IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/639.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Distribution Conventionality in the Movie Sector: An Econometric Analysis of Cinema Supply

Author

Abstract

This paper empirically analyzes the impact of several factors on a ‘conventionality index’ in the specific context of the cinema exhibition sector. To our knowledge, it is the first time that a standard conventionality index has been constructed for this purpose. Econometric analysis of the determinants of variation in this index provides decision-makers with an empirical focus for analyzing distributional aspects of the movie exhibition market, with particular emphasis on product differentiation. Specifically, (i) do cinemas based in a city area have a different or ‘specialized’ focus in contrast to cinemas in small towns? Or, (ii) do multiplexes have a different or more specialized focus in comparison with cinemas? To this end, cross-sectional econometric models are estimated to help analyze these effects in three Italian regions for a sample of cinemas covering the 2006 season.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Collins & A. E. Scorcu & R. Zanola, 2008. "Distribution Conventionality in the Movie Sector: An Econometric Analysis of Cinema Supply," Working Papers 639, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4608/1/639.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salinger, Michael A, 1995. "A Graphical Analysis of Bundling," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(1), pages 85-98, January.
    2. de Palma, A, et al, 1985. "The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Holds under Sufficient Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 767-781, July.
    3. Dansby, Robert E & Conrad, Cecilia, 1984. "Commodity Bundling," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 377-381, May.
    4. John O’Hagan & Adriana Neligan, 2005. "State Subsidies and Repertoire Conventionality in the Non-Profit English Theatre Sector: An Econometric Analysis," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 29(1), pages 35-57, February.
    5. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    6. Alan Collins & Chris Hand & Andrew Ryder, 2005. "The lure of the multiplex? The interplay of time, distance, and cinema attendance," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 37(3), pages 483-501, March.
    7. repec:ulb:ulbeco:2013/1759 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. d'Aspremont, C & Gabszewicz, Jean Jaskold & Thisse, J-F, 1979. "On Hotelling's "Stability in Competition"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1145-1150, September.
    9. Adriana Neligan, 2006. "Public funding and repertoire conventionality in the German public theatre sector: an econometric analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(10), pages 1111-1121.
    10. Darlene Chisholm & Margaret McMillan & George Norman, 2010. "Product differentiation and film-programming choice: do first-run movie theatres show the same films?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 34(2), pages 131-145, May.
    11. Chisholm, Darlene C. & Norman, George, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences and location choice with multi-product firms," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-339, May.
    12. Timothy R. Wojan & Dayton M. Lambert & David A. McGranahan, 2007. "Emoting with their feet: Bohemian attraction to creative milieu -super-†," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(6), pages 711-736, November.
    13. J. Pierce, 2000. "Programmatic Risk-Taking by American Opera Companies," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 24(1), pages 45-63, February.
    14. William James Adams & Janet L. Yellen, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 475-498.
    15. A. Sisto & R. Zanola, 2010. "Cinema attendance in Europe," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 515-517.
    16. Helmut Bester, 1998. "Quality Uncertainty Mitigates Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(4), pages 828-844, Winter.
    17. Kristien Werck & Mona Grinwis Plaat Stultjes & Bruno Heyndels, 2008. "Budgetary constraints and programmatic choices by Flemish subsidized theatres," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(18), pages 2369-2379.
    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. Darlene Chisholm & Margaret McMillan & George Norman, 2010. "Product differentiation and film-programming choice: do first-run movie theatres show the same films?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 34(2), pages 131-145, May.
    2. Mark Fox & Grant Black, 2011. "The Rise and Decline of Drive-in Cinemas in the United States," Chapters,in: Handbook on the Economics of Leisure, chapter 14 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Darlene Chisholm & George Norman, 2012. "Spatial competition and market share: an application to motion pictures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(3), pages 207-225, August.
    4. Juan Prieto-Rodriguez & Fernanda Gutierrez-Navratil & Victoria Ateca-Amestoy, 2015. "Theatre allocation as a distributor’s strategic variable over movie runs," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 39(1), pages 65-83, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bol:bodewp:639. 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: (Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.