I wonder how relevant is the average cultural level of a country's population. For example, France, Israel and Scandinavian countries have a reputation for being the most cultured.
There are International markets for the audiovisual industry, like
Mipcom, where producers and buyers of the world meet. New products are presented. So then, for example, a TV station from a small country decides to buy the broadcasting rights of a series or a program... or not. And it does it according to local market studies, which in turn take the country's average education into consideration. And due to the limited population (that is, potential viewers), the station may decide it's not worth buying it because is too "mediocre" (or any other more accurate adjetive) for the local average. So, a media product can be very popular in some countries while being totally unknown in other.
I mean, as it's been said here, the anglosaxon media influence is obvious, but, at
which level?
Rome or
Married.. with Children? Coppola or Guy Ritchie? Paul Auster or Dan Brown?
And in the opposite direction, a small country could offer an interesting cultural production, modifying thus the "input-output balance" of which we are talking about. But, same question: At which level? If the most significant cultural creations of a small country are too "sophisticated" (or any other more accurate adjetive) then they won't have enough positive reception in order to change things. Although they will be known among certain "elites". If you only "export" Ingmar Bergman or Eric Rohmer's films, the effect among many people could be like
this. You better try Roxette or Stieg Larsson. Scandinavian design is notable at several levels, but only has achieved a massive influence worldwide by the "Ikea way". Apart, of course, from that
famous Finnish designer that we all know as the first article of the encyclopædia, becuse we see his name on the spine every time we dust the shelves.