Abstract

In the Chilean chapter of the International Media Concentration Project, and noting the fact that figures in Chile are problematic and inconsistent, there is evidence of higher concentration in telecommunications (and for pay-television distributors, who are the same companies) than among the traditional media (where newspapers are confirmed as the less diverse). Also, concentration is higher in terms of revenue than in terms of audience share. This is relevant because income cannot be shared in the way that media contents are shared by audiences: unlike money, contents are non-excludable and non-rival in consumption, the classic attributes of ‘public goods’. So analyzing audience and income concentration separately is misguiding in terms of real market power—a combination of both would be better, as recognized in the literature long ago. The same occurs when different media platforms are analyzed in isolation. Technological convergence and corporate mergers are making this distinction gradually risky and even dangerous, because they may give a false impression of diversity (or concentration) depending on how the discussion is framed.