IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v12y2003i1p27-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The critical trade-off: identity assignment and box-office success in the feature film industry

Author

Listed:
  • Ezra W. Zuckerman
  • Tai-Young Kim

Abstract

Researchers have begun to study markets that are structured in terms of an opposition between market identities in a manner akin to the role-pairs analyzed in structural role theory. In this paper, we analyze the feature film market, which came to have such a role structure by the mid-1990s. By exploiting the contingency that pertains to the identity of newly released films and the intermediary function played by critics, we assess the tendency for offerings to be assigned one or the other of the available market identities: independent or major. An analysis of the box-office success of 396 feature films released in 1997 shows that a film attracted a larger audience when critics who specialized in major releases reviewed the film and implicitly certified it as fit for the mass market. Such classification was particularly crucial for 'breaking out' of the initial constraints set by theatrical exhibitors. However, while attaining a major identity was necessary for success in the mass market, it was a handicap in penetrating the 'art house'. This trade-off illustrates how market structures restrict identity in a manner akin that by which role structures place constraints on the identities available to individuals. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ezra W. Zuckerman & Tai-Young Kim, 2003. "The critical trade-off: identity assignment and box-office success in the feature film industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(1), pages 27-67, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:12:y:2003:i:1:p:27-67
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    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:oup:indcch:v:12:y:2003:i:1:p:27-67. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.