IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The Block Booking of Films Reexamined

  • Hanssen, F Andrew

Block booking, banned by the U.S. Supreme Court, involves selling motion pictures as a package. The most generally accepted explanation for the practice is that it prevented exhibitors from "oversearching"--from rejecting films revealed ex post to be of below-average value from an ex ante average-valued package. This article examines the way in which block booking developed, the nature of the optimization problem, and the specifics of block-booking contracts and finds little to support that hypothesis. Block booking emerged at a time when there was no over-searching problem, it was applied much more flexibly than a primary concern with oversearching would suggest, and exhibitors failed to make use of contractually permitted opportunities to behave in ways block booking was posited necessary to avoid. This article proposes instead that block booking was primarily intended to cheaply provide films in quantity, a claim made by movie producers of the time. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" 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.

Article provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Law & Economics.

Volume (Year): 43 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Pages: 395-426

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:v:43:y:2000:i:2:p:395-426
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:v:43:y:2000:i:2:p:395-426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.