Usted buscó: blockbuster (Inglés - Persa)

and then you skip this blockbuster thing .
و بعد بمبت را منفجر ميکني .

this is beyond any blockbuster exhibition in the west.
این رقمی بالاتر از پرفروشترین نمایشگاه در غرب است. این رقمی بالاتر از پرفروشترین نمایشگاه در غرب است.

go to blockbuster , rent a little romantic comedy , .
بري کلوب يک فيلم رومانتيک کمدي اجاره کني .

i put it in the wrong box and returned it to blockbuster , .
من اونو تو یه جعبه ی اشتباه گذاشتم و به یه نفر دادم .

it allows her to see as well as use her blockbuster, argus agony.
برای کاربرد های دیگر این کلمه به آرگوس (ابهام زدایی) رجوع کنید.

will the next big-budget blockbuster movies actually be chick flicks?
آیا فیلم های سینمایی برتر آمیزه ای از جاذبه های زنانه خواهد بود؟

although the date in which the summer blockbuster season ends and the oscar season begins are ambiguous, and dependent on the year.
با این حال تفکیک دقیقی از مقطع زمانی پایان اکران فیلم‌های بلاک‌باستر تابستانی و شروع فصل اسکار وجود ندارد.

firms operate in a more and more complex, dynamic, less predictable environment, especially in the media and entertainment industry. this situation requires companies to follow various strategic approaches and to develop new patterns of strategic thinking. there are several strategic models and tools. most of them have advantages and disadvantages and have evolved. furrer, thomas, and goussevskaia (2008) studied the evolution of the literature on strategic management between 1980 and 2005 and analyzed the evolution of some “strategic keywords” showing the different academic and environmental influences. ten years after the publication in 2007 of a paper written by lucy küng entitled “does media management matter?” the question remains a highly topical issue. consequently, the goal of this chapter is to present some key strategic management tools, to explain how they have evolved since the end of the 1990s and to analyze how they can be applied to the media sector. this chapter forms part of the past and ongoing work on the application of managerial and economic concepts and theories to media industries published by several scholars (e.g., albarran, 2006, 2013; mierzejewska & hollifield, 2006; picard, 2006). this chapter is divided as follows. the first section describes the evolution of strategic management thinking using the concept of competitive advantage as an example. the second section explains the forces that shape competition in a company’s industry environment using porter’s five forces model as an overall framework. it moves on to explore the concepts of internal resources and competencies that can impact a media company’s competitive position and performance in the global marketplace. the third section is dedicated to the impact of the digital transformation on media strategies and business models. digital transformation is a concept which has attracted attention from both practitioners and academics. the concept has received wide recognition, yet in practice, it is a new and evolving concept. the final section concludes and gives a future research agenda. the evolution of strategic management concepts from strategy to strategic management there is a variety of meanings and interpretations of strategy and strategic management depending on the author and sources. the term ‘strategy’ is used to refer to different ideas. the concept of strategy was developed first in a military and political context. the military strategy books the art 8 strategic management nabyla daidj nabyla daidj 112 of war, by sun tzu, and on war, by von clausewitz, are famous and have become business classics. sun tzu developed the tactical side of military strategy and von clausewitz (2007) highlighted the dynamic and unpredictable nature of military strategy. if strategy can be seen in decisions and actions used within a military context, it must not be confused with the notion of ‘tactics’. great battles are often analyzed by historians in terms of strategy (referring to a general plan and to the deployment of resources) and tactics (related to the employment of resources already deployed). as bracker (1980) pointed out, since its first mention in the old testament, the concept of strategy has been largely a semantic issue. . . . our word strategy comes from the greek strategos, ‘a general’ which in turn comes from roots meaning ‘army’ and ‘lead’. the greek verb stratego means to ‘plan the destruction of one’s enemies through effective use of resources’. . . . the first modern writers to relate the concept of strategy to business were von neumann and morgenstern (1947) with their theory of games. (p. 219) the strategic management discipline originated in the 1950s and 1960s. when the 1960s gave rise to basic concepts of strategy, the 1970s provided important knowledge about their development and application. there are different streams in this field (see table 8.1). although there were numerous scholars, the most influential pioneers were alfred d. chandler, igor ansoff, and peter drucker. three books are considered ‘classic strategy books’: chandler’s strategy and structure (1962), ansoff ’s corporate strategy (1965), and learned, christensen, andrews and guth’s business policy: text and cases (1969). porter’s seminal work, competitive strategy (1980), contributed also to the foundation for the growth of the strategic management field. sustainable versus transient competitive advantage at a general level, strategy refers to actions that have been taken and decisions that are to be made by an organization in achieving its objectives and in particular to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. it’s worthwhile to look briefly at the notion of sustainable competitive advantage, which has been questioned since the end of the 1990s. the concept of sustainable competitive advantage has remained a cornerstone of management thinking and behavior. it presents a good example for illustrating the evolution in strategic thinking in recent years. firms compete in international markets. how do firms create and sustain competitive advantage? at the heart of positioning there is a competitive advantage (coyne, 1986). in the long run, firms succeed relative to their competitors (porter, 1979). the idea emerged in the 1980s, when porter (1980) argued that a business can develop a sustainable competitive advantage based on cost, differentiation or both. competitive advantage cannot be understood by looking at a firm as a whole. it stems from the many discrete activities a firm performs in designing, producing, marketing, delivering and supporting its product. each of these activities can contribute to a firm’s relative cost position and create a basis for differentiation. (porter, 1985, p. 33) other authors (hall, 1980; henderson, 1983) insisted on the need for firms to possess unique advantages in relation to competitors in order to survive. barney (1991) contributed to the discussion by exploring the relationships between a firm’s resources and sustainable competitive advantage. he considered that a firm can achieve sustainable competitive advantage thanks to resources that table 8.1 evolution of strategic management concepts main concepts authors the 1950s management by objectives (mbo) drucker (1954) the 1960s chandler: structure follows strategy chandler (1962) ansoff matrix (penetrating the market, product development, market development and diversifying)/ and the contingent strategic success paradigm ansoff (1965) swot analysis (lcag) learned, christensen, andrews & guth (1969). the 1970s mc kinsey matrix (1970-1975) boston consulting group analysis and matrix pims (profit impact of marketing strategies, 1960- 1980) consulting groups (bcg, mc kinsey, ad little) the 1980s five forces framework, value chain, sustainable competitive advantage (differentiation, cost) porter (1980, 1985) resources, competencies, capabilities (rbv) strategic intent barney (1991); hamel & prahalad (1989, 1993, 1994); wernerfelt (1984, 1989). profit patterns slywotzky & morrisson (1988). the 1990s hypercompetition d’aveni (1994); d’aveni, dagnino, & smith (2010) coopetition, complementor, value network bengtsson & kock (1999) brandenburger & nalebuff (1996) the 5 types of management (strategy as plan, as ploy, as pattern, as position and as perspective) into “10 schools of thought” (the design school; the planning school; the positioning school; the entrepreneurial school; the cognitive school; the learning school; the power school; the cultural school; the environmental school; the configuration school) mintzberg, lampel, & ahlstrand (1988) disruptive innovation (technologies/products) christensen (2000) knowledge and knowledge management (km) davenport & prusak (1998); nonaka & takeuchi (1995) the 2000s blue ocean versus red ocean kim & mauborgne (2005a and b; 2014) business ecosystems open innovation keystone advantage moore (1996) chesbrough (2003) iansiti & levien (2004) platforms (two-sided and multi-sided) eisenmann, parker, & van alstyne (2006) gawer & cusunamo (2002, 2008); hagiu & wright (2015). business models (value creation, capture and monetization) afuah & tucci (2000); massa & tucci (2014); osterwalder & pigneur (2009); timmers (1998); zott, amit, & massa (2011). lean startup ries (2008) the 2010s shared value porter & kramer (2011) transient/temporary advantage in a changing context (digital transformation, uberization) mcgrath (2013a, b and c) source: adapted from daidj (2015, 2017) and updated. nabyla daidj 114 must possess four attributes—value, rareness, inability to be imitated, and inability to be substituted— which are widely known as ‘vrin-scheme’. since the end of the 1990s, a debate on what actually constitutes a sustainable competitive advantage has ensued. for christensen (2001), the pursuit of competitive advantage is not futile, but the real issue for strategists is to understand the process of competition and how competitive advantage comes about. in their analysis of business ecosystems, iansiti and levien (2004) pointed out the fragile nature of competitive advantage “in situations of significant technological and market upheaval” (p. 9). mcgrath (2013a, 2013b, 2013c) asserted that sustainable competitive advantage is obsolete for competing in today’s dynamic world. firms operate in rapidly changing economic and technological environments in relation with hypercompetitive markets (d’aveni, 1994). mcgrath proposed to refer to another concept named ‘transient competitive advantage’ because markets change in a radical way. “stability, not change, is the state that is most dangerous in highly dynamic competitive environments” (mcgrath, 2013b, p. 7). “the end of competitive advantage means that the assumptions that underpin much of what we used to believe about running organizations are deeply flawed” (mcgrath, 2013a, p. 18). she gave several examples of companies from the media sector which were not able to see change coming, such as kodak, sony, and blockbuster. according to mcgrath, the new ‘playbook’ is based on six assumptions of competing in arenas (not industries alone) and exploiting temporary competitive advantages: continuous reconfiguration; healthy disengagement; using resource allocation to promote deftness; building an innovation proficiency; leadership and mind-set; and personal meaning of transient advantage. a good example of this is the strategic evolution of kodak, an american company created in 1880 by george eastman, a visionary pioneer and philanthropist. his slogan ‘you press the button, we do the rest’ made him famous around the word. in 1963, kodak launched the kodak instamatic camera, which found worldwide success, with more than 50 million units sold over seven years. in 1987, kodak unveiled the first concept of a ‘one-time-use’ camera. until that time, no one had considered the camera to be a consumable. kodak invented the first digital camera in 1975. launched in 1995, the kodak dc40 was the first digital camera marketed by kodak. in the 2000s, kodak operated mainly in the imaging sector, covering the entire graphic production chain: image acquisition, printing, print consumables (paper, ink) and storage. kodak marketed its products and services to individual customers, professionals, and government agencies, such as nasa. but on january 19, 2012, eastman kodak company filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 business reorganization. what happened during the 2000s? is it the end of the myth of sustainable advantage? in 1997, christensen, in his book the innovator’s dilemma, developed the idea that a new technology (often disruptive) could unexpectedly overturn the dominant technology in the market sector. disruptive technologies are those that force changes in industry frontiers, business processes, and business models. the kodak case has been analyzed by christensen. kodak completely dominated the industry of analogue photography for decades. thanks to its r&d program, kodak was the first to market its digital camera. but innovation is a necessary requirement, but not the only one. the firm did not succeed in adapting its business model to a disruptive technology, such as digital imagery. in addition, the camera itself is less popular throughout the world. today people take pictures more and more with their mobile phones. a strategic approach
تا کنون ادبیات فاقد طبقه بندی های گونه شناختی روشنی است که در برابر تغییر زمینه و زمان قوی است (همپل، 1965). در اینجا ما گونه شناسی را پیشنهاد می کنیم که چهار عنصر را در نظر می گیرد: شناسایی مشتریان (تعداد گروه های مشتری جداگانه). تعامل با مشتری (یا پیشنهاد مشتری)؛ monetization; و زنجیره ارزش و پیوندها (حاکمیت معمولا مربوط به شرکت در داخل). هر یک از این ابعاد مربوط به تعریف مدل کسب و کار از خلق ارزش یا ارزش c