual works and character performances. It cannot, by itself, explain the organisational relationship between that fictional universe and independently produced journalism about cinema, cultural history or true crime. The proposed ICME classification addresses the broader organisational structure within which both activities occur. Cultural journalism is therefore not an optional addition to the argument. It is one of the principal reasons why a publishing-centred or exclusively transmedia classification may be insufficient.

 

10. Digital-native publishing and audience relationships

The development of digital-native media organisations has altered the relationship between publishing, audience participation and commercial sustainability. Whereas conventional publishing arrangements have frequently been organised around relatively discrete products and distribution channels, digital-native publishing may involve continuous editorial activity, ongoing audience relationships and the coordination of multiple forms of media within shared digital environments.

 

The distinction between digital publishing and digital-native publishing requires clarification. Digital publishing broadly describes the production or distribution of material through digital technologies. Digital-native publishing refers more specifically to publishing activities and organisations developed within digital environments rather than established principally through earlier print or broadcast structures. This distinction does not imply that digital-native organisations are necessarily more innovative, commercially successful or organisationally integrated than established media businesses. It identifies differences in their historical development and operating circumstances.

 

Carpes da Silva and Gruszynski Sanseverino (2020) examine business model innovation in news media through the development of relationships between publishers and readers. Their research is relevant because it shifts attention from publication as a discrete transaction towards the ongoing relationships through which media organisations seek to sustain their operations. Such relationships may involve participation, reader support and other forms of engagement that extend beyond the consumption of individual articles. The significance for the present argument lies in recognising audiences as participants in the organisation’s wider media environment rather than treating them solely as recipients of finished content.

 

Pérez-Seijo, Vizoso and López-García (2020) similarly examine business models and audience participation in online-native media. Their work addresses the relationship between digital publishing, audience engagement and the commercial challenges facing contemporary journalism organisations. Together, these studies provide a basis for understanding why digital-native publishing may involve more than the production of editorial material for online distribution. The publisher may also coordinate technological infrastructure, audience relationships, interactive functions and commercial mechanisms that operate continuously rather than exclusively at the moment of publication.

 

The existence of such activities does not automatically transform a publisher into an integrated cultural media enterprise. A digital-native journalism organisation may operate through a complex business model while remaining principally concerned with journalism. Likewise, an online literary publisher may maintain substantial audience relationships while remaining primarily a publishing organisation. The proposed ICME classification becomes relevant when digital publishing forms part of a broader system of distinct cultural production activities.

 

Dyerbolical’s digital infrastructure illustrates this distinction. Its websites support different aspects of its cultural operations, including general cultural publishing and the presentation of original fictional properties. The relationship between these environments is not adequately described by treating them as interchangeable publication outlets. A general cultural publishing website may contain editorial material addressing external cultural subjects, while a fictional property website may organise the presentation, distribution and development of original narratives. These environments may share corporate ownership and audience development mechanisms while performing different cultural functions. This arrangement introduces the question of how a business coordinates multiple digital identities without necessarily collapsing them into a single publication. The relevant organisational principle is differentiation within integration.

 

Digital-native publishing provides the infrastructure through which different cultural activities may be made accessible, but the organisational model must explain the relationships between those activities. Spjeldnæs (2022) adds an important dimension through the analysis of platformisation in publishing. Digital platforms create opportunities for distribution and audience access, but they also introduce dependencies associated with technological intermediaries. A cultural media enterprise may operate owned websites while relying on third-party platforms for particular forms of distribution, engagement or commercial activity. These arrangements involve different levels of control over content presentation, audience access and the conditions under which media circulate. The proposed CDMM should distinguish between owned digital infrastructure and platform-mediated distribution.

 

Owned websites may provide greater control over publication, presentation and the organisation of cultural properties. Third-party platforms may offer access to established audiences, interactive functions and distribution systems, but they remain subject to platform rules, technical changes and commercial arrangements determined by external organisations. This distinction is relevant to both journalism and fiction. It also becomes particularly important for participatory media and fictional character performance, where the cultural activity may depend on interactive features provided by social platforms. The organisation’s business model therefore involves not only the production of content but also the management of relationships with digital infrastructures.

 

Unnava and Aravindakshan (2021) provide a further perspective on cross-platform audience engagement. Their analysis demonstrates the importance of examining how consumer engagement develops when brands operate across multiple social media environments. Although brand engagement research should not be treated as a complete explanation of cultural participation, it provides useful evidence that audience relationships can extend across platforms rather than remaining confined to individual channels. For a cultural media enterprise, these relationships may connect different forms of content and participation. A reader encountering a factual cultural article may subsequently engage with the organisation’s fictional properties, while an audience member initially attracted by a fictional character may encounter other cultural material produced by the same enterprise. Such movement is possible, but it must not be assumed as an established outcome without supporting audience evidence. The conceptual significance lies in the organisational capacity to coordinate different audience entry points. This is different from claiming that every audience member participates across all of the company’s activities.

 

Digital-native publishing therefore contributes three elements to the development of CDMM: continuous publication and audience relationships; the coordination of owned and third-party digital environments; and the capacity to organise different cultural production functions through interconnected digital infrastructure. These elements provide a foundation for integrated cultural media operations, but they do not independently establish ICME status. The classification depends on the substantive range of production activities and the organisational relationships between them. The next section examines original intellectual property and transmedia storytelling, which constitute a major component of those activities but cannot alone explain the enterprise as a whole.

 

11. Original fiction, intellectual property and transmedia storytelling

Original intellectual property occupies an important position within contemporary cultural media enterprises because it can provide a foundation for multiple forms of production, distribution and audience participation. Literary works, fictional characters and narrative worlds may be developed through books, websites, audiovisual productions, interactive environments and ongoing forms of performance. The relationship between intellectual property and organisational integration requires careful distinction.

 

A company may develop an original fictional property across several media while remaining primarily a literary publisher or audiovisual producer. Conversely, an enterprise may coordinate multiple cultural production functions without requiring them to derive from a single narrative universe. The first arrangement concerns the development of intellectual property across media. The second concerns the integration of activities at the organisational level. Transmedia storytelling provides an established theoretical framework for the first.

 

Long (2007), in his study of transmedia storytelling at the Jim Henson Company, examines the relationships between narrative development, production and business considerations. His work demonstrates that transmedia storytelling is not merely a matter of reproducing an existing narrative through additional channels. It involves decisions concerning the contribution of different media to a wider narrative experience. This distinction is fundamental. The publication of an identical fictional text through several websites constitutes multi-platform distribution. It does not necessarily constitute transmedia storytelling. A fictional narrative developed through different media, with each contributing distinctive material or experiences, may more appropriately be understood through a transmedia framework. The difference concerns the narrative function of the additional medium.

 

Freeman (2015) provides an important historical qualification through his examination of cross-media characters and storyworlds at the turn of the twentieth century. His research demonstrates that the development of fictional properties across media and commercial environments predates contemporary digital platforms. This prevents the present article from treating transmedia storytelling or cross-media intellectual property development as unprecedented consequences of the internet. The contemporary digital environment may alter the scale, speed and participatory possibilities of such practices, but it does not establish their historical origin.

 

Sánchez-López et al. (2020) examine the expansion of digital storytelling, providing a wider context for understanding how narrative practices develop through digital technologies and contemporary media environments. Digital storytelling encompasses diverse practices and should not be treated as synonymous with transmedia storytelling. A digital story may exist entirely within one medium, while a transmedia narrative involves relationships between contributions distributed across different media. This distinction matters because the proposed CDMM encompasses both narrative and non-narrative activities.

 

Han (2024) provides a particularly important connection between transmedia storytelling and organisational management. His study of Chinese book publishing organisations examines how content production, technological integration, organisational innovation and marketing integration relate to business performance. The significance of this research is that transmedia publishing can be analysed as a business model involving coordinated organisational functions rather than solely as a narrative technique. Han’s model remains centred on the development and commercial performance of book publishing. The proposed CDMM extends the organisational analysis to enterprises in which original fiction coexists with other substantive cultural activities.

 

Dyerbolical’s original intellectual property provides an illustrative example. The company’s Immortalis fictional universe contains original characters, narrative settings, relationships and an extensive fictional mythology. Its development extends beyond a single publication through digital serialisation, character-oriented online activity, visual media and associated forms of audience engagement. The earlier Kane property also forms part of the company’s original literary production. These properties can be analysed through intellectual property development and, where different media contribute distinctive narrative material, transmedia storytelling.

 

The existence of a fictional universe across several digital platforms should not automatically be classified as transmedia storytelling. The analytical distinction depends on whether each medium contributes additional narrative content or simply reproduces existing material. A novel excerpt posted on a social platform remains a form of distribution unless its presentation introduces substantive additional narrative material. An original fictional exchange between characters may constitute new narrative production. An audiovisual adaptation may introduce distinctive formal or narrative contributions, depending on its content. The classification must therefore be based on the function of the activity rather than the platform through which it appears.

 

Xu, Gonzalez Patiño and Linaza (2023) examine reader influence on the creation of transmedia science fiction from a participatory culture perspective. Their research is relevant because it addresses the relationship between narrative production and audience participation. The interaction between authors and readers may influence the development, interpretation or circulation of fictional narratives. Digital environments can enable participation to become part of the continuing cultural life of a fictional property rather than remaining confined to responses after publication. Participation does not necessarily imply that audiences possess equal creative authority or control over the narrative. The extent of influence depends on the particular production arrangements. This qualification is important when examining original intellectual property that incorporates collaborative or interactive elements.

 

Burgess et al. (2025) contribute a further dimension through their examination of narrative media brands. Their work provides a foundation for understanding how narrative properties can be managed as brands with relationships extending beyond individual media products. The distinction between a fictional property and a corporate brand remains important. A narrative brand may be associated with particular characters, stories and audience expectations, while the corporate identity encompasses a wider range of activities and commercial relationships. For Dyerbolical, Immortalis may be understood as an original narrative property and associated brand, but it should not be treated as synonymous with Dyerbolical Ltd. This distinction is especially important because the company’s cultural journalism and other editorial activities do not necessarily derive from the fictional universe.

 

The presence of original intellectual property therefore contributes to ICME in two ways. It establishes literary and narrative production as a substantive function within the enterprise, and it provides opportunities for the coordination of publishing, audiovisual production, character performance and participatory media. It does not establish the entire organisational classification. A transmedia storytelling model could explain the development of Immortalis across several media environments. It would not necessarily explain Dyerbolical’s factual journalism, genre criticism, independent interactive cultural content or wider creative industry activities. The proposed ICME classification therefore operates at a broader level than the individual narrative property.

 

The distinction can be expressed through the relationship between narrative integration and organisational integration. Narrative integration concerns the coordination of content belonging to the same fictional universe. Organisational integration concerns the coordination of different cultural production functions within the same enterprise. A cultural media enterprise may exhibit both, but the presence of one does not establish the other. The proposed CDMM is designed to explain their coexistence and interaction. Original intellectual property remains a major component of the model, but it is not the sole organising principle. The enterprise may also create cultural value through factual publishing, criticism, genre interpretation, interactive media and creative collaboration. This wider organisational perspective becomes particularly important when examining fictional character performance, where narrative production, digital identity and audience participation intersect.

 

12. Character-led media and online fictional performance

One of the most distinctive features of contemporary participatory media is the capacity for fictional characters to operate as persistent social identities within digital environments. Rather than appearing exclusively within completed literary or audiovisual works, characters may be represented through accounts that publish original dialogue, interact with other personae, respond to audiences and participate in continuing narrative performances. This development raises an important question for the classification of cultural media enterprises. Should such accounts be understood solely as promotional extensions of existing intellectual property, or can they constitute a substantive form of cultural production? The distinction is significant because the answer affects how the organisation’s productive activities are identified.

 

Where a fictional character account simply announces publication dates or reproduces marketing material, its principal function may reasonably be described as promotion. Where the account continuously produces original dialogue, narrative interaction, character development and fictional performance, the activity extends beyond conventional advertising. The account becomes a site of cultural production.

 

Moore (2020), in ‘An Approach to Online Fan Personas’, provides an important theoretical foundation for understanding this distinction. Moore examines the construction and performance of online fan personae, treating persona as a mediated public presentation that develops through relationships between individuals, audiences, communities and digital environments. The significance of Moore’s framework is that persona need not be understood exclusively as the authentic expression of an individual’s private identity. It may also operate through constructed public identities, cultural objects, characters and other mediated forms. This broader understanding permits the analysis of fictional character accounts as performed personae rather than merely as communication channels.

 

A character account may possess a recognisable identity, distinctive linguistic conventions, recurring relationships and a continuing public presence. Its activity may be structured around the presentation of a fictional personality rather than the direct communication of the individual operating the account. The persona therefore becomes both a representational object and an ongoing performance. Moore’s work should not be interpreted as direct empirical evidence that company-operated fictional character accounts necessarily constitute independent commercial products. Its contribution is conceptual: it provides a framework for examining how public personae are constructed and sustained through digital mediation. Applying this framework to Dyerbolical requires a further analytical step.

 

The company’s character-led accounts represent figures from its original fictional properties, particularly Immortalis, while other accounts engage with established horror characters and wider genre traditions. These activities may involve ongoing fictional dialogue, exchanges between characters, improvisation and interaction with audiences. Where such exchanges produce original fictional material, they constitute cultural outputs rather than merely advertisements for previously completed works. This distinction becomes clearer when the account’s production process is examined.

 

A conventional promotional account may distribute information about a cultural product. A fictional performance account must sustain a recognisable character, respond within an established or developing fictional context and produce material that is meaningful as part of the performance. The creative labour involved may include dialogue composition, narrative improvisation, character continuity, interpersonal fictional relationships and the adaptation of performance to the affordances of the platform. These activities are not reducible to the technical act of posting content.

 

Doerr-Stevens (2011) examines the construction of fictional ethos through online roleplay, providing a relevant perspective on the rhetorical strategies through which fictional identities are established. The construction of a convincing persona depends partly on consistency of voice, interaction and the presentation of a coherent identity within a particular communicative environment. This is directly relevant to character-led cultural production. A fictional character may be recognisable not only through visual representation or an account name but also through distinctive speech patterns, recurring behaviours and relationships with other characters. The production of these features through ongoing interaction constitutes a form of creative performance.

 

Purwaningtyas and Oktara (2023) provide an empirical perspective through their virtual ethnographic study of K-pop idol roleplaying on Twitter. Their research examines users who create accounts adopting the names and identities of performers and interact with other participants through constructed representations and fictionalised relationships. The study is particularly useful because it demonstrates that social media accounts can operate as environments for sustained roleplay rather than exclusively as mechanisms for personal communication or information distribution. Its empirical context differs from that of Dyerbolical. The participants studied by Purwaningtyas and Oktara are fans performing identities associated with existing K-pop idols. Their activity is not equivalent to a company operating accounts for its own original fictional characters. The relevance of the study therefore lies in its examination of platform-mediated roleplay and performed identity, not in a direct equivalence between the two production arrangements.

 

Bjärstorp and Ragnerstam (2023) provide a further perspective through their analysis of live-action roleplaying and the affordances of social media. Their research examines how roleplaying activity associated with a physical event extends into digital environments, where interaction may continue beyond the original temporal and spatial boundaries of the performance. Their discussion of persistence, visibility, editability and associability is particularly relevant to understanding the distinctive characteristics of online fictional performance. Digital environments allow fictional interactions to remain visible after their initial publication. Participants may revisit, respond to and develop material that would otherwise have existed only as a temporary performance. This persistence changes the cultural status of the activity.

 

An improvised exchange between fictional characters may become part of a continuing body of publicly accessible narrative material. It can be encountered by audiences who were not present when the exchange originally occurred, and it may influence subsequent performances. The relationship between live interaction and persistent digital text therefore complicates the distinction between performance and publication. A fictional social media exchange may be both an event and a published cultural artefact. This dual character is important for the proposed CDMM because it demonstrates how digital performance can operate at the intersection of creative production, publication, audience participation and platform distribution.

 

The account’s activity may simultaneously generate original cultural material, sustain a character identity, invite participation and contribute to the wider visibility of an intellectual property. These functions must be distinguished analytically. The production of original fictional dialogue is a creative activity. Its publication through a social platform is a distribution activity. Audience responses constitute participation. Its potential contribution to the visibility of a fictional property may have a promotional dimension. The presence of a promotional function does not negate the existence of the others. This is a central principle of the proposed ICME classification. Cultural activities may possess several organisational functions simultaneously without being reducible to any single one.

 

For Dyerbolical, sustained fictional character performance is therefore significant because it adds a production function that differs from both conventional literary publishing and ordinary social media marketing. The activity involves the creation of fictional material through ongoing mediated interaction. It also introduces organisational complexity. Maintaining multiple fictional personae may require consistency of characterisation, coordination between accounts, the management of audience interactions and the relationship between improvised material and established fictional narratives. Such activity may be undertaken by a small number of individuals, but organisational scale does not determine whether creative production is occurring. The important question is the nature of the work and its relationship to the enterprise.

 

A further distinction concerns original characters and existing cultural figures. Accounts representing original intellectual property may operate as extensions of the company’s own fictional universe. Accounts drawing on established horror traditions may involve fan performance, cultural commentary, parody, homage or intertextual engagement, depending on their content. These forms of activity should not be treated as identical. The organisation’s ownership of original fictional properties does not imply ownership of established characters or cultural works referenced through fan activity. This distinction becomes particularly important when examining crossover accounts and participatory genre culture.

 

The theoretical contribution of character-led performance to ICME/CDMM is therefore substantial. It demonstrates that digital cultural production can occur outside conventional publication formats, that fictional personae can function as ongoing sites of creative work, and that audience interaction may form part of the production environment rather than merely follow the completion of a cultural product. An organisational classification that recognises only books, articles and audiovisual works may therefore overlook a substantive component of the enterprise’s cultural activity.

 

13. Fandom, cultural crossover and participatory production

Fandom occupies an important position within contemporary cultural media because it connects cultural consumption with interpretation, performance, creative participation and community formation. Audiences may engage with existing works through discussion, criticism, curation, adaptation, roleplay and the production of new cultural material. These practices complicate the distinction between cultural producers and consumers without necessarily eliminating it. A fan may consume a cultural work while also producing commentary, fictional narratives, visual material or performances associated with it. Such activity can generate cultural value independently of its relationship to commercial production.

 

Pearson (2010) examines fandom in the digital era, providing a foundation for understanding how digital environments have altered the organisation, visibility and practices of fan communities. Digital platforms can facilitate interaction between geographically dispersed participants and make fan-produced material more accessible. Fandom cannot be reduced to a consequence of digital technology. Fan interpretation, creative participation and community organisation have longer histories. The significance of digital environments lies partly in their capacity to connect these practices through persistent, searchable and interactive media.

 

Sundet and Petersen (2021) examine transmedia fandom, providing a relevant perspective on the relationship between media properties, audience participation and the circulation of cultural engagement across different environments. Their work is useful because it demonstrates that fan activity does not necessarily remain confined to the original medium through which a cultural property was encountered. Audiences may move between media, platforms and forms of participation while maintaining relationships with a particular narrative or cultural object. The movement of fandom across media should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of an integrated corporate strategy. Fan participation may occur independently of the organisations that own or produce the original cultural works. This distinction is essential when examining the relationship between fan culture and cultural enterprise.

 

An organisation may facilitate participatory activity, produce material informed by fan practices or participate directly in genre communities. The existence of fan activity does not automatically establish that the organisation controls, owns or commercially benefits from that activity. The proposed ICME framework must therefore distinguish between organisational production, audience participation and wider cultural networks. Keidl (2021), through an examination of fan curation and the value of fan heritage, provides a further perspective on the cultural significance of fan practices. Curation involves more than the passive accumulation of cultural material. The selection, organisation, interpretation and presentation of cultural artefacts can contribute to the preservation and circulation of cultural knowledge. This perspective is particularly relevant to specialist cultural media organisations whose activities include genre commentary, historical material and the sustained presentation of established cultural traditions.

 

A horror-oriented cultural enterprise, for example, may produce journalism about historical films while also participating in fan communities devoted to those films. These activities may overlap in their subject matter but differ in their forms of production. Journalism involves factual editorial practices. Fan curation may involve collecting, interpreting and circulating cultural material. Fictional crossover performance may involve the imaginative interaction of characters associated with different fictional traditions. These activities may coexist within a common cultural environment without becoming identical.

 

Dyerbolical’s genre-oriented operations illustrate this relationship. The company’s cultural interests encompass established horror cinema, literary horror, science fiction and related popular culture. Its original fictional properties exist alongside engagement with recognisable horror traditions and characters. The Vampyre Vlad account provides an example of the intersection between genre performance, established horror imagery and original fictional material. Its significance lies in the relationship between cultural recognition and creative transformation. An account associated with a familiar horror figure may draw upon an established cultural vocabulary while participating in original dialogue, commentary or fictional interaction. Such activity can create a bridge between existing genre traditions and newly produced fictional material. This relationship should not automatically be classified as a formal crossover between intellectual property owners. Intertextual engagement and fan performance are distinct from licensed commercial adaptation. The distinction concerns both the legal status of cultural properties and the nature of the creative activity.

 

A fictional exchange referencing an established horror character may constitute participatory performance or transformative fan activity without implying that the organisation possesses rights to the underlying property. The proposed ICME classification therefore recognises fan-related cultural production while avoiding the assumption that all referenced cultural material belongs to the enterprise. The relationship between original intellectual property and fan participation also raises questions concerning authorship. A company may create an original fictional character and subsequently interact with audiences who contribute dialogue, interpretations or additional narrative material. The resulting cultural activity may involve several participants whose contributions differ in their authorship and creative control. It would therefore be misleading to treat all publicly visible participatory material as the exclusive creative output of the company. The distinction between company-authored material, collaborative production and independent audience contributions must be preserved. This is particularly important for collaborative fiction.

 

Where fictional material is produced through exchanges between participants, the resulting text may constitute a collaborative cultural work. Its relationship to the enterprise depends on the circumstances of production, the identities and roles of the participants, and any relevant agreements concerning publication or reuse. The proposed CDMM can recognise collaborative production as part of the enterprise’s wider cultural environment without assuming exclusive ownership of every contribution. This qualification strengthens rather than weakens the framework. An integrated cultural media enterprise need not control every cultural interaction associated with its properties. Its organisational model may include relationships with participants, collaborators and communities whose activities retain their own creative significance.

 

Panneels et al. provide a complementary perspective through their examination of creative ecosystems and partnerships. Their analysis emphasises the importance of networks and collaborative relationships in supporting creative production and innovation. Although creative industry networks and fandom are not equivalent, both demonstrate that cultural production can involve relationships extending beyond the boundaries of a single organisation. The difference lies in the nature of those relationships. Professional creative collaboration may involve defined production roles, commercial arrangements or shared resources. Fan participation may be organised through informal communities, creative interests and shared cultural attachments. An integrated cultural media enterprise may participate in both environments, but their distinct characteristics should remain visible within the analysis.

 

Fandom also introduces a distinction between audience engagement as a commercial metric and participation as a cultural practice. An audience member who comments on a fictional character’s performance may contribute to the development of an interactive cultural exchange. The value of that contribution cannot be established solely through the number of likes, impressions or other platform measurements it generates. Similarly, the production of fanfiction or other transformative material may possess cultural significance independently of its commercial value to the original producer. The proposed CDMM must therefore avoid reducing participatory culture to a mechanism for extracting audience attention. Participation may contribute to cultural production, interpretation, community relationships and the continuing development of fictional material. These contributions may have commercial implications, but they are not necessarily undertaken for commercial purposes. This distinction is especially important for a business operating at the intersection of original intellectual property and established fan cultures.

 

The organisational challenge is to recognise the productive relationships between these activities without treating audiences as extensions of the company’s workforce or assuming that participation is automatically available for commercial appropriation. Fandom and cultural crossover contribute to the ICME framework in three ways. They demonstrate that cultural media production can involve creative practices extending beyond conventional publishing and audiovisual formats. They establish that cultural enterprises may operate within networks of interpretation, participation and shared genre knowledge. They demonstrate the importance of distinguishing organisationally produced content from collaborative and independently produced cultural material. These principles help explain why an integrated cultural media enterprise cannot be understood solely through its catalogue of proprietary products. Its cultural activities may also include interpretation, performance, participation and relationships with wider cultural communities. The proposed CDMM must therefore account for the interaction between proprietary intellectual property, independent cultural publishing and participatory media without collapsing their different forms of authorship, control or value.

 

14. Audiovisual and interactive media as distinct cultural production functions

The inclusion of audiovisual and interactive media within a cultural enterprise introduces further questions concerning organisational classification. Although these activities may support publishing or the development of original intellectual property, they also possess distinctive production requirements, cultural purposes and relationships with audiences. An audiovisual work is not simply a written publication presented through another distribution channel. Its production involves decisions concerning visual composition, sound, performance, editing, timing and the relationship between image and narrative. Interactive media similarly introduces forms of audience activity that differ from the consumption of a completed written or audiovisual work. These distinctions are important because the proposed ICME classification must identify substantive cultural production functions rather than treating all media activity as a variation of publishing.

 

The convergence literature provides a useful foundation for examining the relationships between these forms. Deuze (2004) identifies multimedia journalism as involving the integration of different media forms within journalistic production. His analysis demonstrates that the selection and combination of media are editorial and production decisions, not merely technical processes. García Avilés and Carvajal (2008) similarly examine how convergence can alter the organisational relationships between media production functions. These studies establish that audiovisual and written production may be coordinated within a common organisation while retaining distinctive professional practices. The scope of an integrated cultural media enterprise extends beyond the integration of audiovisual material into journalism.

 

An enterprise may produce original short films, audiovisual readings, promotional films, interactive entertainment and other digital cultural works. Some may derive from existing fictional properties, while others may address independent cultural subjects. The analytical significance lies in recognising these activities as cultural outputs rather than assuming that their primary purpose is to support book publication. Dyerbolical’s audiovisual activities provide an illustrative example. The company’s operations encompass video production and audiovisual content associated with its wider cultural and fictional interests. The production of such material may involve the adaptation of existing literary content, the presentation of original audiovisual material or the creation of works designed specifically for video-based environments. These activities require analysis according to their actual content and production function.

 

A reading of an existing fictional passage, for example, constitutes an audiovisual presentation of literary material. It may extend the work’s accessibility and provide a different experience of the text without necessarily introducing new narrative content. A short film that develops original scenes or narrative material may constitute a distinct audiovisual production and, where connected to a wider fictional property, a potential contribution to transmedia storytelling. The distinction should not be determined by format alone. Sánchez-López et al. (2020) provide a broader context through their examination of digital storytelling. Their work is relevant to understanding the diversification of narrative production across contemporary digital environments. Not all audiovisual media constitutes storytelling, and not all interactive cultural production is narrative in character. This distinction is especially important for interactive quizzes.

 

Interactive cultural quizzes may invite audiences to test knowledge, recognise images, identify films or participate in other forms of cultural engagement. Their primary function may involve entertainment, education, cultural recall or audience participation rather than the development of a fictional narrative. Ferrer-Conill et al. (2020) examine playful approaches to news engagement, providing a relevant perspective on how interactive and game-like formats may be incorporated into digital media environments. The significance of playful engagement lies in the relationship between media content and audience activity. Interactive formats can alter the role of the audience from the reception of a completed text towards participation in a structured experience. Interaction should not automatically be equated with meaningful engagement or improved knowledge. The value of an interactive format depends on its design, purpose and relationship to the content it presents.

 

Scacco, Muddiman and Stroud (2016) examine the influence of online quizzes on the acquisition of public affairs knowledge. Their research is relevant because it treats quizzes as media formats whose effects can be investigated rather than assuming that interactivity is inherently beneficial. Although their study concerns public affairs information, its broader relevance lies in demonstrating that quizzes can be examined as a distinct form of interactive media. The application to cultural quizzes requires appropriate qualification. Evidence concerning public affairs knowledge does not automatically establish equivalent outcomes for quizzes about film, horror or popular culture. The study supports the analytical recognition of quizzes as structured media experiences rather than simply decorative additions to a website. For Dyerbolical, interactive film quizzes represent a form of cultural engagement distinct from both literary publishing and conventional journalism. They may draw upon the company’s genre expertise and cultural knowledge while providing audiences with an interactive experience. Their organisational relationship to other activities may arise through shared editorial resources, digital infrastructure, audience development or the company’s wider cultural identity. They do not need to contribute to an original fictional universe in order to qualify as cultural production.

 

This point reinforces the distinction between transmedia storytelling and the proposed CDMM. A transmedia framework may explain the development of a fictional property through multiple narrative forms. It does not necessarily explain the relationship between an original novel, a factual article about horror cinema, a film quiz and a short audiovisual production addressing an unrelated cultural subject. The proposed CDMM addresses their integration at the organisational level. The presence of several media formats does not establish integration automatically. A company may operate a website containing articles, videos and quizzes without coordinating their production or commercial functions. In such circumstances, multimedia publishing may remain the more appropriate description. The proposed ICME classification requires consideration of whether the activities are substantively connected through organisational resources, production decisions, cultural objectives, audience relationships or commercial operations. The distinction is between media diversity and organisational integration.

 

Audiovisual and interactive production also raises questions concerning the relationship between original content and adaptation. An audiovisual reading of an existing text may provide a new mode of presentation. An original film may constitute a separate creative property. An interactive quiz may organise existing cultural knowledge into a participatory format. Each involves different relationships between source material, creative labour and audience experience. A rigorous organisational framework must recognise these differences rather than subsuming every activity under a general description of content creation. The term “content” is useful for discussing media production at a broad level, but it can obscure the distinctive characteristics of individual cultural forms. Journalism, fiction, audiovisual performance and interactive entertainment are not interchangeable simply because they circulate through digital platforms. The proposed ICME framework therefore combines recognition of their differences with analysis of their organisational relationships.

 

This approach also clarifies the relationship between cultural production and commercial activity. Audiovisual and interactive works may contribute to the enterprise through direct distribution, audience engagement, cultural visibility, advertising, intellectual property development or other mechanisms. Their commercial contributions must be established through evidence rather than inferred from their existence. The proposed CDMM concerns the organisation of these possibilities, not the assumption that every activity generates measurable revenue. The broader theoretical significance is that cultural media enterprises may develop productive capabilities across several forms of media while maintaining a common organisational identity. The coordination of these capabilities may involve shared expertise, technological infrastructure, editorial planning, intellectual property, audiences and commercial relationships. This is the organisational level at which the proposed ICME classification becomes relevant.

 

14.1. Synthesis: from cultural production diversity to organisational integration

The six sections in this part have established that contemporary cultural media production encompasses activities that cannot adequately be understood through a single publishing or narrative framework. Cultural journalism constitutes a substantive editorial function concerned with factual reporting, criticism and cultural interpretation. Digital-native publishing introduces continuing relationships between editorial production, technological infrastructure and audiences. Original intellectual property provides opportunities for narrative development and cross-media production. Character-led social media performance can generate original fictional material through sustained mediated interaction. Fandom and cultural crossover introduce participatory and interpretive practices extending beyond the organisation’s proprietary works. Audiovisual and interactive media contribute further forms of production and audience experience. These activities may coexist within a single enterprise without being narratively connected or commercially identical. Their diversity therefore establishes the need to distinguish between two analytical levels.

 

At the level of cultural production, the activities retain their individual purposes, professional conventions and relationships to audiences. At the level of organisational integration, the enterprise may coordinate these activities through shared resources, digital infrastructure, intellectual property, brand architecture, audience relationships and commercial mechanisms. The distinction is fundamental to the proposed ICME/CDMM framework. ICME concerns the organisational classification of an enterprise undertaking multiple substantive forms of cultural media production. CDMM concerns the operating relationships through which those activities are coordinated. The framework therefore does not depend on treating every publication, performance or audiovisual work as part of a single narrative property. Nor does it require every cultural activity to function as direct promotion for another. It recognises that a cultural enterprise may integrate distinct forms of production while preserving their individual cultural purposes.

 

Dyerbolical Ltd provides an illustrative case because its operations extend across journalism, original fiction, digital publishing, fictional performance, participatory genre culture, audiovisual production and interactive media. The significance of this combination cannot be established merely by enumerating its activities. The analytical question is how those activities relate to one another within the enterprise. That question requires examination of corporate identity, brand architecture, platform infrastructure, audience relationships, commercial mechanisms, creative networks and innovation. These concerns form the basis of the next part.

 

Part IV. The enterprise as an integrated commercial organisation

 

15. Corporate identity, publishing imprints and brand architecture

The preceding discussion establishes that cultural production can encompass multiple activities with distinct editorial, creative and participatory purposes. The presence of these activities within a single business does not automatically establish an integrated organisational structure. Their relationship must be examined through the corporate arrangements that coordinate cultural production, intellectual property, brands, digital infrastructure and commercial operations.

 

Brand architecture provides an important theoretical foundation for this analysis because it distinguishes the identity of an enterprise from the identities of its products, services and associated cultural properties. Muzellec and Lambkin (2009) examine the relationship between corporate branding and brand architecture, establishing the importance of understanding how different brands are organised within wider corporate structures. Their framework is relevant because a company may operate several recognisable brands without those brands being equivalent to the company itself. The distinction is especially important in cultural industries, where a particular creative property may become more publicly recognisable than the organisation responsible for its production.

 

A publishing company may be associated with a successful novel or series, but the identity of that fictional property does not necessarily encompass the company’s complete activities. A media organisation may operate several editorial publications whose individual identities differ from the corporate identity under which they are managed. The relationship between corporate identity and cultural properties must therefore be analysed at different organisational levels. At the highest level, the corporate entity provides the legal and organisational structure through which business activities are undertaken. Within that structure, publishing imprints may organise particular categories of publication. Individual fictional properties, editorial projects and audiovisual productions may possess further identities associated with their content and audiences. These levels may interact, but they are not interchangeable.

 

Santos Junior (2018) provides a relevant comparative perspective through an examination of brand portfolio strategy and brand architecture. The significance of brand architecture lies in the organisation of relationships between brands, including the extent to which their identities are connected to or differentiated from the corporate entity. Rashid, Spry and Pich (2024) similarly develop a brand architecture model within the fashion industry. Although their empirical context differs from cultural media production, their work is relevant to the broader organisational question of how businesses manage multiple brand identities. The application of these frameworks to cultural media requires recognition of the distinctive characteristics of intellectual property and editorial production.

 

A fictional character is not simply a product label. A literary series may possess narrative continuity, character relationships and audience expectations that extend beyond conventional product branding. An editorial publication may possess a recognisable identity based on its subject matter, cultural expertise and publishing practices. Cultural brand architecture must account for relationships between corporate ownership, creative identity and the substantive content of cultural production. Burgess et al. (2025) provide a particularly relevant perspective through their examination of narrative media brands. Their work addresses the management of narratives within media branding, contributing to an understanding of how fictional properties and associated identities may operate across different cultural environments.

 

This research is significant for Dyerbolical because the company’s original fictional properties possess identities distinct from its broader corporate operations. Immortalis, for example, constitutes an original fictional universe with its own characters, narrative relationships and associated cultural outputs. Its identity can extend across novels, digital publications, character accounts and visual media. The existence of this narrative brand does not mean that every activity undertaken by Dyerbolical belongs to the Immortalis universe. The company’s factual journalism, cultural commentary and other editorial activities may possess independent subjects and purposes. DarkBadb Publishing functions as a publishing imprint rather than as a complete description of the corporate enterprise.

 

This distinction prevents a common analytical error: treating the most visible or distinctive creative property as synonymous with the business responsible for producing it. Dyerbolical Ltd is the corporate entity. DarkBadb Publishing identifies a publishing function. Immortalis and Kane identify original fictional properties. The company’s wider cultural journalism and digital media activities extend beyond those properties. The relationship between these components is therefore hierarchical in some respects and operationally interconnected in others. The corporate structure provides an organisational framework, while particular brands and properties retain differentiated identities.

 

Muzellec and Lambkin (2008), through their examination of corporate rebranding and brand architecture in the case of Guinness and Diageo Ireland, provide a further illustration of the importance of distinguishing corporate identity from individual brands. Their research demonstrates that brand architecture involves strategic relationships between organisational and product identities rather than merely the visual presentation of a company. The relevance to the proposed ICME classification is conceptual rather than sector-specific. Dyerbolical is not being equated in scale, structure or market position with a multinational corporation. The principle that corporate identity and product identity occupy different analytical levels remains applicable across organisational sizes.

 

The same distinction applies to digital cultural enterprises whose public identities may be distributed across multiple websites, social accounts and creative properties. A fictional character account may possess a highly distinctive public persona without constituting a separate company. An editorial website may have a particular thematic identity while operating within the same corporate structure as a publishing imprint. The proposed Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM) must therefore explain how these identities are coordinated. Brand architecture provides one mechanism for such coordination, but it does not by itself establish the full operating model. The organisation must also coordinate production activities, distribution environments, audience relationships and commercial functions.

 

This distinction is important because brand integration and operational integration are not identical. Two brands may share corporate ownership without sharing production resources or audience strategies. Different cultural properties may retain independent public identities while relying on common editorial, technical and commercial infrastructure. The proposed ICME classification is concerned with the wider organisational arrangement. It recognises that the enterprise may operate through a portfolio of cultural identities without requiring them to be absorbed into a single undifferentiated brand. This is particularly relevant to the relationship between factual cultural journalism and original fictional intellectual property. A company may maintain a recognisable corporate identity while allowing journalism to operate through editorial conventions distinct from those associated with fictional performance or narrative branding. Such differentiation can preserve the cultural purposes of individual activities while enabling coordination at the organisational level.

 

The significance of brand architecture for ICME/CDMM therefore lies in three relationships: the distinction between the corporate entity and its cultural properties; the organisation of multiple editorial, creative and publishing identities; and the coordination of those identities through shared resources and strategic direction. These relationships establish the corporate foundation for an integrated cultural media enterprise.

 

16. Platform ecosystems, audience relationships and commercial value

The commercial organisation of contemporary cultural media enterprises increasingly involves relationships between owned digital infrastructure, third-party platforms, audiences, intellectual property and multiple potential sources of revenue. The existence of several platforms or monetisation mechanisms does not automatically establish an integrated business model. The relevant question is how cultural production, distribution, audience development and commercial activity are organised in relation to one another.

 

Doyle (2015) provides an important foundation through her examination of multi-platform media economics. Her analysis demonstrates that distributing content across several platforms can create opportunities to extend the use and commercial potential of media assets, while also introducing additional production and organisational costs. The significance of multi-platform distribution therefore cannot be reduced to the multiplication of outlets. A cultural enterprise may publish an article on an owned website, distribute excerpts through social media and produce associated audiovisual material. These activities may be coordinated to reach different audiences or provide different experiences of the same cultural subject. The relationship between them must be demonstrated rather than assumed. The proposed CDMM treats platform distribution as one component of an integrated operating system, not as sufficient evidence of organisational convergence.

 

This requires a distinction between three interrelated processes: cultural value creation, value delivery and commercial value capture. Cultural value creation concerns the production of journalism, fiction, audiovisual works, interactive media and participatory cultural experiences. Value delivery concerns the mechanisms through which those outputs reach audiences, including websites, publishing platforms, social media and other distribution environments. Commercial value capture concerns the ways in which the enterprise obtains financial returns from its activities, such as publication sales, advertising, licensing, monetised content or services. These processes may reinforce one another, but they are not equivalent. An article may attract substantial readership without producing substantial revenue. A fictional character account may generate participation and visibility without directly selling a product. A literary work may produce commercial returns through channels that differ from those used to distribute associated audiovisual material. The economic analysis must preserve the distinction between cultural activity and financial performance.

 

Kawashima (2020) examines changing media industry business models within the context of digital transformation, providing a foundation for understanding how established relationships between production, distribution and revenue are being reorganised. Li (2020) similarly demonstrates that digital business model transformation involves changes in organisational relationships rather than simply the adoption of new technologies. These perspectives support the examination of platform ecosystems as part of the enterprise’s operating structure. Spjeldnæs (2022) adds an important qualification through the analysis of platformisation in publishing. Digital platforms provide distribution opportunities but also introduce dependencies on external technological and commercial infrastructures. This distinction is especially important for smaller cultural enterprises.

 

Owned websites may provide direct control over editorial presentation, the organisation of cultural properties and certain forms of audience interaction. Third-party platforms may offer access to established audiences and technical capabilities, but they remain subject to external policies, algorithms, monetisation rules and changes in platform functionality. The proposed CDMM must therefore distinguish between infrastructure controlled by the enterprise and infrastructure accessed through external intermediaries. This distinction also affects the interpretation of audience relationships. Unnava and Aravindakshan (2021) examine consumer engagement across multiple social media platforms, demonstrating the importance of understanding engagement as a process that can develop across different environments. Their work supports the argument that audience relationships may extend beyond individual accounts or publication channels. Engagement should not be treated as a uniform phenomenon.

 

A reader encountering factual cultural journalism may seek information or criticism. A participant interacting with a fictional character account may seek entertainment or creative engagement. A reader of original fiction may be primarily interested in narrative development. These audiences may overlap, but their motivations and relationships with the enterprise are not necessarily identical. An integrated cultural media model must therefore accommodate differentiated audience experiences. The presence of shared infrastructure does not require the existence of a single homogeneous audience. This principle is relevant to Dyerbolical’s organisation of cultural publishing and original intellectual property across several digital environments. Dyerbolical.com functions as a principal environment for wider cultural media activity, while Immortalisverse.com and Immortaliskane.com provide dedicated environments associated with original fictional properties. These websites illustrate how a cultural enterprise may organise different production functions and cultural identities through distinct digital spaces. Their relationship to the corporate entity is relevant to brand architecture, while their publishing and distribution functions are relevant to CDMM.

 

The company’s social media operations introduce further relationships between original fictional properties, genre communities, character performance and audience participation. The existence of numerous accounts should not be treated as evidence of commercial success or audience conversion without supporting data. The organisational question concerns how those accounts function within the wider system of cultural production and distribution. Cunningham and Craig (2019) provide a relevant perspective through their examination of creator governance in social media entertainment. Their work addresses the relationships between creators and platform environments, including the structures through which platforms influence cultural production and commercial activity. This is important because digital cultural enterprises do not exercise unrestricted control over the environments through which their content circulates. Platform governance can affect visibility, monetisation, acceptable content, account access and the conditions of audience interaction. For enterprises operating through fictional performance, these constraints may also affect the forms of cultural expression available through particular platforms. The proposed CDMM must therefore account for platform dependence as an operational condition rather than assuming that digital distribution provides unlimited flexibility.

 

Carpes da Silva and Gruszynski Sanseverino (2020) and Pérez-Seijo, Vizoso and López-García (2020) provide complementary perspectives through their examinations of audience relationships and business model innovation in digital journalism. Their research demonstrates that media organisations may seek to develop more sustained relationships with audiences as part of their commercial and editorial strategies. The specific mechanisms used by journalism organisations cannot automatically be transferred to all cultural enterprises. Subscriptions, reader contributions, advertising, licensing and direct sales represent different commercial arrangements with different implications for production and audience relationships. The proposed CDMM should therefore be understood as a framework for analysing value relationships rather than a prescription for any particular revenue model.

 

This distinction is particularly important because the economic sustainability of an integrated cultural media enterprise may depend on the interaction of several activities. A publishing function may produce direct sales. An editorial website may support advertising. A fictional property may possess licensing potential. Audiovisual material may circulate through monetised platforms. Participatory media may contribute to audience relationships and cultural visibility. The presence of these possibilities does not establish their actual financial contribution. A rigorous analysis must distinguish implemented revenue mechanisms from potential commercial opportunities. The proposed ICME classification concerns the organisation’s substantive activities and their integration. CDMM explains the operating relationships through which cultural and commercial value may be created, delivered and captured. Neither concept requires a claim that every activity is independently profitable. The central proposition is that cultural media enterprises may coordinate multiple production and commercial functions through a common organisational system. The economic value of that integration remains an empirical question.

 

17. Creative networks, collaboration and cultural industry participation

Cultural production frequently depends on relationships extending beyond the formal boundaries of individual enterprises. Writers, filmmakers, artists, designers, performers, technical specialists, researchers and other cultural producers may participate in networks through which knowledge, resources and creative opportunities circulate. These relationships are particularly important for enterprises whose activities encompass several forms of cultural production. An organisation producing journalism, fiction, audiovisual works and interactive media may require different combinations of expertise and resources for different projects. It may develop some capabilities internally while obtaining others through collaboration, external services or professional networks. The resulting organisational structure need not resemble a conventional vertically integrated media corporation.

 

Panneels et al., in their examination of ecosystems and partnerships supporting data-driven innovation in the creative industries, provide a relevant theoretical foundation for understanding how creative organisations operate within wider networks. Their work emphasises the significance of relationships between organisations, knowledge, expertise and innovation environments. The relevance to ICME/CDMM lies in recognising that organisational capabilities may be developed through networks rather than exclusively through permanent internal departments. Participation in a creative network does not necessarily establish a formal partnership, commercial relationship or shared ownership arrangement. The nature of each relationship must be distinguished according to the evidence available. A company may promote an external creative project without participating in its production. It may collaborate with a filmmaker without financing the film. It may provide editorial coverage of a cultural work without possessing any commercial interest in it. These are different forms of activity. The proposed ICME classification should recognise the significance of creative networks while avoiding the assumption that every association constitutes a corporate asset or contractual relationship.

 

Cole (2021) provides an important perspective through an examination of knowledge exchange and the creative industries. Her discussion addresses the relationships between academic research, creative practice and the wider creative economy, including the opportunities and challenges associated with collaboration. Knowledge exchange is particularly relevant to cultural enterprises because creative production may draw upon research, specialist expertise and relationships with educational or cultural institutions. Knowledge exchange should not be confused with formal institutional partnership. An individual may undertake academic research while also operating a cultural business. The relationship between those activities may influence the individual’s professional expertise or creative practices, but it does not automatically establish that the business is formally partnered with the university. This distinction is relevant to Dyerbolical because its founder’s academic research provides an intellectual context for aspects of the company’s cultural and creative activity. The existence of this relationship does not, by itself, demonstrate a formal corporate agreement with the University of Galway.

 

Moreton (2021) provides a complementary and more critical perspective through his examination of knowledge exchange in the arts and humanities as a creative economy policy assemblage. His work demonstrates that relationships between research, cultural production and enterprise development are shaped by institutional policies, funding arrangements and wider assumptions concerning the economic value of creative activity. This perspective is important because it prevents knowledge exchange from being presented as an uncomplicated commercial benefit. The translation of cultural and academic activity into enterprise development may create opportunities, but it can also introduce tensions concerning institutional priorities, cultural autonomy and the instrumentalisation of creative work. A rigorous ICME/CDMM framework must therefore recognise that cultural value and commercial objectives may coexist without necessarily being identical. This principle is particularly relevant to enterprises whose activities include cultural journalism, creative production and research-informed work.

 

Dyerbolical’s reported engagement with wider creative projects provides an illustrative context. Projects associated with the company’s creative networks include The Thing Expanded, 13 Fanboy, Some Poets, Unbreakable Argonauts, Dylan’s New Nightmare and Never Hike Alone 2. These associations demonstrate the breadth of cultural fields relevant to the company’s activities, including filmmaking, literary production and genre-oriented creative work. The precise nature of each relationship must be established before assigning specific corporate roles. It would be inappropriate to infer financial sponsorship, production credits, contractual partnerships or ownership interests solely from an association with a project. The analytical significance of these networks therefore lies in the enterprise’s participation in a wider cultural production environment, subject to verification of the actual activities involved.

 

This distinction also helps separate cultural journalism from creative industry participation. An editorial article about a film is a form of cultural journalism. Promotional support for a filmmaker may constitute a different activity. Direct participation in the production of a film would constitute another. The fact that these activities may concern the same cultural project does not make them interchangeable. An integrated cultural media enterprise may undertake all three, but each must be identified according to its actual function. Schiuma and Lerro (2017) provide a useful broader framework for understanding the importance of stakeholder relationships within arts and cultural organisations. Their Business Model Prism recognises that cultural organisations operate through multiple relationships affecting their resources, activities and approaches to value creation. This supports the inclusion of creative networks within CDMM, provided that their organisational significance is demonstrated.

 

The relevant question is not simply whether the enterprise has professional contacts. It is whether relationships with external cultural producers contribute to identifiable production activities, knowledge exchange, resource access, cultural participation or commercial operations. Where such relationships are substantive and recurring, they may form part of the enterprise’s wider operating model. Where they are incidental, they should be treated as contextual rather than defining characteristics. The proposed ICME classification therefore does not require formal partnerships as a universal condition. It recognises that networked relationships may support integrated cultural production, particularly where enterprises operate across several creative fields. The significance of those relationships must nevertheless be assessed independently of claims concerning the organisation’s core production activities. This distinction preserves the analytical precision of the proposed framework.

 

18. Enterprise development, research and organisational innovation

The development of integrated cultural media enterprises must also be considered within the institutional and economic environments in which cultural businesses operate. Creative production does not occur independently of enterprise development structures, innovation policies, research institutions and wider commercial networks. These environments can influence the availability of expertise, resources and opportunities for organisational development. Participation in an entrepreneurial ecosystem must be distinguished from the internal organisation of a business. An enterprise may participate in development programmes without adopting a particular business model. An organisation may develop innovative production arrangements without receiving institutional funding or formal recognition. This distinction is important for the proposed ICME/CDMM framework because organisational classification cannot be established solely through participation in entrepreneurial support structures.

 

The OECD/Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual provides an appropriate starting point. Its treatment of innovation distinguishes the implementation of new or significantly improved products and business processes from the mere proposal of an idea. This definition introduces a necessary methodological discipline. The development of a conceptual framework such as CDMM does not automatically demonstrate that an enterprise has implemented an innovative business process. Such a claim requires evidence concerning the organisation’s activities and the nature of any changes introduced. Participation in a programme supporting innovation does not itself establish that a company’s business model is novel. The relationship between innovation and organisational classification must therefore be approached carefully. ICME is proposed as a conceptual description of a particular organisational configuration. CDMM is proposed as a framework for explaining the operating relationships associated with that configuration. Whether a particular implementation of CDMM constitutes business model innovation is a separate empirical question.

 

Foss and Saebi (2017) provide an important foundation for this distinction through their review of business model innovation research. Their work emphasises the need for conceptual clarity when identifying changes to the configuration of business activities. A business model may be innovative because it reorganises established resources and processes into new relationships, but not every combination of activities represents innovation. This qualification is particularly relevant to cultural media enterprises. Publishing, journalism, audiovisual production, fictional performance and interactive media all possess established histories. Their coexistence within an organisation may represent diversification, integration or innovation, depending on the nature of the relationships between them and the organisational arrangements through which they operate. The proposed CDMM should therefore be assessed through its explanatory capacity rather than through an unsupported claim of novelty.

 

18.1. The Irish enterprise development environment

The Irish entrepreneurial environment provides a relevant institutional context for Dyerbolical Ltd. Enterprise Ireland supports the development and international growth of Irish businesses through programmes and services addressing entrepreneurship, innovation, business development and commercial expansion. Its Start-Up Day 2026 publication provides an overview of the Irish start-up environment and identifies enterprises participating in different stages of development, including high-potential start-ups, pre-seed companies and New Frontiers participants (Enterprise Ireland, 2026). The publication demonstrates the institutional significance attached to the development of innovative Irish enterprises. Its relevance to the present article is contextual. It does not establish that Dyerbolical possesses a particular official classification, has received funding or has been endorsed by Enterprise Ireland. The distinction between the characteristics of a programme and the status of an individual enterprise must remain explicit.

 

New Frontiers provides structured support for entrepreneurs developing innovative and potentially scalable businesses. Its programme includes different phases of development, with activities such as business training, mentoring, commercial planning and preparation for growth. The programme is relevant to the broader discussion because it demonstrates the institutional recognition that emerging businesses may require support in developing their commercial models, organisational capabilities and growth strategies. The existence of such support does not imply that every participating business has demonstrated commercial viability or implemented a novel operating model. CatalyseHer Ireland, associated with INCO and the Visa Foundation, provides enterprise development support for eligible women-led businesses. Its programme structure includes training, mentoring, networking and opportunities associated with business development. The relevance of CatalyseHer to the present analysis concerns the wider institutional environment supporting entrepreneurial development, particularly among women-led enterprises. It should not be treated as evidence of corporate endorsement, guaranteed funding or formal recognition of ICME/CDMM. These distinctions are essential to maintaining the credibility of the article. The institutional environment can provide context for understanding the development of cultural enterprises, but the proposed classification must be justified through the organisation’s substantive activities and their integration.

 

18.2. Research-informed cultural enterprise

The relationship between academic research and cultural enterprise provides a further dimension of organisational development. Cole (2021) examines knowledge exchange within the creative industries, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with relationships between research and creative practice. The relevance of knowledge exchange lies partly in its potential to connect theoretical understanding, professional expertise and practical cultural production. For a cultural media enterprise, research may inform editorial practices, creative development, audience understanding or organisational decision-making. Research-informed activity must be distinguished from formal research collaboration. An individual entrepreneur may possess academic qualifications, undertake research and apply relevant knowledge within a business. This does not automatically establish a corporate partnership with the institution at which the research was undertaken. The distinction is relevant to Dyerbolical because its founder’s research at the University of Galway concerns cultural and digital media practices. This research background may contribute to the intellectual context of the company’s activities. Any claim that the university formally collaborates with, endorses or supports the company would require separate evidence.

 

Moreton (2021) introduces an important critical perspective by examining knowledge exchange in the arts and humanities within the wider creative economy policy environment. His work challenges an exclusively instrumental understanding of cultural and academic activity, in which the value of research is measured principally through commercial outcomes. This qualification is particularly relevant to an integrated cultural media enterprise. Cultural journalism, literary production and academic research may possess intellectual or cultural value that cannot be adequately reduced to revenue generation. The proposed CDMM therefore needs to recognise the relationship between cultural production and commercial organisation without treating all cultural activity as an instrument of immediate financial return. This is consistent with Schiuma and Lerro’s (2017) treatment of the distinctive characteristics of arts and cultural organisations. Their framework recognises that cultural enterprises may pursue multiple forms of value and operate through complex stakeholder relationships. The proposed CDMM builds on this perspective by identifying the coordination of cultural production, digital infrastructure, audience relationships and commercial functions as an operating system. Research and enterprise development may support that system, but they are not sufficient to define it.

 

18.3. Innovation as organisational configuration

The central contribution of innovation theory to ICME/CDMM lies in the recognition that business model development may involve the reconfiguration of existing activities. An enterprise does not need to invent journalism, fiction publishing, social media performance or audiovisual production in order to develop a distinctive organisational structure. The relevant question is how those activities are connected. Li (2020) examines digital business model transformation in the creative industries, demonstrating that digital technologies can alter relationships between production, distribution and commercial activity. Foss and Saebi (2017) provide the broader conceptual basis for analysing changes to business models, while the OECD/Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual establishes criteria for distinguishing implemented innovation from proposed or unimplemented ideas. Together, these sources support a cautious interpretation of the proposed CDMM. Its conceptual contribution is to identify an integrated configuration of cultural media functions. Its status as an implemented business model must be evaluated through the organisation’s actual operations. Its status as an innovation would require additional evidence concerning the nature and significance of changes to those operations. This separation prevents the proposed framework from relying on circular reasoning. The enterprise cannot be described as innovative merely because it is classified as an ICME, and ICME cannot be justified merely by describing the enterprise as innovative. The classification must rest on identifiable organisational characteristics. The proposed CDMM must then explain the relationships between those characteristics. This establishes the transition from the theoretical and organisational discussion to the formal definition of the two proposed concepts.

 

Part V. Formal development of ICME and CDMM

 

19. Defining the Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise

The preceding sections establish that contemporary cultural media enterprises may combine several forms of production historically associated with different industries. These activities may include journalism, literary publishing, audiovisual production, original intellectual property development, interactive media and participatory cultural performance. The coexistence of several activities does not automatically establish a distinctive organisational classification. The proposed Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME) must therefore be defined through characteristics that distinguish substantive organisational integration from incidental diversification.

 

19.1. Proposed definition

For the purposes of this article, an Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME) is defined as an organisation that coordinates multiple substantive forms of cultural media production, publication, distribution and commercial activity through an integrated organisational structure, in which distinct editorial, creative, technological and participatory functions contribute to a common system of cultural and economic value creation. This definition contains four principal elements. The first is multiplicity of cultural production. The enterprise must undertake more than one substantive form of cultural media activity. The second is organisational coordination. The activities must possess identifiable relationships within the enterprise rather than merely coexist under common ownership. The third is functional differentiation. The enterprise must retain activities with distinguishable cultural purposes, such as journalism, fiction, audiovisual production or participatory media. The fourth is integrated value creation. The activities must contribute to a wider organisational system through relationships involving production resources, intellectual property, audiences, infrastructure or commercial operations. These elements distinguish ICME from a general description of a diversified media company. A diversified company may operate several unrelated businesses. An ICME, as proposed here, is characterised by the coordination of different cultural production functions within an identifiable organisational system. The distinction does not require all activities to share a single narrative property, audience or revenue mechanism. Integration may arise through common resources, strategic coordination, shared infrastructure and relationships between cultural production and commercial activity.

 

19.2. Necessary organisational characteristics

The proposed classification requires six characteristics. The enterprise must undertake multiple substantive cultural production functions. A business distributing one literary work through several platforms does not necessarily qualify. Multi-platform distribution may be extensive without constituting multiple forms of cultural production. An organisation producing cultural journalism, original fiction and audiovisual works undertakes activities with distinguishable production requirements and cultural purposes. The significance lies in the substantive nature of the activities rather than their number alone. Those functions must be organisationally coordinated. Common ownership is insufficient. A company may own unrelated cultural businesses without integrating their production, resources or strategic operations. ICME requires identifiable relationships between the functions, such as shared production infrastructure, coordinated planning, common commercial systems or integrated audience development. The enterprise must possess a corporate identity broader than any individual cultural property. An organisation may operate a successful fictional universe across several media, but this alone does not establish the wider ICME classification. The enterprise must be distinguishable from the intellectual property it produces. This principle is particularly relevant where a fictional series or character becomes the most recognisable public identity associated with the business. The enterprise must coordinate production and distribution across relevant media environments. Digital infrastructure is central to the proposed classification because it enables the organisation to coordinate different forms of cultural production and audience access. ICME does not require all outputs to be exclusively digital. Print publication, physical cultural products and other non-digital activities may form part of the enterprise. The relevant characteristic is the coordination of cultural media functions through an integrated organisational system in which digital infrastructure plays a significant role. The enterprise must connect cultural production with identifiable commercial operations. This distinguishes the proposed classification from a purely informal cultural community or an individual creative practice without an enterprise structure. Commercial integration does not require every cultural output to generate direct revenue. The organisation may capture value through different mechanisms, and some activities may contribute indirectly to its wider operations. The enterprise must exhibit relationships between its production functions that are more substantial than incidental cross-promotion. An occasional social media post advertising a book does not establish integrated cultural production. A sustained system connecting original publishing, audiovisual production, interactive engagement and fictional performance may provide stronger evidence, particularly where these activities involve distinct creative labour and coordinated organisational resources. The classification therefore depends on the character of the relationships between activities.

 

19.3. Distinguishing ICME from diversification

The distinction between integration and diversification is fundamental. Diversification describes the expansion of an enterprise into additional products, activities or markets. Integration concerns the relationships through which those activities are coordinated. The two may coexist, but they are not identical. A company may diversify into several unrelated cultural markets without integrating their production systems. A relatively small enterprise may coordinate several cultural production functions through common infrastructure, creative expertise and commercial operations. ICME is therefore not defined by organisational size or the number of employees. Nor is it defined by the volume of content produced. A large catalogue of books does not necessarily establish multiple cultural production functions. A substantial number of social media accounts may represent distribution activity rather than distinct cultural production. The proposed classification requires qualitative examination of the activities and their relationships. This approach is consistent with business model innovation scholarship, which emphasises the configuration of activities and resources rather than the mere accumulation of products (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Li, 2020). It is also consistent with convergence research demonstrating that organisational integration involves relationships between production processes rather than simply the adoption of multiple media technologies (García Avilés and Carvajal, 2008; García Avilés, Kaltenbrunner and Meier, 2014).

 

19.4. ICME as an analytical classification

ICME is proposed as an organisational concept rather than a replacement for official statistical or industrial categories. An enterprise may be classified under NACE according to its principal economic activity while also being analysed as an ICME. The two descriptions serve different purposes. Eurostat (2025) provides a statistical framework for categorising economic activities. ICME addresses the organisational integration of cultural media production functions. The proposed classification also differs from UNESCO’s (2009) cultural statistics framework, which identifies cultural domains for measurement and comparison. ICME does not seek to redefine those domains. It examines how an individual enterprise may coordinate activities spanning several recognised domains. The classification therefore provides a conceptual level between individual cultural production activities and broad descriptions of the cultural and creative industries. Its usefulness depends on whether it explains organisational relationships that are insufficiently captured by narrower classifications. The proposed CDMM provides the corresponding explanation of those relationships.

 

20. Defining the Convergent Digital Media Model

The Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise describes the organisational configuration of a business. Classification alone does not explain how the enterprise operates. The proposed Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM) addresses this second question. It is concerned with the relationships between cultural production, intellectual property, digital distribution, audience participation, commercial value capture and organisational development.

 

20.1. Proposed definition

For the purposes of this article, the Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM) is defined as an integrated organisational operating model through which distinct cultural media production functions are coordinated across digital and complementary distribution environments, using shared intellectual property, resources, brand structures, audience relationships and commercial mechanisms to support interconnected cultural and economic value creation. The model is concerned with the organisation of activities rather than the mere presence of multiple platforms. Its defining characteristic is the coordination of differentiated cultural production functions within a common operating system. CDMM therefore differs from multi-platform distribution, which concerns the circulation of content through different channels. It also differs from transmedia storytelling, which concerns the development of narrative experiences across media. CDMM encompasses these activities where relevant but addresses the broader organisational relationships connecting them to journalism, publishing, audiovisual production, interactive media and commercial operations.

 

20.2. The six operating functions

The proposed model comprises six interrelated functions. The first function concerns the creation of substantive cultural outputs. These may include journalism, literary fiction, audiovisual works, interactive media and fictional performance. The model recognises that these activities possess different production requirements and cultural purposes. Their integration does not depend on making them interchangeable. The enterprise coordinates them through organisational resources and strategic relationships. The second function concerns the organisation of original intellectual property, publishing imprints, editorial identities and associated cultural brands. Brand architecture provides the means through which the corporate entity can maintain relationships with multiple cultural properties without collapsing them into a single identity. Muzellec and Lambkin (2009) and Burgess et al. (2025) provide relevant foundations for understanding the relationship between corporate identity and narrative media brands. This function is particularly important where a company operates original fictional properties alongside editorial activities that are not narratively connected to them. The third function concerns the circulation of cultural outputs through owned and third-party environments. Doyle (2015) provides a foundation for understanding the economic implications of multi-platform media production, while Spjeldnæs (2022) demonstrates the significance of platformisation within publishing. The model recognises that distribution environments differ in their technical capabilities, audience relationships and commercial arrangements. Integration does not require identical content or strategies across all platforms. The fourth function concerns the relationships between cultural production and audience participation. This may include interaction with fictional personae, collaborative storytelling, cultural discussion and interactive media experiences. Moore (2020), Purwaningtyas and Oktara (2023), and Bjärstorp and Ragnerstam (2023) provide relevant perspectives on mediated persona, online roleplay and the affordances of social media. Participation must be distinguished from organisational ownership or control. The model recognises that audiences and collaborators may contribute to cultural activity without their contributions automatically becoming proprietary corporate assets. The fifth function concerns the mechanisms through which cultural activities contribute to the enterprise’s economic operations. These may include publication sales, advertising, licensing, monetised digital distribution and other commercial arrangements. Kawashima (2020), Li (2020) and Foss and Saebi (2017) provide foundations for examining the relationships between cultural production and business model organisation. The model does not require every activity to generate direct revenue. It examines how different forms of cultural production relate to the enterprise’s wider commercial structure. The sixth function concerns organisational adaptation, research-informed activity, creative collaboration and relationships with external expertise. Panneels et al., Cole (2021) and Moreton (2021) provide relevant perspectives on creative ecosystems and knowledge exchange. The model recognises that organisational capabilities may develop through networks and external relationships rather than exclusively through permanent internal structures. It does not treat every association as a formal partnership or every organisational change as innovation.

 

20.3. Relationships between the operating functions

The six functions should not be interpreted as independent departments that every enterprise must establish. They are analytical categories describing relationships within the operating model. A small cultural enterprise may coordinate several functions through the work of a limited number of individuals. A larger organisation may distribute them across departments or external collaborators. The defining characteristic is the relationship between functions rather than the number of people assigned to them. Cultural production provides the substantive outputs around which other activities are organised. Intellectual property and brand development establish relationships between those outputs and the enterprise’s corporate identity. Distribution systems provide access to audiences. Participatory engagement may contribute to cultural interpretation, continuing production and audience relationships. Commercial mechanisms connect selected activities to economic value capture. Innovation and network development support the adaptation and expansion of organisational capabilities. These relationships are potentially reciprocal. Audience participation may influence subsequent cultural production. New audiovisual capabilities may create opportunities to develop existing intellectual property. Editorial expertise may support interactive cultural content. Creative partnerships may provide access to production capabilities not maintained internally. These relationships must be demonstrated within a particular enterprise. The proposed CDMM does not assume that all possible connections are active or commercially successful. It provides a framework for identifying and evaluating them.

 

20.4. CDMM as a model of coordinated differentiation

The model’s central principle is coordinated differentiation. This describes the organisation of distinct cultural production functions through shared infrastructure and strategic relationships while preserving their individual purposes. The principle addresses a potential weakness in overly general accounts of convergence. If convergence is understood simply as the merging of previously separate media, it may obscure the continuing significance of editorial, creative and professional differences. Journalism does not become fiction because both are published by the same company. A fictional character performance does not become conventional advertising merely because it contributes to brand visibility. An interactive quiz does not become transmedia storytelling simply because it appears alongside a fictional property. CDMM recognises these distinctions while explaining their organisational relationships. This approach is consistent with García Avilés, Kaltenbrunner and Meier’s (2014) recognition that newsroom convergence involves different degrees and forms of integration, together with tensions between coordination and professional differentiation. It also draws upon Schiuma and Lerro’s (2017) recognition of the distinctive characteristics of cultural organisations and their business models. The proposed CDMM therefore avoids treating integration as the elimination of difference. It identifies integration through the coordination of different functions.

 

20.5. The relationship between ICME and CDMM

ICME and CDMM are complementary but analytically distinct. ICME describes the organisational configuration. CDMM describes the operating relationships. An enterprise may exhibit multiple cultural production functions without implementing a coherent CDMM. In such circumstances, it may be more appropriately described as a diversified cultural business. An organisation may employ convergent production and distribution practices without undertaking a sufficiently broad range of cultural activities to justify the proposed ICME classification. A journalism organisation may integrate print, online and audiovisual news production through a sophisticated operating model while remaining principally a journalism enterprise. The proposed ICME classification becomes relevant when organisational integration extends across several substantive cultural production domains. CDMM explains how those domains are coordinated. This distinction prevents the two concepts from becoming circular definitions. An enterprise does not qualify as an ICME merely because it claims to use CDMM. The existence of an ICME does not automatically demonstrate the effectiveness of its operating model. Both propositions require examination of the organisation’s activities and relationships.

 

20.6. The explanatory value of the proposed model

The value of CDMM lies in its ability to explain relationships that may be obscured by narrower descriptions of publishing, transmedia production or platform distribution. A publishing-centred analysis may emphasise books, editorial production and distribution. A transmedia analysis may emphasise the development of fictional properties across media. A platform analysis may emphasise technological intermediaries and audience access. A brand architecture analysis may emphasise relationships between corporate and product identities. A business model analysis may emphasise value creation, delivery and capture. CDMM brings these perspectives into a common organisational framework while recognising their different analytical contributions. The model should not be presented as a replacement for the underlying theories. Its contribution is synthetic. It proposes a framework for analysing a particular configuration of cultural media activities through the relationships established in existing scholarship. The validity of that synthesis must be evaluated through comparison with competing organisational descriptions. That comparison is undertaken in the following section.

 

21. Comparative classification: ICME/CDMM and existing organisational models

The introduction of new organisational terminology requires more than demonstrating that an enterprise undertakes several activities. A proposed classification must possess sufficient explanatory value to justify its use alongside established concepts. The principal question is whether ICME and CDMM identify organisational characteristics that cannot be adequately expressed through existing classifications without significant qualification. This requires comparison with traditional publishing, independent publishing, multimedia publishing, transmedia storytelling, diversified media organisations, creator-led enterprises and broader cultural industry classifications.

 

21.1. Traditional and independent publishing

Traditional publishing remains a valid description of enterprises whose principal activities concern the production and distribution of published works. The category can accommodate digital distribution, audiovisual adaptations, marketing and other associated activities. It should therefore not be characterised as inherently incompatible with convergence. The classification becomes less comprehensive when an organisation undertakes substantive cultural production activities that are not principally organised around the publication of books or other conventional editorial products. Independent publishing presents a different limitation. As established in Section 3, independence concerns ownership, control and publishing arrangements rather than necessarily describing the complete scope of an enterprise. An organisation may be independently owned while operating across journalism, fiction, audiovisual production and interactive media. The proposed ICME classification therefore does not compete with independence as an ownership characteristic. It provides an additional description of organisational scope and integration. Hviid, Izquierdo-Sanchez and Jacques (2019) and Spjeldnæs (2022) provide the relevant foundations for understanding changes in publishing arrangements and platform relationships. Their research demonstrates the complexity of contemporary publishing but does not establish that publishing terminology must encompass every activity undertaken by a diversified cultural organisation.

 

21.2. Multimedia publishing

Multimedia publishing describes the production or presentation of content through multiple media formats. It is particularly relevant to organisations combining written, visual, audio and audiovisual material. Deuze (2004) provides an important foundation for understanding multimedia production, while the newsroom convergence studies of García Avilés and colleagues demonstrate how different media activities may be coordinated organisationally. Multimedia publishing therefore captures an important dimension of the proposed CDMM. It does not necessarily identify the relationship between different cultural production functions. A publisher may present articles through text, video and audio while remaining principally an editorial publishing organisation. An ICME may produce independent literary works, factual journalism, fictional performances, interactive media and audiovisual projects whose relationships extend beyond the multimedia presentation of individual publications. The distinction concerns the organisational range and independence of the activities. Multimedia publishing remains relevant within ICME/CDMM, but it does not necessarily provide a complete corporate classification.

 

21.3. Transmedia storytelling and production

Transmedia storytelling provides a more specific framework for understanding the development of narrative properties across media. Long (2007), Freeman (2015), Sánchez-López et al. (2020) and Han (2024) establish the relevance of cross-media narrative production to cultural and commercial organisation. Transmedia theory is particularly useful for examining the relationships between original fiction, audiovisual adaptation, character performance and participatory narrative activity. Its principal analytical concern remains narrative development. An enterprise may undertake substantial cultural activities that are not components of the same fictional universe. Cultural journalism about established films, factual reporting on popular culture and interactive quizzes addressing general genre knowledge may possess no narrative relationship to the company’s original fictional properties. Transmedia storytelling may explain a component of the enterprise without explaining the enterprise as a whole. This distinction is especially important for Dyerbolical. The development of Immortalis across literary, visual and performative environments may be examined through transmedia scholarship where the relevant activities contribute distinct narrative material. That analysis would not encompass the company’s wider cultural journalism and other independent editorial production. The proposed ICME classification therefore operates at a broader organisational level.

 

21.4. Diversified media companies

The category “diversified media company” presents a stronger alternative because it can accommodate multiple forms of media production within a single corporate structure. Unlike publishing-centred terminology, it does not necessarily privilege a particular medium or production activity. It may therefore describe an enterprise combining journalism, publishing, audiovisual production and other cultural activities. The proposed ICME classification must consequently demonstrate a distinction beyond the mere presence of multiple media functions. That distinction is organisational integration. A diversified media company may operate several independent businesses under common ownership. The businesses may share corporate governance while retaining separate production systems, brands, audiences and commercial arrangements. An ICME, as proposed here, is characterised by substantive coordination between different cultural production functions. The distinction is not absolute. A diversified media company may also operate through highly integrated production and commercial systems. In such circumstances, the concepts may overlap substantially. This is a significant limitation of ICME’s claim to distinctiveness. The proposed classification is therefore most useful when it identifies a particular form of integrated cultural production rather than presenting itself as categorically separate from all diversified media organisations. The relationship is better understood as one of analytical specificity. “Media company” identifies a broad industrial category. “Diversified media company” identifies the presence of multiple media activities. ICME proposes a more specific description of enterprises coordinating distinct cultural production functions through an integrated organisational system. Whether that additional specificity is useful depends on the case being examined.

 

21.5. Creator-led media enterprises

The expansion of digital platforms has enabled individuals and small teams to undertake cultural production activities historically associated with larger organisations. Creator-led businesses may combine publishing, audiovisual production, social media engagement, intellectual property development and commercial partnerships. Cunningham and Craig (2019) provide a relevant perspective through their examination of creator governance within social media entertainment. Their research demonstrates that creators operate within complex relationships involving platforms, commercial structures and cultural production. Creator-led enterprise therefore represents another significant alternative to ICME. The distinction concerns the principal basis of classification. “Creator-led” identifies the centrality of an individual or group of creators to the organisation’s activities. ICME identifies the integration of multiple substantive cultural production functions. These characteristics may coexist. A creator-led business may qualify as an ICME where its activities satisfy the proposed criteria. A creator-led enterprise may remain principally concerned with one form of cultural production, despite operating across several platforms. ICME therefore does not require a particular leadership structure or organisational scale. Its defining characteristic is the configuration of cultural production activities.

 

21.6. Cultural and creative industries enterprises

The broader category of cultural and creative industries enterprise provides an established context for understanding businesses engaged in cultural production. UNESCO (2009) identifies a range of cultural domains, while Schiuma and Lerro (2017) examine the distinctive business model characteristics of arts and cultural organisations. These frameworks are essential to the present argument because they establish that cultural production encompasses a wide range of activities beyond conventional publishing. “Cultural and creative industries enterprise” is a broad sectoral description. It may include businesses specialising in a single cultural activity as well as organisations combining several activities. The proposed ICME classification identifies a more specific organisational configuration within this wider environment. It is therefore not an alternative to the cultural and creative industries as a general category. It is a proposed analytical subtype. This distinction also clarifies the relationship with official classifications. NACE and UNESCO provide frameworks for identifying and measuring economic and cultural activities. ICME concerns the organisation of those activities within an individual enterprise. The proposed classification does not invalidate the established frameworks. Its usefulness depends on the additional explanatory precision it provides.

 

21.7. Comparative assessment

The principal distinctions can be summarised as follows. Traditional publisher is concerned principally with publishing arrangements and production; it may describe one function of an ICME. Independent publisher is concerned with ownership, control and publishing arrangements; it is compatible with ICME but does not establish organisational integration. Multimedia publisher is concerned with production and presentation across media formats; it captures media diversity but not necessarily wider cultural integration. Transmedia producer is concerned with the development of narrative properties across media; it explains narrative integration, not necessarily the entire enterprise. Diversified media company is concerned with multiple media activities under common ownership; it is a strong overlapping category, and ICME adds emphasis on integrated cultural production. Creator-led enterprise is concerned with the centrality of creators to business activity; it may overlap with ICME regardless of organisational scale. Cultural and creative industries enterprise is concerned with participation in cultural and creative economic sectors; it is a broad parent category within which ICME may be situated. Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise is concerned with the coordination of multiple substantive cultural production functions; it is the proposed organisational classification. Convergent Digital Media Model is concerned with the relationships connecting production, infrastructure, audiences, brands and commercial activity; it is the proposed operating framework.

 

The comparison demonstrates that ICME/CDMM does not introduce an entirely new field of cultural production. Its proposed contribution lies in combining established theoretical perspectives into a framework that addresses a specific organisational configuration. The comparison also reveals a limitation. The distinction between an integrated cultural media enterprise and a highly integrated diversified media company may be one of emphasis rather than fundamental organisational difference. The proposed framework therefore cannot claim universal superiority over existing classifications. Its value must be demonstrated through its capacity to explain the relationships between distinct cultural production functions in particular cases.

 

21.8. Criteria for evaluating the proposed classification

The conceptual value of ICME/CDMM can be assessed against four criteria. Descriptive adequacy concerns whether the framework captures the substantive activities of the enterprise without reducing them to a single product, medium or cultural property. Analytical differentiation concerns whether the framework distinguishes organisational integration from diversification, multi-platform distribution and transmedia storytelling. Explanatory coherence concerns whether CDMM identifies meaningful relationships between cultural production, intellectual property, digital infrastructure, audiences and commercial operations. Empirical applicability concerns whether the proposed characteristics can be identified through evidence of actual organisational activities. These criteria establish the basis for evaluating Dyerbolical Ltd as an illustrative case. The analysis must determine whether the company’s activities satisfy the proposed ICME characteristics and whether the relationships between those activities can be explained through CDMM. The argument cannot rest solely on the company’s ownership of multiple websites, its production of original fiction or its presence across social media platforms. Those characteristics are relevant but insufficient. The stronger argument must demonstrate that Dyerbolical coordinates substantively different forms of cultural production within a common organisational structure. It must also distinguish between activities that are directly integrated, those that share only corporate ownership and those that arise through external cultural networks. This approach avoids presenting integration as an assumed characteristic. It makes integration the central question of analysis.

 

21.9. Synthesis: the theoretical contribution of ICME/CDMM

The theoretical development undertaken in this part establishes two related propositions. The organisational identity of a cultural media enterprise may be inadequately represented by classifications centred on a single production function, particularly where journalism, original fiction, audiovisual media, interactive production and participatory performance constitute substantive activities within the same business. The relationship between these activities can be analysed through an integrated operating model concerned with cultural production, intellectual property, digital distribution, participation, commercial value capture and organisational development. These propositions draw upon established scholarship rather than rejecting it. Media convergence research explains the coordination of production functions (Deuze, 2004; García Avilés and Carvajal, 2008; García Avilés, Kaltenbrunner and Meier, 2014). Media economics and digital transformation research explain the changing relationships between production, distribution and commercial activity (Doyle, 2015; Kawashima, 2020; Li, 2020). Business model innovation scholarship establishes the importance of organisational configuration and value creation (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Schiuma and Lerro, 2017). Transmedia and narrative branding research explains the development of original intellectual property across media (Long, 2007; Freeman, 2015; Burgess et al., 2025; Han, 2024). Research on online personae, roleplaying and participatory culture provides foundations for recognising forms of cultural production that occur through mediated interaction (Moore, 2020; Purwaningtyas and Oktara, 2023; Bjärstorp and Ragnerstam, 2023). Cultural journalism research establishes the significance of factual editorial production as a distinct cultural function (Widholm, Riegert and Roosvall, 2021; Riegert, 2021). Knowledge exchange and creative ecosystem research provides a basis for understanding the wider networks through which cultural enterprises may develop capabilities (Cole, 2021; Moreton, 2021; Panneels et al.). The proposed ICME/CDMM framework brings these perspectives together at the organisational level. Its principal contribution is therefore not the identification of a previously unknown cultural activity. It is the development of a conceptual framework for analysing enterprises in which several established cultural production activities form a coordinated organisational system. The framework remains a proposal, and its application requires evidence of the enterprise’s actual operations. Dyerbolical Ltd provides the illustrative case through which that application can be examined. The following part will therefore move from conceptual development to organisational analysis, assessing the company’s cultural production functions, corporate architecture, digital infrastructure, participatory activities, commercial arrangements and creative networks against the proposed ICME/CDMM criteria.

 

Part VI. Organisational application and critical evaluation

 

22. Dyerbolical Ltd as an illustrative Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise

 

22.1. Case selection and analytical approach

Dyerbolical Ltd provides an illustrative case through which the proposed Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME) classification and Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM) can be examined in relation to an identifiable cultural business. The company’s activities encompass cultural journalism, original literary intellectual property, digital publishing, fictional character performance, audiovisual and interactive production, and participation in wider creative networks. The purpose of the case analysis is not to establish that Dyerbolical represents a statistically typical creative enterprise or that its operating arrangements are unprecedented. The case provides an opportunity to investigate whether a publishing-centred description adequately represents an organisation undertaking several substantive forms of cultural production.

 

A single illustrative case can demonstrate the explanatory usefulness of a conceptual framework, identify relationships between organisational activities and expose limitations in existing terminology. It cannot, without comparative evidence, establish that the proposed classification is universally applicable or that its operating model produces superior financial performance. The analysis therefore adopts an organisational rather than an evaluative approach. Its principal concern is the nature of Dyerbolical’s cultural production activities and the relationships between them. The case is considered through six dimensions derived from the CDMM framework: cultural production, intellectual property and brand development, digital distribution, participatory engagement, commercial value capture, and innovation and network development. The company information used in this analysis derives from the account of its operations assembled for the present article. It should therefore be distinguished from independently audited corporate data. The academic literature establishes the theoretical basis for interpretation, while the company description provides the illustrative organisational material. This distinction avoids treating the existence of a proposed model as evidence of its empirical validity.

 

22.2. Corporate identity and organisational scope

Dyerbolical Ltd is an Irish cultural media company whose operations extend beyond the publication of original literary works. Its corporate activities encompass factual cultural publishing, creative intellectual property development, digital media production and participatory cultural activity. The company operates DarkBadb Publishing as a publishing imprint and develops original fictional properties, including Immortalis and Kane. These activities establish literary publishing as an important component of the enterprise. They do not encompass the company’s complete cultural operations. Dyerbolical.com also functions as a cultural publishing environment addressing horror, cinema, science fiction, true crime, paranormal subjects, comics, retro culture and related areas of popular culture. The distinction between these activities is substantive rather than merely technical. Original fiction involves the development of imaginative narratives, characters and fictional worlds. Cultural journalism involves the reporting, interpretation, criticism and contextualisation of existing cultural subjects. Although both may be published digitally, their cultural purposes and production conventions differ. This distinction supports the argument developed in Section 9: cultural journalism should not be treated as an incidental promotional extension of literary publishing.

 

Riegert (2021) and Widholm, Riegert and Roosvall (2021) provide relevant foundations for understanding cultural journalism as an established field operating within changing media environments. Their work supports the identification of factual cultural publishing as a substantive activity rather than simply a means of attracting attention to fictional products. The presence of these distinct functions is central to the proposed ICME classification. A publishing-centred description would identify one major component of Dyerbolical’s operations but would not necessarily represent the relationship between its original fiction, cultural journalism and other media activities. The company also operates several digital identities associated with particular cultural properties and publishing functions. Immortalisverse.com and Immortaliskane.com provide dedicated environments for original fictional material, while Dyerbolical.com accommodates wider cultural publishing. This arrangement demonstrates the distinction between corporate identity and individual cultural properties. Muzellec and Lambkin (2009) provide a relevant theoretical foundation through their examination of corporate branding and brand architecture. Their framework supports the separation of the organisation’s identity from the identities of its products and associated brands. Dyerbolical Ltd is therefore not analytically synonymous with Immortalis, DarkBadb Publishing or any individual website. The company constitutes the organisational structure within which these activities and identities coexist. The proposed ICME classification is intended to describe that wider structure.

 

22.3. Cultural journalism and the organisation of factual media

Dyerbolical’s cultural journalism provides one of the strongest grounds for distinguishing the enterprise from an organisation devoted exclusively to original fictional publishing. The company’s editorial interests encompass established cultural forms and industries, including horror cinema, science fiction, popular culture and related subjects. Such publishing involves engagement with cultural material that exists independently of the company’s original intellectual property. An article concerning a historical horror film, for example, does not become part of the Immortalis fictional universe merely because both are published by the same company. Its relationship to the enterprise arises through shared editorial resources, cultural expertise, digital infrastructure and corporate identity. This distinction is significant because it demonstrates organisational integration without requiring narrative integration. The literature on digital-native journalism provides a useful comparative foundation. Pérez-Seijo, Vizoso and López-García (2020) examine business models and audience participation in online-native media, while Carpes da Silva and Gruszynski Sanseverino (2020) analyse how digital news organisations develop relationships with readers as part of their business models. These studies establish that digital journalism can involve relationships between editorial production, audience engagement and commercial organisation. They do not establish that Dyerbolical employs the same revenue arrangements or editorial governance structures as the organisations examined. Their relevance lies in the analytical principles they provide. The company’s cultural journalism may be understood as a distinct production function operating within a wider digital media organisation. Its integration with other cultural activities occurs at the organisational level rather than through the conversion of journalism into fictional storytelling. This is an important distinction between ICME and transmedia production. Transmedia storytelling can explain the development of a fictional property across different media. It cannot, by itself, explain why a company simultaneously produces independent cultural journalism and original fiction. The proposed ICME classification provides a broader organisational description.

 

22.4. Original intellectual property and publishing

Original intellectual property constitutes another central component of Dyerbolical’s activities. The Immortalis fictional universe encompasses original characters, relationships, settings and narrative material developed through literary publishing and associated digital media. Kane represents a further original fictional property. These activities establish the company’s role in the creation and development of literary intellectual property. Long (2007), Freeman (2015) and Han (2024) provide relevant foundations for understanding the relationship between fictional properties, cross-media production and business organisation. Long’s examination of transmedia storytelling demonstrates the importance of relationships between narrative development and production decisions. Freeman (2015) provides a historical perspective on cross-media characters and storyworlds, demonstrating that the commercial and cultural development of fictional properties across media has precedents predating contemporary digital platforms. Han (2024) connects transmedia publishing to organisational integration and business performance within the Chinese book publishing sector. These studies support the analysis of original intellectual property as a potential foundation for multiple cultural production activities. Their application to Dyerbolical requires distinctions between narrative expansion, adaptation and distribution. The publication of the same fictional text through several platforms constitutes multi-platform distribution. The development of original scenes or character interactions through additional media may constitute new narrative production. Where different media contribute distinctive material to a wider fictional universe, transmedia storytelling provides a relevant analytical framework. Dyerbolical’s original properties may therefore be examined through transmedia theory where the relevant activities satisfy those conditions. The company should not be classified exclusively as a transmedia producer. Its factual cultural journalism and independent interactive media activities are not necessarily organised around the expansion of its fictional properties. The relationship between original intellectual property and the wider enterprise is therefore one of component and organisation. Literary publishing is a substantive function within Dyerbolical. It is not the sole basis of the company’s cultural identity.

 

22.5. Fictional character performance as ongoing cultural production

Dyerbolical’s character-led social media activity provides a further example of cultural production extending beyond conventional literary publishing. The company operates fictional personae associated with its original properties and wider horror culture. These include accounts representing characters from Immortalis and the Vampyre Vlad persona, which engages with established horror traditions and original fictional material. The organisational significance of these accounts depends on the nature of their activity. Where an account simply distributes publication announcements or promotional material, its principal function may be understood as marketing. Where it produces original fictional dialogue, sustains a character identity, participates in improvised exchanges and develops continuing interactions, it also constitutes a site of creative production. Moore (2020) provides a theoretical foundation for this distinction through his examination of online fan personae. His framework supports the analysis of mediated identities as constructed public performances that develop through interaction and digital communication. Purwaningtyas and Oktara (2023) provide empirical evidence concerning fictionalised roleplaying identities on Twitter, while Bjärstorp and Ragnerstam (2023) examine the relationship between roleplaying and social media affordances. Together, these studies support the recognition of online roleplay as a cultural practice involving identity construction, performance and interaction. Their empirical settings differ from Dyerbolical’s company-operated original-character accounts. The present analysis therefore applies their conceptual insights rather than claiming direct empirical equivalence. The distinction between promotion and production is particularly important. A sustained fictional persona may contribute to the visibility of an intellectual property while also producing original cultural material. These functions can coexist. The presence of a promotional benefit does not eliminate the creative character of the performance. For Dyerbolical, this activity introduces a production function involving narrative improvisation, character continuity, dialogue and interaction. Its organisational relationship to the company arises through original intellectual property, shared creative resources, digital distribution and audience participation. The proposed CDMM provides a framework for examining these relationships. The existence of multiple character accounts does not itself establish integration. Their relevance depends on their actual production activities and their coordination with the wider enterprise.

 

22.6. Fandom, cultural crossover and collaborative activity

Dyerbolical’s participation in horror culture extends beyond the development of its proprietary fictional properties. Its activities include engagement with established horror traditions, cultural commentary, genre-oriented character performance and interactions associated with wider fan communities. This introduces a distinction between original intellectual property and cultural participation involving existing works. Pearson (2010) provides a foundation for understanding fandom within digital environments, while Sundet and Petersen (2021) examine the relationship between fandom and transmedia cultural participation. Keidl (2021) further demonstrates the significance of fan curation and cultural heritage, providing a perspective on fan practices as forms of cultural interpretation and preservation. These studies support the recognition of fandom as a productive and interpretive cultural environment. Fan participation should not automatically be treated as corporate intellectual property. The use of established horror imagery, characters or cultural references does not establish ownership of those works. Collaborative fictional exchanges may involve contributions from participants whose creative work remains distinct from that of the company. The proposed ICME/CDMM framework must therefore distinguish between proprietary production, collaborative activity and independent audience participation. This distinction is important because organisational integration does not require the enterprise to own or control every cultural contribution associated with its activities. A company may facilitate, participate in or respond to wider cultural production without possessing exclusive rights to that material. The significance of fandom for Dyerbolical lies in its role within the company’s wider cultural environment. The enterprise operates not only as a producer of original fictional properties but also as a participant in established genre traditions and digital cultural communities. This activity contributes to the breadth of its cultural production and participation. The precise extent of collaborative authorship, commercial rights and organisational control requires evidence specific to the relevant activities.

 

22.7. Audiovisual and interactive production

Dyerbolical’s audiovisual and interactive activities provide further grounds for distinguishing the enterprise from a conventional literary publishing organisation. These activities include video production, audiovisual presentations and interactive cultural content such as film-related quizzes. The significance of these outputs lies in their distinctive production requirements and audience experiences. An audiovisual work involves visual, sonic and temporal production decisions that differ from those involved in literary publication. An interactive quiz requires the organisation of content into a participatory experience rather than a completed linear text. Deuze (2004) provides a foundation for understanding multimedia production as a combination of editorial and technical practices. Ferrer-Conill et al. (2020) provide a relevant perspective on playful approaches to news engagement, while Scacco, Muddiman and Stroud (2016) examine the relationship between online quizzes and knowledge acquisition. These studies support the recognition of interactive formats as substantive media practices. They do not establish that Dyerbolical’s quizzes produce the same outcomes as the public affairs quizzes examined by Scacco and colleagues. The relevance lies in identifying interactive media as a distinct form of cultural production. The existence of video material does not automatically establish transmedia storytelling. An audiovisual reading of an existing text may constitute adaptation or presentation. An original short film may constitute a distinct creative work. An interactive cultural quiz may be unrelated to the company’s fictional intellectual property. These activities should therefore be classified according to their actual functions. The proposed ICME classification accommodates their coexistence within the enterprise, while CDMM addresses their relationships to shared infrastructure, audiences and commercial operations.

 

22.8. Digital infrastructure and brand coordination

Dyerbolical’s use of multiple websites and social media identities demonstrates the organisational importance of digital infrastructure. The number of platforms used does not independently establish the presence of an integrated business model. The relevant question concerns the relationships between those platforms and the cultural activities they support. Doyle (2015) provides a foundation for examining multi-platform media economics, while Spjeldnæs (2022) demonstrates the importance of platformisation within publishing. Unnava and Aravindakshan (2021) further examine engagement across multiple social media environments. These studies support the analysis of digital distribution as a system involving different forms of audience access, commercial opportunity and platform dependence. For Dyerbolical, the distinction between owned websites and third-party social platforms is particularly relevant. Owned websites provide environments for organising editorial material and original fictional properties, while third-party platforms support distribution, interaction and character performance. These functions may be coordinated within the same enterprise without being identical. The proposed CDMM therefore treats digital infrastructure as an enabling component of organisational integration. The presence of multiple platforms must be distinguished from evidence of their effectiveness. The case description does not provide independently audited data establishing audience conversion, cross-platform retention or the financial contribution of individual channels. The analysis can identify the organisational relationships between distribution environments without claiming that those relationships have produced particular commercial outcomes.

 

22.9. Commercial activity and value capture

Dyerbolical’s operations include publishing and digital media activities with potential or reported commercial dimensions, including book publication, website monetisation and social media monetisation. These activities establish the relevance of commercial value capture to the company’s organisational model. The existence of monetisation mechanisms does not demonstrate profitability or the relative financial contribution of different activities. The proposed CDMM therefore distinguishes between the presence of commercial mechanisms and evidence of commercial performance. Foss and Saebi (2017) provide a foundation for examining business model configuration, while Kawashima (2020) and Li (2020) address the transformation of media and creative industry business models. Their work supports the analysis of how cultural production may be connected to different forms of value capture. It does not establish that a particular configuration will necessarily produce superior commercial outcomes. For Dyerbolical, the relevant organisational question is whether publishing, digital editorial activity, audiovisual production and participatory media are coordinated through identifiable commercial arrangements. The case information supports the existence of several cultural and commercial functions. A complete financial assessment would require additional evidence concerning revenue, costs, profitability and the relationships between individual activities. Such an assessment lies outside the present conceptual analysis.

 

22.10. Creative networks and research-informed activity

Dyerbolical’s wider cultural environment includes relationships with creative projects and producers across literary, audiovisual and genre-oriented fields. These relationships may contribute to the company’s cultural activities, professional networks and access to expertise. Panneels et al. provide a relevant foundation for understanding the role of ecosystems and partnerships in creative industry innovation. Cole (2021) and Moreton (2021) provide complementary perspectives on knowledge exchange and the relationships between academic research, cultural production and enterprise development. These sources support the inclusion of networks and research-informed activity within the proposed CDMM. They also require careful differentiation between professional association, collaboration, financial sponsorship and formal institutional partnership. Dyerbolical’s relationships with projects such as The Thing Expanded, 13 Fanboy, Some Poets, Unbreakable Argonauts, Dylan’s New Nightmare and Never Hike Alone 2 should therefore be described according to the specific activities undertaken. Their inclusion in the company’s cultural network does not automatically establish contractual or financial relationships. The founder’s academic research at the University of Galway provides a relevant intellectual context for aspects of the company’s work but does not, by itself, establish a formal university–company partnership. The Irish enterprise development environment provides further context through organisations and programmes such as Enterprise Ireland, New Frontiers and CatalyseHer Ireland. Programme descriptions and institutional publications do not establish that Dyerbolical has received funding, formal endorsement or particular recognition. The significance of these contexts is therefore explanatory rather than evidential proof of corporate status.

 

22.11. Applying the ICME criteria

The case can now be assessed against the six characteristics proposed in Section 19. Multiple substantive cultural production functions are supported by the company activity description through cultural journalism, original fiction, audiovisual and interactive media, and fictional performance. Organisational coordination is supported at corporate level through the common corporate structure, publishing imprint, websites and associated media identities, although the degree of operational integration requires further documentation. Corporate identity beyond individual properties is supported through Dyerbolical Ltd, DarkBadb Publishing, Immortalis, Kane and wider cultural publishing. Coordinated digital distribution is supported as distribution infrastructure through owned websites, social media and digital publishing environments, although effectiveness is not established. Commercial operations are supported in terms of presence through publishing and reported digital monetisation activities, although financial contribution is not independently established. Relationships beyond incidental cross-promotion are plausible through continuing fictional performance, editorial production and multiple cultural media activities, with the depth of integration requiring process-level evidence. The assessment supports the argument that Dyerbolical’s organisational scope extends beyond a publishing-centred description. Its activities encompass several distinct forms of cultural production, including factual journalism, original fiction, fictional performance and interactive media. The company also possesses multiple cultural identities operating within a common corporate structure. These characteristics provide a substantive basis for applying the proposed ICME classification. The analysis also identifies an evidential limitation. The existence of multiple cultural functions and common ownership does not fully establish the degree to which production processes, commercial systems and strategic decisions are integrated. The strongest version of the ICME argument would therefore require evidence concerning shared resources, production workflows, organisational planning and relationships between the company’s cultural activities. The case supports ICME as a useful proposed organisational description, while further operational documentation would strengthen its empirical application.

 

22.12. Applying the CDMM operating framework

The six CDMM functions can also be identified within the case. Cultural production encompasses journalism, original fiction, audiovisual material, interactive content and fictional character performance. Intellectual property and brand development encompasses corporate identity, DarkBadb Publishing, Immortalis, Kane and differentiated cultural media identities. Multi-platform distribution encompasses owned websites, digital publication and third-party social media environments. Participatory engagement encompasses character interactions, genre communities, fictional exchanges and interactive media. Commercial value capture encompasses publishing and reported monetisation activities, with financial outcomes not independently assessed. Innovation and network development encompasses creative relationships, research-informed activity and enterprise development contexts. The case demonstrates the relevance of all six functions to the company’s described activities. Identifying the functions is only the first stage of CDMM analysis. The model’s explanatory value depends on demonstrating relationships between them. Original intellectual property may connect literary publishing with fictional performance and audiovisual production. Cultural expertise may connect factual journalism with interactive genre content. Digital infrastructure may support several forms of publication and audience engagement. These relationships provide plausible mechanisms of organisational integration. Their existence should be distinguished from evidence of measurable commercial or operational outcomes. The case therefore supports CDMM as an analytical framework for describing the organisation’s activities, while a complete evaluation of its implementation would require more detailed process and financial evidence.

 

22.13. Case synthesis

Dyerbolical Ltd illustrates the central classification problem addressed by this article. The company is engaged in publishing, but publishing does not exhaust its cultural activities. It produces original literary intellectual property, but its wider editorial and interactive operations are not necessarily components of the same fictional universe. It operates across digital platforms, but its activities extend beyond the distribution of identical content. It maintains fictional personae, but sustained character performance can involve original cultural production rather than exclusively promotional communication. It participates in creative networks, but those relationships must be distinguished from formal corporate partnerships. These characteristics support the proposed ICME classification as a broader description of the company’s organisational scope. CDMM provides a corresponding framework for analysing the relationships between its cultural production, intellectual property, digital infrastructure, audience participation and commercial operations. The case does not establish that ICME/CDMM is a universally applicable model or that Dyerbolical’s configuration produces superior financial performance. Its significance is conceptual. It demonstrates how a publishing-centred description may identify an important business function while obscuring the broader organisation within which that function operates. The proposed classification therefore provides a potentially more comprehensive vocabulary for describing Dyerbolical’s cultural activities. The remaining question concerns the theoretical strength, limitations and wider applicability of the framework.

 

23. Critical discussion: the contribution and limitations of ICME/CDMM

 

23.1. Does the framework solve a genuine classification problem?

The preceding analysis identifies a distinction between the classification of an enterprise according to its principal activity and the conceptual description of its complete organisational configuration. This distinction provides the central justification for ICME. A company may be accurately described as a publisher for particular economic, administrative or commercial purposes while undertaking cultural activities that extend substantially beyond publishing. The problem is not that existing classifications are necessarily incorrect. It is that they answer different questions. NACE Rev. 2.1 provides a standardised statistical classification of economic activities (Eurostat, 2025). Traditional and independent publishing describe particular production and ownership arrangements. Transmedia storytelling describes relationships between narrative content distributed across media. Multimedia production concerns the creation and presentation of material through different formats. None of these concepts is invalidated by the proposed framework. The argument for ICME is instead that an additional organisational description may be useful when a company coordinates several substantive cultural production functions. This constitutes a narrower and more defensible claim than asserting that contemporary media enterprises have become impossible to classify through existing systems. The existence of integrated and diversified media organisations is well established. Carvajal and García Avilés (2008) examine the development of multimedia groups, while García Avilés and Carvajal (2008) demonstrate that convergence can involve organisational restructuring. These studies establish that integrated media production is not a previously unidentified phenomenon. The proposed contribution of ICME must therefore concern the particular combination of cultural production functions and the analytical relationships between them. The strongest justification arises where an enterprise combines activities with distinct production logics, including factual journalism, original fiction, audiovisual media, interactive content and participatory fictional performance. In such circumstances, an exclusively publishing-centred or transmedia description may privilege one activity while obscuring others. ICME provides a means of describing the integrated organisation without requiring those activities to be reduced to a single medium or narrative property. Its contribution is therefore one of organisational synthesis and analytical specificity, not the discovery of a new industry.

 

23.2. The relationship between integration and differentiation

A central theoretical challenge concerns the meaning of integration. If integration is defined too broadly, almost any business undertaking several activities could qualify as an ICME. If it is defined too narrowly, only organisations with highly centralised production systems would qualify, excluding smaller cultural enterprises whose integration operates through shared expertise and infrastructure rather than formal departments. The proposed framework addresses this difficulty through the principle of coordinated differentiation. Integration does not require the elimination of boundaries between cultural activities. Preserving those boundaries may be necessary to maintain the integrity of particular forms of production. Cultural journalism depends upon distinctions between factual reporting, interpretation and fictional invention. Original literary production depends upon imaginative construction and narrative development. Audiovisual production introduces different aesthetic and technical requirements. Participatory performance involves interaction and improvisation. An organisation may coordinate these activities while retaining their different professional and cultural purposes. García Avilés, Kaltenbrunner and Meier (2014) provide a foundation for this understanding through their examination of different organisational approaches to newsroom convergence. Their research demonstrates that integration involves choices and tensions rather than a single inevitable organisational outcome. The proposed CDMM extends this principle across a broader range of cultural production functions. Coordinated differentiation must be identifiable in practice. Shared ownership alone is insufficient. The relevant evidence concerns relationships between resources, production planning, infrastructure, audience strategies, intellectual property and commercial operations. The proposed model is therefore strongest where those relationships can be demonstrated through organisational evidence.

 

23.3. The distinction between cultural and commercial value

A further challenge concerns the relationship between cultural production and commercial activity. Business model scholarship frequently examines how organisations create, deliver and capture value. Cultural production may generate forms of value that are not directly reflected in commercial transactions. Schiuma and Lerro (2017) provide a relevant foundation for understanding the distinctive characteristics of arts and cultural organisations. Their work supports the recognition that cultural enterprises may operate through multiple objectives and stakeholder relationships. The proposed CDMM therefore distinguishes between cultural value creation and commercial value capture. A factual cultural article may contribute to knowledge and criticism. A fictional performance may generate entertainment and participation. A literary work may possess artistic and narrative value. An interactive quiz may provide cultural engagement. These activities may also contribute to revenue, audience development or intellectual property value, but such outcomes should not be assumed. The distinction prevents the model from reducing every cultural activity to a promotional or commercial function. An operating model for a commercial enterprise must account for economic sustainability. CDMM cannot be considered complete if it identifies cultural production without examining how the organisation finances and sustains that production. This introduces an important distinction between the conceptual structure of a business model and evidence of its commercial performance. The proposed CDMM can identify relationships between production and potential value capture. It cannot establish profitability without financial evidence. This limitation is particularly relevant to the Dyerbolical case, where the present analysis identifies publishing and monetisation activities but does not include audited financial data. The article therefore makes no claim that ICME/CDMM produces superior revenue, profitability or growth. Such claims would require a separate empirical investigation.

 

23.4. Platform dependence and organisational vulnerability

Digital integration creates opportunities for cultural production and distribution, but it also introduces organisational vulnerabilities. Spjeldnæs (2022) demonstrates the significance of platformisation within publishing, while Cunningham and Craig (2019) examine the governance structures affecting social media creators. These perspectives challenge the assumption that digital distribution necessarily increases organisational autonomy. An enterprise may retain ownership of its original intellectual property while relying on third-party platforms for audience access, publication or monetisation. Changes in platform rules, distribution systems, commercial policies or account access may therefore affect its operations. This is particularly relevant to fictional character performance and participatory media, which may depend upon the interactive features of particular social platforms. The proposed CDMM must consequently account for the distinction between organisational control and platform dependence. An integrated enterprise may coordinate its own production activities while remaining dependent upon external infrastructures. This does not invalidate the model, but it limits the extent to which integration can be understood as organisational self-sufficiency. The relationship between owned websites and third-party platforms therefore becomes an important component of CDMM analysis. The model should identify not only where cultural content circulates but also the conditions under which the enterprise can maintain access to its audiences and cultural materials.

 

23.5. Authorship, participation and cultural ownership

Participatory cultural production introduces further complications concerning authorship, creative control and intellectual property. Moore (2020), Purwaningtyas and Oktara (2023), and Bjärstorp and Ragnerstam (2023) provide foundations for understanding online persona construction and roleplay. Xu, Gonzalez Patiño and Linaza (2023) examine reader participation in transmedia science fiction, demonstrating the relevance of audience interaction to narrative production. These forms of participation cannot automatically be incorporated into corporate intellectual property. Where audiences contribute independent fictional material, their contributions must be distinguished from company-authored content. Where creative work is produced collaboratively, questions concerning authorship, permission and reuse require separate consideration. The proposed ICME classification therefore cannot treat all cultural activity occurring around an enterprise as the property of that enterprise. This limitation is particularly important for companies operating within fandom and participatory storytelling environments. The existence of a cultural relationship does not establish a proprietary relationship. The model’s analytical value depends partly on preserving that distinction.

 

23.6. Scale, sustainability and the small-enterprise context

The proposed ICME classification does not require a large workforce, extensive capital investment or a conventional departmental structure. Digital technologies can enable small enterprises to undertake multiple cultural production functions through shared resources and specialist expertise. The capacity to perform several functions does not establish that doing so is economically sustainable. Lin (2023) examines business model development within small cultural and creative industry enterprises, highlighting the importance of adapting business arrangements to the circumstances of cultural production. The study provides a useful comparative perspective because it demonstrates that the sustainability of creative enterprises depends on relationships between cultural objectives, organisational resources and commercial conditions. Its findings should not be generalised automatically to Dyerbolical, given differences in geography, industry context and organisational circumstances. The broader principle remains relevant. An integrated cultural media enterprise may benefit from shared infrastructure and complementary production activities, but integration may also increase the demands placed upon its resources. Maintaining journalism, literary production, audiovisual output and interactive media requires time, expertise and continuing organisational attention. A small enterprise may therefore possess a sophisticated cultural production structure while facing substantial operational constraints. The proposed CDMM must be capable of analysing those constraints rather than assuming that integration necessarily improves efficiency.

 

23.7. The limits of novelty

The article proposes two terms, ICME and CDMM, but their introduction should not be confused with the invention of the underlying practices. Media convergence, cross-media branding, transmedia storytelling, participatory culture and diversified media production all possess established scholarly histories. Freeman (2015) demonstrates the historical development of cross-media characters and storyworlds, while the newsroom convergence literature establishes the longstanding organisational significance of integrated media production. The proposed framework therefore draws upon existing concepts. Its novelty is principally conceptual. It identifies a particular organisational configuration and develops a vocabulary for examining relationships between cultural production functions that may otherwise be analysed separately. Conceptual novelty must be distinguished from empirical novelty. The existence of ICME/CDMM as proposed terminology does not establish that Dyerbolical is the first organisation to operate through such a configuration. Nor does it establish that the configuration is unique to Ireland or to contemporary digital culture. The framework’s value must instead be assessed through its clarity, explanatory usefulness and capacity to support further research.

 

23.8. Requirements for future empirical validation

The present article develops ICME/CDMM through theoretical synthesis and an illustrative organisational case. Further research would be required to establish the framework’s applicability across different cultural enterprises. A comparative study could examine organisations combining journalism, publishing, audiovisual production and participatory media, identifying whether the proposed ICME characteristics distinguish them meaningfully from other diversified media businesses. Process-level research could investigate how production decisions, resources and commercial arrangements are coordinated within such organisations. Audience research could examine relationships between different cultural outputs and determine whether audiences move between editorial, fictional and participatory environments. Financial research could investigate whether particular forms of integration affect revenue diversification, production costs or commercial sustainability. Such research would also permit the proposed CDMM to be evaluated against alternative business model frameworks. This is important because the current article establishes conceptual coherence rather than causal effectiveness. The framework identifies relationships that may be examined empirically. It does not establish that those relationships necessarily produce particular outcomes.

 

23.9. Final critical assessment

The strongest contribution of ICME/CDMM is its capacity to distinguish between the identity of a cultural enterprise and the individual activities through which it operates. A company may be a publisher without being exclusively a publishing enterprise. It may develop transmedia fictional properties without being exclusively a transmedia producer. It may operate across several platforms without those platforms constituting its entire business model. It may produce cultural journalism, interactive media and fictional performance without those activities being subordinate to the marketing of a particular book. The proposed ICME classification provides a description of the enterprise as an integrated cultural organisation. CDMM provides a framework for examining the relationships through which that integration occurs. The concepts remain analytically useful only where they are applied with precision. The presence of multiple activities is insufficient. Their relationships must be demonstrated. The existence of cultural participation is insufficient to establish ownership. The presence of commercial mechanisms is insufficient to establish profitability. The adoption of a proposed classification is insufficient to establish innovation. These limitations define the proper scope of the framework. Within that scope, ICME/CDMM provides a coherent means of examining cultural enterprises whose organisational activities extend beyond the explanatory reach of narrower publishing or narrative classifications.

 

24. Conclusion

The digital transformation of cultural and media industries has altered the relationships between production, publication, distribution, participation and commercial activity. These developments have enabled organisations to coordinate cultural functions historically associated with distinct industries, including journalism, literary publishing, audiovisual production, interactive media and participatory storytelling. Established scholarship provides substantial foundations for understanding these transformations. Media convergence research demonstrates that the coordination of different production functions involves organisational relationships rather than merely technological compatibility (Deuze, 2004; García Avilés and Carvajal, 2008; García Avilés, Kaltenbrunner and Meier, 2014). Media economics and digital transformation research explains the changing relationships between cultural production, distribution and commercial organisation (Doyle, 2015; Kawashima, 2020; Li, 2020). Business model innovation scholarship establishes the importance of activity configuration, resources and value creation (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Schiuma and Lerro, 2017). Transmedia research demonstrates how original intellectual property can develop across media environments, while scholarship on fandom and online personae establishes the significance of participatory and performative cultural production (Long, 2007; Freeman, 2015; Moore, 2020; Xu, Gonzalez Patiño and Linaza, 2023). These perspectives address different aspects of cultural media organisation. The present article has proposed the Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise (ICME) as a classification for organisations coordinating multiple substantive forms of cultural media production within an integrated corporate structure. It has also proposed the Convergent Digital Media Model (CDMM) as an operating framework explaining the relationships between cultural production, intellectual property, digital infrastructure, audience participation, commercial value capture and organisational development. The distinction between the two concepts is central. ICME describes the organisation. CDMM explains how its activities are coordinated. The framework does not replace official economic classifications or established publishing terminology. It provides an additional analytical level through which the organisation of different cultural production functions can be examined. Dyerbolical Ltd illustrates the relevance of this distinction. The company undertakes literary publishing through original fictional properties and a publishing imprint. Its wider activities also encompass cultural journalism, digital media production, fictional character performance, interactive content and participation in creative networks. These activities cannot all be adequately explained as extensions of a single fictional property or as conventional publishing functions. Their coexistence within a common corporate structure provides a substantive basis for examining Dyerbolical as an Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise. The proposed CDMM further identifies the organisational relationships through which its cultural production, digital distribution, intellectual property, audiences and commercial activities may be coordinated. The analysis nevertheless remains conceptual and illustrative. The available case description does not establish the full extent of operational integration or demonstrate superior financial performance. Further empirical research would be required to evaluate the model’s implementation and wider applicability. The article’s contribution is therefore not the assertion that Dyerbolical has invented media convergence or established an unprecedented business model. It is the argument that a cultural organisation undertaking several distinct but coordinated forms of production may require a classification broader than that of publisher, independent publisher or transmedia producer. Dyerbolical Ltd can consequently be understood, within the proposed analytical framework, as an Integrated Cultural Media Enterprise operating through a Convergent Digital Media Model. The value of this description lies in its recognition of the enterprise as a coordinated cultural production system rather than a collection of activities defined exclusively through its most prominent publishing function.