IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jculte/v38y2014i1p1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital complements or substitutes? A quasi-field experiment from the Royal National Theatre

Author

Listed:
  • Hasan Bakhshi
  • David Throsby

Abstract

Digital broadcast technologies have expanded the virtual capacity of live performing arts venues, but they have also raised concerns about possible cannibalisation of box office revenues. We report the results of a quasi-field experiment involving the Royal National Theatre’s live broadcasts of theatre to digital cinemas in the UK and find that, if anything, live broadcasts generate greater, not fewer, audiences at the theatre. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Hasan Bakhshi & David Throsby, 2014. "Digital complements or substitutes? A quasi-field experiment from the Royal National Theatre," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(1), pages 1-8, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:38:y:2014:i:1:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10824-013-9201-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10824-013-9201-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10824-013-9201-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    2. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    3. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:feb:artefa:0090 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karol J. Borowiecki & Catarina Marvao, 2015. "Dance Participation and Attendance in Denmark," ACEI Working Paper Series AWP-01-2015, Association for Cultural Economics International, revised Apr 2015.
    2. Christian Peukert, 2019. "The next wave of digital technological change and the cultural industries," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(2), pages 189-210, June.
    3. Jian Kim & Eunhye Kim & Aeryung Hong, 2021. "OTT Streaming Distribution Strategies for Dance Performances in the Post-COVID-19 Age: A Modified Importance-Performance Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Karol J. Borowiecki & Trilce Navarrete, 2017. "Digitization of heritage collections as indicator of innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 227-246, April.
    5. Victoria Ateca-Amestoy & Concetta Castiglione, 2023. "Live and digital engagement with the visual arts," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 47(4), pages 643-692, December.
    6. Geng Chen & Pei Tang, 2021. "Similar but special: an econometric analysis of live performing arts attendance in mainland China," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 459-490, September.
    7. Patrizia Lattarulo & Marco Mariani & Laura Razzolini, 2017. "Nudging museums attendance: a field experiment with high school teens," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 41(3), pages 259-277, August.
    8. Alexander Cuntz & Paul J. Heald & Matthias Sahli, 2023. "Digitization and Availability of Artworks in Online Museum Collections," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 75, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    9. Pablo De la Vega & Sara Suarez-Fernández & David Boto-García & Juan Prieto-Rodríguez, 2020. "Playing a play: online and live performing arts consumers profiles and the role of supply constraints," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 44(3), pages 425-450, September.
    10. Emilio Giardina & Isidoro Mazza & Giacomo Pignataro & Ilde Rizzo, 2016. "Voluntary Provision of Public Goods and Technology," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 22(3), pages 321-332, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    5. Bordunos, A. & Kokoulina, L. & Ermolaeva, L., 2015. "Role of enterprise gamified system in fostering innovation capacity: A field experiment," Working Papers 6420, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    6. Jasmijn Bol & Lisa Laviers & Jason Sandvik, 2023. "Creativity Contests: An Experimental Investigation of Eliciting Employee Creativity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 47-94, March.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    8. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2016. "Partner selection into policy relevant field experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-56.
    10. Carroll, Kathryn A. & Samek, Anya, 2018. "Field experiments on food choice in grocery stores: A ‘how-to’ guide," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 331-340.
    11. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. Astrid Dannenberg & Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Heike Wetzel, 2022. "Status for the good guys: An experiment on charitable giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 721-740, April.
    13. Timilsina, Raja Rajendra & Kotani, Koji, 2017. "Evaluating the potential of marketable permits in a framed field experiment: Forest conservation in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 25-37.
    14. Kevin J. Boudreau & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Innovation Experiments: Researching Technical Advance, Knowledge Production, and the Design of Supporting Institutions," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 135-167.
    15. Michel André Maréchal & Christian Thöni, 2019. "Hidden Persuaders: Do Small Gifts Lubricate Business Negotiations?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3877-3888, August.
    16. Rainer Eppel & Helmut Mahringer, 2021. "Die Effekte einer intensivierten Betreuung geringqualifizierter Jugendlicher mit Mindestsicherungsbezug. Evidenz aus der experimentellen Einführung eines Fallmanagements im Arbeitsmarktservice Wien," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 67022, April.
    17. Vanessa Mertins & Christian Walter, 2021. "In absence of money: a field experiment on volunteer work motivation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 952-984, September.
    18. Gizatulina, Alia & Gorelkina, Olga, 2021. "Selling “Money” on eBay: A field study of surplus division," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 19-38.
    19. John A. List, 2014. "Using Field Experiments to Change the Template of How We Teach Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 81-89, June.
    20. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Neururer, Daniel & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "Credence Goods Markets and the Informational Value of New Media: A Natural Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 12184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digital technology; Theatre; Field experiment; Cannibalisation; Z11; O33; C93;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Z11 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economics of the Arts and Literature
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:38:y:2014:i:1:p:1-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.